Rail Express Blog

The following story might be very amusing if it wasn't about something so serious: safe rail systems in Australia and people's lives.

Start worrying everyone, your regular train trip is about to become a whole lot riskier. Something that shouldn't and wasn't meant to happen is about to happen and soon.

A small bunch of rail freight operators is set to take control of our rail safety systems right across Australia.

How did this happen?

Let's start at the beginning. Most of us probably think that things are usually best managed nationally than at state and territory level.

Particularly something like railways which cross borders across the country.

So when people say that rail safety regulation across Australia should be national, it sounds pretty much right doesn't it?

Wrong, very wrong.

When you look behind the glib but catchy line of the national rail freight industry ("let's have one regulator not seven") you find a very sad tale about industry/Government cosyness and the capture of some of the very people who are meant to protect us and put safety before profit (regulators).

You'll also find another bunch of people (the Australasian Railways Association, greedy rail freight operators, spineless and timid governments) who are all prepared to put money, power, profits and politics before peoples' safety.

This is alarming stuff indeed.

How did it ever happen?

Without a scrap of evidence, heads of Government across the country are actually giving serious consideration to abolishing the current state based rail safety systems and creating a new "single national" rail safety regulation system.

Sounds really good doesn't it, "single national rail system", but the truth is rail passengers across Australia need to start getting really really worried.

The lunatics are about to take over the asylum.

The current situation is this: we've got very effective rail safety regulation systems in this country already, particularly in the places where the major rail movements are, such as New South Wales and Victoria.

There are, of course, very large urban rail systems in those centres and they're actually managed very well.

So well in fact that rail is clearly the safest mode of land transport by far in Australia under the current systems and thankfully, deaths and injuries continue to fall every year across the country.

So, given that it's working so well now, what's the country about to do?

Exactly what it shouldn't do of course, scrap the current systems.

The Australian Railways Association and a bunch of fat cat rail freight operators have had a long term strategy (since at least 2002) to grab hold of rail safety regulation across the country and run it themselves or through those they control.

Why, because they're keen to rid themselves of some of those pesky regulators - particularly those in NSW, Western Australia and Victoria - whose current vigilance is so critical in keeping our rail systems so safe.

Many of the regulators are doing their job and that's a nuisance to the industry who can't make the profits they want to.

Like every industry, the rail freight operators are keen to get some of the "light touch" regulation (better known as self regulation) that basically means they'll get left alone to do whatever they want.

They're adopting the Sol Trujillo strategy: criticise the regulator.

It takes the limelight away from your own failures (like the industry's ongoing failure to deliver a national rule book) and gives you a chance to control the regulator and set the rules to your own advantage.

We all know what happens to safety-sensitive industries that get left "too alone" don't we?

That's right, if you don't have one of those out and out horrendous disasters where lots of people die, you have a steady rise in incidents, deaths and industries.

In reality, we might get both.

The anti-regulation rail freight operators have found voices in the National Transport Commission (NTC) and the Commonwealth Government.

After lean runs over a number of years, both of these struggling agencies are keen to get any national transport runs they can on the board to cut rail industry costs and help the industry to move and grow.

Why, because it makes them look good, and in the case of the Commonwealth Department, it makes their Minister look good.

Nothing at all wrong with that of course, that's what all agencies do, except when it's at the expense of safety systems that work and when its likely to costs lives and limbs, we all need to start worrying.

Heavily complicit too in this nonsense are a range of small rail, small Government states and the Northern Territory who just can't be bothered keeping their citizens safe themselves. They're keen to cost shift to the Commonwealth and also keen to curry favour and get some Commonwealth dollars once the nation's coffers start refilling.

So, things are grim.

The reality is that the country has done a complete u-turn in the space of just a couple of years.

After concluding in 2006 that no case existed for a single national regulator, two years later the NTC concluded the exact opposite.

A new NTC "case" in 2008 was "supported" by a comically inept regulatory impact statement that found that national regulation was justified despite good safety trends, despite industry regulation costs being very low and despite low "benefits" etc.

That's right, despite all the evidence pointing to the benefits of the status quo, that is, what we've got at the moment, the NTC (supported by industry and the Commonwealth) simply didn't want a bar of the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" rule and just went the other way.

So, the "single national rail safety regulator" is basically just a solution looking for a problem.

There's no case for and it shouldn't happen. It's actually likely to make things worse.

There little time to stave off this stupid move.

It remains to see if there are any regulators, bureaucrats and Ministers prepared to say publicly what everyone pretty much knows.

That is, that the "case" for a single national regulator is basically simply a public relations exercise.

That, in fact, there is no public policy case at all for the single national regulator because it's not about safety, it's about industry "efficiencies".

Let's see if style wins over substance. Worse, let's see if profit wins over safety.

Let's hope that someone wakes up to this before it's too late.

The aim of national rail freight operators and the Australasian Railways Association in arguing so strongly for a single national rail regulator is simply to centralise and then "capture" and tame the rail safety regulator in Australia.

The industry is doing this to simply reduce existing rail safety regulation oversight and its impact across the country, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria where standards are most watched and enforced.

Its ultimate aim is to increase rail industry influence and power and through that, profits.

This practice of increasing regulatory capture will inevitably lead to lower safety levels in rail systems across Australia.

Put another way, greater deaths or injuries will be caused as the result of this process.

What is regulatory capture?

Regulatory capture is a term which describes situations where state regulatory agencies created to act in the public interest instead act in favor of the commercial or special interests that dominate the very industry or sector it is charged with regulating.

Put another way, ‘regulatory capture’ is simply the capture of ‘regulators’ by the regulated.

‘Capture’ means that responsible authorities act to protect the same illegal or unsafe practices that they are charged with ‘policing’.

The idea of regulatory capture has an obvious economic basis.

Vested interests in industries such as the national rail freight industry have the greatest financial stake in regulatory activities including safety regulation.

They have a clear interest in rendering regulators as impotent as possible while giving the appearance of regulation.

Regulatory capture is an insidious risk in any regulatory process.

Most instances of ‘capture’ are only partly visible, like an iceberg, and are often only uncovered during times of crisis and danger, eg a major rail disaster.

Regulatory capture can continue undetected for long periods as neither the regulated nor the regulator is likely to disclose it.

It does not have the more obvious and acute characteristics of a major theft or assault, which would draw immediate public attention and a swift remedial response.

Regulatory capture is a risk best addressed by visionary anticipatory preventative actions.

These place much of the responsibility for its risk management on the effective and accountable management by managers within the regulatory systems.