Page 1060 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 6 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
track infrastructure managers and contractors in Australia were regulated by seven state and territory regulators and three investigatory agencies.
The national rail safety law is already operating in South Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and New South Wales. The Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator was established in July 2012 and commenced operations in January 2013. By passing today’s bill we will have adopted the nationally consistent rail laws and be subject to the administration of the regulator.
In some ways the scheme is similar to the Heavy Vehicle National Law which the Assembly passed last year in that they both streamline and improve efficiency of administration in an industry that spans state and territory borders.
The new national rail safety laws establish criteria for risk management, which allows the national regulator and the rail industry to use a single approach to safety. Previously this was managed by several state-based regulators. I understand the national regulator is currently developing various standards, codes and rules to assist the harmonisation of rail safety. Certainly there is an obvious efficiency and rationale in having a single national regulator and single national safety standard.
As the explanatory statement to the bill summarises, the new rail safety laws also harmonise other aspects of the rail industry. These include criteria for the accreditation of key rail positions such as rail infrastructure managers, requirements for consultation and communication, particularly when planning a change to railway operations, a hierarchy of sanctions and penalties where breaches of rail safety requirements occur, and requirements for the contents and accessibility of the national rail safety register.
I note also the regulatory impact statement that was conducted on the proposal for a national regulatory body. It found the national body approach was the best option for improving safety outcomes, reducing regulatory burdens and increasing cost effectiveness for governments.
A key part of the legislation is the new framework for drug and alcohol testing of rail safety workers. Part 3 of the bill sets out a process to manage the testing and analysis of samples which, for this ACT-specific legislation, is modelled on our existing roadside alcohol and drug testing regime.
On this issue I note the report from the scrutiny of bills committee. Many of the committee’s comments relate to the drug and alcohol testing regime and particularly to the explanatory statement’s inadequate justification for some incursions into human rights. The minister has provided a response to the comments of the scrutiny committee and will present an amended explanatory statement, which I note includes an expanded justification for the engagement of human rights in the context of section 28 of the Human Rights Act. The minister also has an amendment to section 31 of the bill, as recommended by the committee, to ensure police search and seizure powers are framed appropriately and not cast unnecessarily broadly. This is an important limitation to ensure human rights are protected and to prevent the possibility of abuse.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video