The National Transport Commission’s rail reform program includes the introduction of Australia’s first set of mandatory rail standards, marking a shift towards national consistency.
Dr Gillian Miles, the recently appointed Chair of the Rail Industry Safety and Standards Board (RISSB), takes the reins at a timely juncture, guiding the board to support government and industry to achieve these ambitious changes.
“As I see it, the national standards framework that the National Transport Commission (NTC) has been developing has three parts,” Miles said.
“There are mandatory standards, a middle tier that’s more like ‘harmonised best practice’, and a third tier of ‘bespoke’ or localised standards.
“They’ve used language like ‘must have’, ‘should have’ and ‘might have’, to define the differences – that’s how the three tiers came about.”
These three tiers – mandatory, harmonised and localised standards – are central to the National Rail Standards Framework, developed under the NTC’s National Rail Action Plan.
The aim is to improve interoperability, productivity and safety across the system, while giving the industry confidence to invest.
“The productivity driver is trying to get the entire network uplifted,” Miles said.
“The mandatory standard is really important right now to advance interoperability, as there is more that’s the same than there is that’s different, but we tend to focus on the things that are different.”
Why standardisation matters
The consequences of Australia’s inconsistent rail standards include inefficiency, duplication, slower approvals, higher costs and increased safety risks.
Different jurisdictions have different gauges, technologies, signalling systems and driver training requirements.
“A freight driver driving from Perth to Sydney, for example, will go through four Rail Infrastructure Managers (RIMs), or four territories where the rules are different,” Miles said.
“They have to do four lots of training and they even have to carry four different colour vests in the cabin and change along the way. That’s not efficient.”
The push for a set of key mandatory standards – a significant shift for a country with a historically voluntary approach – is aimed at reducing these costs and barriers. As Miles explained, they are not about heavy regulation, but strategic focus.
“My view is mandatory standards should be few and far between. Governments have agreed that these are specifically targeted around interoperability, to give some certainty to the rail industry and confidence for investment.”
The first KEY mandatory standards
The NTC and transport ministers have agreed to focus the first wave of mandatory standards on three high-impact areas.
These include digital train control technologies, the driver interface (the cabin environment), and rolling stock approval processes.
“Streamlining rolling stock approval processes is something industry is very keen on – the current inconsistency of bringing rolling stock onto the network is not cost efficient,” Miles said.
The challenge of adoption
One of the biggest challenges in driving uptake of standards – mandatory or otherwise – is cost and coordination.
“There are so many players, and there are so many views,” Miles said.
“Everyone is worried about cost. The challenge is to shift from the mindset of just considering ‘my cost’ versus a system uplift?”
Even voluntary standards can be difficult to embed without incentives or structured support. The Harmonisation of Rail Standards Report, released in October 2024 and jointly commissioned by RISSB, the NTC, the Australasian Railway Association (ARA) and the Office of the National Rail Industry Coordination (ONRIC), identified network operating differences and minimal incentive to change as key challenges.
“The voluntary approach is actually a barrier,” Miles said.
“We get inconsistent adoption, and the structure in Australia makes it more complex – governments are funding and running rail, then there are private operators, and we’ve got an above and below ground rail split.
“There are just a lot of players involved.”
Miles believes the solution sits between voluntary and mandatory standards – a more effective shared governance model that encourages consistent adoption and best practice.
“We need a lock-in mechanism that’s stronger than voluntary, but not as heavy-handed as mandatory,” she said.
“The challenge is to have a governance model that can give us that middle ground – something more reliable than voluntary adoption, without needing full regulatory force.”
Drawing on her experience across road and rail reform, Miles pointed to the success of the national roads harmonisation in Australia two decades ago.
“They’ve just done it in the roads industry. That’s why Australia has consistent speed limits, consistent signage and consistent standards for traffic signalling,” Miles said.
“There are still some inconsistencies, but nothing like we see in the rail sector.”
The evolving role of RISSB
As the standards conversation evolves, so too must RISSB. Miles sees a future where the organisation plays a central, strategic role in the rail system – prioritising, coordinating and supporting standards implementation across industry and government.
“RISSB has been around for 20 years, so let’s build on that rather than start again,” she said.
The main areas Miles sees where RISSB can add value are working with the NTC to prioritise standards development, bringing government and industry together to develop standards and supporting materials, and supporting industry with implementation and adoption.
“Instead of going, ‘Here’s a standard, do it or you’re in trouble’, it should be ‘Here’s a standard that is aspirational, that everyone can and should work towards,’” she said.
This includes practical support for smaller operators who may not have the capacity of larger players – many of whom already use RISSB’s voluntary standards.
“Is there investment needed to help some of the smaller players get to the same level? Do they even need to? Maybe they don’t – and that’s okay,” Miles said. “RISSB itself will also need to evolve.
“RISSB needs to lift its gaze higher. We need to seek higher authorisation, be more strategic and more focused in solving the big problems rather than the little problems,” she said.
Reform with urgency – and realism
There is broad consensus across the industry about the need for reform. But, as Miles pointed out, it will take time, trust, and a willingness to solve problems collectively.
“Rail had huge investment over the past 10 years, but that perhaps has not been met with the same level of productivity uplift,” she said.
“We can’t afford not to have a great rail system, and we need to look at the transport system in totality – not just rail or road or maritime in isolation. Connectivity is the key.”
Climate goals and freight productivity targets only raise the stakes. Getting standardisation right is not just a matter of internal efficiency, it’s critical to delivering net-zero commitments and shifting freight off roads and onto rail.
“We have to do something different, absolutely,” Miles said.
“We can’t rest any longer on ‘We’ve got an old system, and we’ll just make it work’.”
The next step, she said, is securing RISSB’s role in that future – fast.
“We are a membership organisation. If we start to question its future, it starts to lose its energy.
“I believe, as do many others in the industry, that RISSB has a role to play in this new order.
“So for me, it’s about working with industry and government and making those decisions sooner rather than later.”
