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?
RSNL Review recommendation 1 - Option 1 (There is probably no need to link safety to productivity and then to interoperability, when we can directly link to interoperability instead) RSNL Review recommendation 2 - Option 2 (The regulator must have an expanded role in delivering interoperability) RSNL Review recommendation 3 - Option 2/3 (To some extent this must be set down in law to ensure that organisations are not negligent in implementing it.) RSNL Review recommendation 16 - Option 2 (The RSNL appears to be used as a vehicle to deliver interoperability as there seems to be no other applicable laws. Perhaps there should be an amendment to the naming of the law itself if it was further amended in the future) RSNL Review recommendation 18 - Option 1 (A fair amount of interfacing work already happens on current projects, so there is no need to further regulate this in the RSNL) RSNL Review recommendation 19 - Option 2 (This is not really beneficial for existing equipment as RIM's want to install more existing equipment as they already have maintenance spares and it lowers complexity by having fewer types of equipment on the same network. However, for future equipment not yet type approved, this is very useful as it can speed up the adoption of new technologies) RSNL Review recommendation 20 - Option 2 (There already exists a national competency management system called RIW that is owned by the ARA. It would not take much work for a team to simply identify which competencies are transferrable between the different operators within their database.) Interoperability assessment of future investments - Option 2 (As per recommendations 3 and 16) National standards development and adoption - Option 2 (Many RIM's have their own standards and may not seek harmonisation unless there is an incentive / regulation for them to do so) Skills and competency oversight - Option 2 (As per recommendation 20) Rolling stock approval - no comment (I have not interacted with the rolling stock side of railway and thus have no input on this item)
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?
No comment
Are there specific reforms you believe could be advanced ahead of others, and are there any that should be delayed in implementation?
Yes, recommendation 20 must be advanced in front of the others as the competency system is currently part of the problem of the shortage of rail workers in this country.
Are the timings proposed in the GHD report (25 years of implementation) appropriate? Would some benefits be realised earlier than others?
No comment
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?
No comment
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?
Yes. Some light regulation from the law is sufficient. The bulk of the work will need to be carried out by the NTC and ARISO in conjunction with RIM's, RTO's. etc.
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?
No comment
Is the proposed approach (implement the least intrusive reform that is considered likely to be effective) appropriate?
Yes, however there is much subjectivity in the phrase "least intrusive reform that is considered likely to be effective" as "least intrusive" and "likely to be effective" need to be defined. However, in most cases, Option 3 would be seen as going too far as the RSNL is primarily concerned with safety.
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?
I don't believe so as the RSNL is quite high level. Specific implementations will differ for each network and that can be considered individually by each operator in consultation with other operators and the Regulator
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?
In practice, I expect that a set of standards to be created by ARISO based around interoperability. These cannot be created in isolation but need to be created through a committee with representatives from RIM's and RTO's as well as ETCS experts. Over time and as more networks and operators adopt ETCS, I would expect that these standards be continuously updated. Each RIM and RTO will adopt those standards and integrate or translate it into their own set of standards.
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?
Unable to comment as I have not directly interacted with ONRSR
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?
If implementing a requirement would stop trains from running on a network or slow them down considerably, then it can't be deemed SFAIRP. For example, a requirement that specifies that trains must meet or exceed a certain braking curve when there are operators that have existing trains that do not meet that requirement.
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?
I believe this process is already being carried out without requiring specific legislation for it.
Rec 18 - What kind of tangible evidence would be required to satisfy ONRSR that a RIM had in fact given consideration to interoperability?
There should be a set of standards available for interoperability. These standards can be referenced in a requirements matrix and evidence provided in that matrix that shows compliance, which can then be presented to ONRSR as evidence. (This can be the form of completed design drawings, or meeting minutes between RTO's, RIM's etc.)
Rec 19 - Should the ability of a RTO to mutually recognise the approval of technology be optional or mandatory?
This should be mandatory for future technologies as long as there is a framework in place that defines the conditions under the technology was approved. For example, a device that malfunctions under AC electrification needs to be specified that it does not work under AC electrification within the approval itself. Existing technologies can remain separate as it would be a tedious process to evaluate all existing equipment. Since the railways are currently shifting to new technology, the benefit will be minimal.
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?
Unable to comment as I have not directly interacted with ONRSR
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?
Unable to comment as I have not directly interacted with ONRSR
Rec 2 - What skills and qualifications would the Regulator's delegate need to possess in order to competently provide a coordination or facilitation role?
Unable to comment as I have not directly interacted with ONRSR
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?
Unable to comment as I have not directly interacted with ONRSR
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?
Unable to comment as I have not directly interacted with ONRSR
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?
Unable to comment as I have not directly interacted with ONRSR
Rec 4 - Do the current consultation provisions allow for input from affected workers and/or their representatives?
No comment
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?
No comment
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.
Unable to comment as I have not directly interacted with ONRSR
What timeframe for implementation do you consider suitable?
As there are not many projects underway for ETCS on the NNI, a period of 20 years would be suitable. However, reviews should be undertaken every 2 years as more and more projects get delivered to ensure that the nation is on the same course. Additionally, there is provision for integration of competency within the recommendations and that needs to be implemented quickly, hopefully between 2 to 5 years.
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
No comment