Personal tools

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Postit

Blog - Rail Express

 
You are here: Home → archive → 2010 → September → September 8 2010 → Top Stories → Government support crucial to rail safety reform

Government support crucial to rail safety reform

by Rail Express — last modified Sep 08, 2010 09:30 AM
— filed under: ,

Australia’s rail industry is concerned that maintaining the current good progress on rail safety regulatory reform is proving to be a major challenge for both the commonwealth and state and territory governments, writes Phil Sochon*.

  
Government support crucial to rail safety reform

Courtesy of RailGallery

Australia currently has seven rail safety regulators each with different regulations and processes, servicing our relatively small population of 21 million and a 38,550km rail network.

With great foresight the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed on December 7 last year that South Australia would host the new national rail safety regulator, commencing January 1 2013. The single regulator will be based in Adelaide with regional offices in the mainland state capitals.

The new single national rail safety investigator is also going to be established by that date.

The single national regulator will operate under the same piece of legislation around Australia, and has the opportunity to match the best staff to the right area of expertise, without artificial state boundary limitations. As a result, more efficient and effective regulation will be delivered than any kind of collaborative venture by regulators each responding to their own jurisdictions.

Industry understands that the task of amalgamating all state and territory regulators into one integrated new national rail safety regulatory agency is both incredibly important to Australia, as well as being a major challenge for governments.

Reducing costly red tape through a single interface will allow the rail industry to get on with the job of servicing a growing passenger and freight task. The ability to share data, experience and knowledge across one national body will also support continued improvements in rail safety.

The rail industry welcomes the good progress being maintained by the Adelaide-based Regulator Project office aided by the National Transport Commission, but we are under no illusion that there are significant pressures acting against this critically important national outcome.

Clearly for some jurisdictions this major national reform is very uncomfortable and industry is very concerned that ATC and COAG maintains a unified approach to ensure this reform is achieved by the January 1 2013 target date.

Rail is being engaged in this project via the Australasian Railway Association (ARA) with the assistance of a small working group acting on behalf of the ARA Board. With the very tight timelines at play, industry engagement is proving a major challenge. The wider industry is being kept informed via updates to the Industry Safety Managers Group.

To date, deliberation has been given to major policy issues that have arisen since the model legislation was developed in 2006 and more recently to the operational aspects that Industry needs from the various regional offices of the future regulator.

Industry has also been engaged in discussions on national approaches to drug and alcohol and fatigue and this work is on-going. The next steps will see drafting instructions being sent out for comment before then developing a draft National Rail Safety Bill and Regulations and Regulatory Impact Statement for public consultation early 2011.

The key question is, will governments ensure that ATC maintains its support for this critical nation-building micro-economic reform – or will this be the moment they drop the ball and fail to advocate the reform to rail that Australia needs now – for the good of the environment, for better safety and for less road congestion?

Rail remains hopeful government will stay the course but in the meantime we will be very actively engaging to ensure that Governments follow through on this vital strategic reform for the good of Australia.

* Phil Sochon is ARA director, government relations. www.ara.net.au

 


Weekly Top Stories

Document Actions

Rail Safety Reform

Posted by Anonymous User at Sep 08, 2010 04:15 PM
I am a regulator and a supporter of a national regulatory system but I am troubled by the comments in Mr Sochon's article: 'Reducing costly red tape through a single interface will allow the rail industry to get on with the job of servicing a growing passenger and freight task'. This comment treats safety as an optional bolt-on to operating a railway and this is a very worrying statement. Safety must be integrated not considered as a hurdle to get over and this in many ways proves that the industry has a very long way to go to having a culture of safety which if got right would save hundreds of millions of dollars through a reduction in the number of accidents. It seems that the economic aspects of the creation of a national regulator is what is really driving industry support and this is a very slippery path to travel down.

Rail Safety Reform

Posted by Anonymous User at Sep 10, 2010 11:57 AM
Have to agree with the last post! No mention of improving safety in the industry as an objective of the outcome. Need to refocus the objective if it's just about reducing red tape. No wonder some jurisdictions are concerned -can't be a good outcome for State Ministers in this framework.

RE: Rail Safety Reform

Posted by Phil Sochon at Sep 10, 2010 06:07 PM
With respect to the anonymous regulator’s response to the ARA article on the National Rail Safety Regulator, it is a pity that the Regulator’s name could not be supplied. ARA welcomes open debate on this important issue – surely those who have comments to make should stand behind those comments?

Nothwithstanding the anonymity issue the unnamed regulator implies that rail views safety as an optional bolt on. Nothing could be further from the truth. Safety is absolute core business for rail and a fundamental and important component of all rail operations; good safety and good business go together.

The point I made in my article was that reducing administrative costs of regulation through a single national regulator with offices in the states will free up valuable regulatory resource to better address real safety issues.

I cannot accept the writer’s inference that the current regulatory system with different regulatory practices and approaches throughout the country makes for a safer national rail network. Surely, if Industry can work in a co-regulatory manner via a single national regulator it will be able to focus more effectively on actual safety issues rather than dealing with varying practices from state to state, with concomitant inefficiencies.

The Rail Industry has demonstrated its national commitment to safety by establishing the Rail Industry Safety and Standards Board which now ranks as Australia’s second largest standard maker. Further, Industry has engaged effectively and in good faith in the national reform process since it began in 2004, and ARA remains committed to ensuring a vibrant effective national rail safety regulator is in place to commence operations 1 January 2013.

An effective national regulator plays a vital part with Industry in the on-going improvement in rail safety practice and regulation. Industry strongly encourages the National Rail Safety Regulator Project to press on to establish the Regulator office to be able to operate in an efficient and effective co-regulatory manner. This essential micro-economic reform must succeed and ARA asks regulators and operators alike to work together to achieve a great rail safety outcome for Australia.

RE: Rail Safety Reform

Posted by Anonymous User at Sep 14, 2010 11:41 AM
Wow that was a defensive response from the ARA - perhaps there is something in the first post on this topic!

RE: Rail Safety Reform

Posted by Anonymous User at Sep 14, 2010 12:31 PM
I have to agree with the first statement and the last regarding the defensive response from the ARA.

Perhaps a view from local operators rather than the big interstaters needs to be captured as well.

From my experience, there isn't vast differences, as suggested, in regulatory practices and approaches. If there is, it is only because some states are yet to implement the national model legislation therefore do not have the tools available to them that other regulators do.

Further, conversations with those who have worked in commonwealth departments at local level state there was more red tape and inefficiencies with matters having to go through Canberra rather than being able to just act immediately at the local level - even for basic things as letters being signed.

Local regulation with a coordinated approach with other jurisdictions ensures local risks are being managed effectively and targeted appropriately.