rail safety national law (queensland) bill 2016 · 2016. 10. 24. · ntc national transport...

Rail Safety National Law (Queensland) Bill 2016

Report No. 26, 55th Parliament

Transportation and Utilities Committee October 2016

Transportation and Utilities Committee

Chair Mr Shane King MP, Member for Kallangur

Deputy Chair Mr Robert Molhoek MP, Member for Southport

Members Mr Jason Costigan MP, Member for Whitsunday

Mr Matt McEachan MP, Member for Redlands

Mr Linus Power MP, Member for Logan

Mr Chris Whiting MP, Member for Murrumba

Committee Staff Ms Kate McGuckin, Research Director

Ms Rachelle Stacey, Principal Research Officer

Ms Mishelle Young, Acting Committee Support Officer (3 days/week)

Ms Lynette Whelan, Committee Support Officer (2 days/week)

Technical Scrutiny of Legislation Secretariat

Ms Renee Easten, Research Director

Mr Michael Gorringe, Principal Research Officer

Ms Kellie Moule, Principal Research Officer

Ms Lorraine Bowden, Senior Committee Support Officer

Contact Details Transportation and Utilities Committee

Parliament House

Cnr George and Alice Streets

Brisbane Qld 4000

Telephone +61 7 3553 6633

Fax +67 7 3553 6639

Email [email protected]

Web www.parliament.qld.gov.au/tuc

Acknowledgements

The Committee acknowledges the assistance provided by the Department of Transport and Main Roads and the National Rail Safety Regulator.

mailto:[email protected]


Transportation and Utilities Committee 1

Contents

Abbreviations and glossary 3

Chair’s foreword 4

Recommendation 5

1. Introduction 6

1.1 Role of the Committee 6

1.2 Inquiry process 6

1.3 Purpose of the Bill 6

1.4 Outcome of committee consideration 7

2. Background 8

2.1 Rail transport industry in Queensland 8

2.2 Rail regulation in Queensland 8

2.3 Rail Safety National Law 9

3. Examination of the Bill 11

3.1 Introduction 11

3.1.1 Amendments proposed in the Bill 11

3.1.2 Benefits of applying the Rail Safety National Law in Queensland 12

3.1.3 Continued role of the state government in monitoring and regulating rail safety 12

3.1.4 Proposed commencement of the Rail Safety National Law in Queensland 13

3.2 Differences between the proposed National Law (as applying in Queensland) and the current Queensland law 13

3.2.1 Requirement to undertake a cost benefit analysis 14

3.2.2 Exemptions and exclusions 14

3.2.3 Duties for loaders and unloaders 15

3.2.4 Drug and alcohol management 15

3.2.5 Penalties 16

3.2.6 Compliance and enforcement 16

3.2.7 Fees 16

3.3 The transfer of staff to the ONRSR 17

3.4 Consultation 18

3.4.1 Consultation on the Rail Safety National Law 18

3.4.2 Consultation on the Bill 18

3.5 Issues raised by stakeholders 19

3.5.1 Annual accreditation fees and rail safety investigation fees 19

3.5.2 Drug and alcohol testing requirements 21

3.5.3 Amendments to the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 21

4. Compliance with the Legislative Standards Act 1992 22

4.1 Rights and liberties of individuals 22

4.1.1 Proposed sections 225 and 226 of the Rail Safety National Law – Onus of proof 22

4.1.2 Proposed sections 143 and 145 of the Rail Safety National Law – power to enter premises 23


2 Transportation and Utilities Committee

4.2 Institution of Parliament 25

4.2.1 Clause 4 – National scheme legislation 25

4.3 Proposed new offence provision at clause 60 of the Bill 26

4.4 Explanatory notes 27

Appendix A – List of Submissions 28

Appendix B – List of witnesses at public departmental briefing 29



Abbreviations and glossary

ARTC Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited

ARTQ Association of Tourist Railways – Queensland Inc.

the Bill Rail Safety National Law (Queensland) Bill 2016

COAG Council of Australian Governments

DTMR Department of Transport and Main Roads

FLPs fundamental legislative principles

Minister Hon. Stirling Hinchliffe MP, Minister for Transport and the Commonwealth Games

NRSR National Rail Safety Regulator

NTC National Transport Commission

ONRSR Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator

OQPC Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel

RSNL Rail Safety National Law

WHSQ Act Work Health and Safety Act 2011



Chair’s foreword

This report presents a summary of the Transportation and Utilities Committee’s examination of the Rail Safety National Law (Queensland) Bill 2016.

The committee’s task was to consider the policy outcomes to be achieved by the legislation, as well as the application of fundamental legislative principles – that is, to consider whether the Bill has sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals, and to the institution of Parliament.

After examination of the Bill, including the policy objectives it seeks to achieve and consideration of the information provided by government agencies and stakeholders, the committee has agreed to recommend the Bill be passed.

On behalf of the committee, I thank those organisations who lodged written submissions on the Bill. I also thank the committee’s secretariat, the Technical Scrutiny of Legislation Secretariat and the Department of Transport and Main Roads and the National Rail Safety Regulator for their assistance.

I commend this Report to the House.

Mr Shane King MP Chair Oct 2016



Recommendation

Recommendation 1 7

The Committee recommends that the Rail Safety National Law (Queensland) Bill 2016 be passed. 7



1. Introduction

1.1 Role of the Committee

The Transportation and Utilities Committee is a portfolio committee of the Legislative Assembly which commenced on 27 March 20151 under the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 and the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly.2

The committee’s primary areas of responsibility are:

main roads, road safety, ports, energy and water supply, and

transport and the Commonwealth Games.

