Submission Data | National Transport Commission

View the feedback we have received on the National Transport Commission - Rail Safety National Law - Consultation Regulatory Impact Analysis paper.

Which is your preferred option for each recommendation?
The current framework of state based rail oversight may have been appropriate in the nineteenth century, but clearly now it should be recognised that like air travel, rail needs to be managed nationally to ensure complete national conformity across technical and competence standards. Whilst we currently must adhere to RSNL Competence requirements, we have a patchwork of additional state based competence requirements that don't add any additional risk mitigation and only contribute to a bottle neck of technical and competence national mobility.
Are there any additional impacts (costs or benefits) arising from each of the proposed reform topics other than those identified by GHD?
No Comment
Are there any barriers and risks to the reforms that should be identified in the D-RIS?
State based parochialism
Are there specific reforms you believe could be advanced ahead of others, and are there any that should be delayed in implementation?
Staff Competence and mobility - enforce the primacy of RSNL section 117 over any state legislation
Are the timings proposed in the GHD report (25 years of implementation) appropriate? Would some benefits be realised earlier than others?
No 25 years is too long.
Do the annual benefit estimates (as a percentage improvement) appear reasonable?
No Comment
Do the baseline estimates and annual benefit estimates (as a percentage improvement) shown in Table 10 appear appropriate?
Yes
Do the cost estimates appear appropriate? What changes do you consider would improve the accuracy of the estimates?
No Comment
Do the GHD cost estimates set out in Table 11 appear appropriate? What changes do you consider would improve the accuracy of the estimates?
No Comment
Do you think the governance suite of options are effective to support interoperability?
There should be strong national enforcement to ensure states comply and their organisation do not develop unnecessary state based preferential requirements.
Given the GHD report was originally developed for a different purpose than its use in the RSNL C-RIS, can you provide any input, data, or point us to additional information sources that could help strengthen the cost-benefit estimates presented in this C-RIS?
No Comment
How can the RSNL be amended to reflect its focus on rail operations, while clarifying WHS legislation’s focus on other workplace safety matters?
RSNL should complement WHS - in face a federal WHS legislative framework would be the best outcome. How can anyone argue that this should be different between the states? It should be clear that RSNL requirements in Section 117 is sufficent to manage the risk and any state based engineering competence legislation is over-ridden.
Is the proposed approach (implement the least intrusive reform that is considered likely to be effective) appropriate?
No, the framework needs to be the same as air travel legislation otherwise the states will continue to have additional unnecessary legislation to RSNL
It is proposed that all the reforms would be made nationally (avoiding separate pieces of legislation for NNI and other networks), but it is recognised that the application of the legislation may vary between networks. Are there specific reforms that should only be applied to some networks?
No! The application of technical standards apply engineering principles that do not differ between states. The detail of safety requirements may have some state based detail as, say, the safety requirements associated with 25kV approach distances are different to 1500dc but the principles are the same.
Recommendation 3 to mandate requirements to achieve specified interoperability outcomes includes options to include interoperability as a sub-part of the general safety duty or as a separate explicit duty in the RSNL. How do you think these options may work in practice?
Can European examples be cited?
Rec 11 - What safety information should the Regulator make available to the industry to improve safety outcomes? How should this information be shared between parties?
Incident reports and recommendations both National and International
Rec 18 - How should the SFAIRP principle apply to any interoperability requirements? If not qualified by SFAIRP, are there any other qualifications that would apply?
No Comment
Rec 18 - Should recommendation 18 to compel RIMs to consider implications to the wider network in implementing network rule or infrastructure changes be extended to rolling stock operators, network authorities, and/or infrastructure owners?
Yes
Rec 18 - What kind of tangible evidence would be required to satisfy ONRSR that a RIM had in fact given consideration to interoperability?
The working of its SMS to allow interoperability, both technically with equipment and the competence of people
Rec 19 - Should the ability of a RTO to mutually recognise the approval of technology be optional or mandatory?
Mandatory - if something is safe in one context they should have to justify why it is not safe in their context
Rec 2 - Is there a need to have a new class of ‘rail safety officers’ within ONRSR who would only carry out the coordinating and facilitating role, and not any enforcement role?
Yes they should be responsible for the enforcement of law and ensuring there are no unnecessary state based requirements
Rec 2 - To the extent that the Regulator is empowered to make any decisions in connection with its coordination or facilitation role, would those decisions be reviewable?
No COmment
Rec 2 - What skills and qualifications would the Regulator's delegate need to possess in order to competently provide a coordination or facilitation role?
No Comment
Rec 2 - Will it be necessary for a RTO to consent to the Regulator having a coordinator or facilitation role in any specific issue? If not, how will the Regulator assume such a role?
Surely any legislative changes would mandate this.
Rec 2 - Will there be an immunity from prosecution or other enforcement action if a RTO acts on any advice given by the Regulator when the Regulator is carrying out a coordination or facilitating role?
No Comment
Rec 3 - What factors should the Regulator consider, beyond the definition of interoperability, to ensure that any general duty for interoperability under the RSNL is clearly understood and practically enforceable?
Ensuring there are no preferential additional state based requirements added.
Rec 4 - Do the current consultation provisions allow for input from affected workers and/or their representatives?
Yes
Rec 4 - How should the principle of ‘meaningful consultation’ be applied to strengthen the consultation requirements of the RSNL?
No Comment
Rec 4 - What evidence should be relied upon to demonstrate that meaningful consultation has occurred? Who should determine non-compliance?
National Rail Safety Officers
What additional or different functions and powers will ONRSR need to support compliance with interoperability requirements? For example, requiring additional periodic reporting from RTOs, additional powers to publish data, any additional functions related to the certification, registration and testing of rolling stock etc.
If interoperability in both technical and competence are nationally mandated then RTO SMS must reflect this. There should be absolute clarity that State based organisation do not add any additional requirements unless absolutely required (ie Safety approach distance examples above.
What timeframe for implementation do you consider suitable?
1 year we already have RSNL - why should it take any longer?
Will the relationship between the WHS legislation and RSNL change because of the expanded scope? Will WHS law still prevail to the extent of any inconsistency? If so, would this negate any legislative change designed to facilitate interoperability - if for instance a safety requirement under WHS prevails over an interoperability requirement of the RSNL
As stated above the principles of safety are not and should not be any different nationally or at a state level. If they are then there is something wrong with the legislation. RSNL and WHS legislation should compliment each other.