Section 93(1) of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 provides that a portfolio committee is responsible for examining each bill and item of subordinate legislation in its portfolio areas to consider:

the policy to be given effect by the legislation

the application of fundamental legislative principles (FLPs), and

for subordinate legislation – its lawfulness.

On 13 September 2016, the Hon. Stirling Hinchliffe MP, Minister for Transport and the Commonwealth Games, (the Minister) introduced into the Legislative Assembly the Rail Safety National Law (Queensland) Bill 2016 (Bill). In accordance with the Standing Orders, the Committee of the Legislative Assembly referred the Bill to the committee and required it to report to the Legislative Assembly by 25 October 2016.

1.2 Inquiry process

On 14 September 2016, the committee wrote to the Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) seeking advice on the Bill. On 15 September 2016 and 16 September 2016 the committee invited stakeholders and subscribers to lodge written submissions to its inquiry.

The committee received two submissions (see Appendix A) as well as written advice from DTMR on the Bill. The written advice included responses to matters raised in the submissions.

A public departmental briefing on the Bill was held in Brisbane on 12 October 2016 with DTMR and the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator (ONRSR) (see Appendix B).

The submissions, the transcript of the public briefing, and other inquiry-related documents are available on the committee’s webpage.

1.3 Purpose of the Bill

The explanatory notes state the purpose of the Bill is to adopt national rail safety regulation and investigation reforms by applying the Rail Safety National Law as the law of Queensland and establishing the ONRSR as the rail safety regulator in Queensland.3

1 Commenced as the Utilities, Science and Innovation Committee on 27 Mar 2015 with its name changing on 18 Feb 2016 to Transportation and Utilities Committee.

2 Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, section 88 and Standing Order 194 3 Explanatory notes, p 1.

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/work-of-committees/committees/TUC/inquiries/current-inquiries/Rail-Safety-National-Law-Bill-2016



1.4 Outcome of committee consideration

Standing Order 132(1) requires the committee to determine whether or not to recommend the Bill be passed.

After examination of the Bill, including the policy objectives it seeks to achieve and consideration of the information provided by government agencies and stakeholders, the committee has agreed to recommend that the Bill be passed.

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the Rail Safety National Law (Queensland) Bill 2016 be passed.



2. Background

2.1 Rail transport industry in Queensland

The Minister provided the following information on Queensland’s rail network during his First Reading Speech:

Queensland has one of the most extensive rail networks of any state in Australia, growing to more than 9,500 kilometres of operational track and 67 accredited rail operators over the last 150 years

it provides the basis for a vital transport system, delivering connectivity to strategic areas in regional Queensland, supporting agricultural, mining, manufacturing, retail and tourism industries and mass commuter transport services in South-East Queensland

it is recognised as an efficient mode of transport for moving bulk commodities, coal, minerals, agricultural products, livestock and large volumes of passengers across a geographically vast state

it is Australia’s largest export coal rail network, as well as having some of the country’s most remote and iconic passenger trains, including the Spirit of the Outback, the Gulflander and the Savannahlander services

the State’s rail transport industry is made up of a very diverse group of organisations with rail transport operators ranging from major corporations operating thousands of kilometres of freight, coal or passenger services to the enthusiastic volunteers who operate small historic and tourist railways, and

there are also 31 registered private sidings owned by organisations that are not rail transport operators - for example, mining companies - but are used to load bulk commodities onto rail wagons.4

2.2 Rail regulation in Queensland

The explanatory notes provided a historical summary of legislative reform both in Queensland and nationally:

in 1995, the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 was amended to provide (among other things):

a framework to place railway industry regulatory functions, as far as is practicable, in the hands of the State, as an essential prerequisite to the corporatisation of Queensland Rail

the introduction of a safety accreditation system, with the chief executive of Queensland Transport responsible for the accreditation of railway managers and operators

in 1996, Australian governments signed the Intergovernmental Agreement in Relation to National Rail Safety 1996, which provided the framework for development of a uniform national rail safety standard as the basis for rail safety accreditation

in 2006, the National Transport Commission (NTC) developed the Rail Safety Model Law based on best practice rail safety law - the main purpose of the Model Law was to provide for rail safety legislation that formed part of a system of nationally consistent rail safety laws with each jurisdiction being able to modify the law to reflect different drafting preferences, local legal and enforcement regimes and local operational differences

4 Queensland Parliament, Record of Proceedings, 13 September 2016, p 3397.



the rail safety regulatory framework in Queensland is currently contained within the Transport (Rail Safety) Act 2010, which was based on the Rail Safety Model Law, consistent with the intention of delivering a higher degree of regulatory harmonisation across Australian states and territories.

in 2009, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed for the Australian Transport Council to create a single national regulatory framework for rail safety with the establishment of a national rail safety regulator and commencement of a Rail Safety National Law by January 2013 and

on 19 August 2011, COAG signed the Intergovernmental Agreement on Rail Safety Regulation and Investigation Reform (the Intergovernmental Agreement). 5

As outlined above, in 2010, the Queensland Government introduced the Transport (Rail Safety) Act 2010 and the Transport (Rail Safety) Regulation 2010 which were based on the National Transport Commission’s Rail Safety Model Law, consistent with the intention of delivering a higher degree of regulatory harmonisation across Australian States and Territories.6 The current Queensland legislation:

includes a range of strategies, including fatigue and emergency management plans and increasing the skill requirements for rail safety workers

requires rail transport operators to be accredited in accordance with the Transport (Rail Safety) Act 2010, including being able to demonstrate they have the competence and capacity to operate rail; they have appropriate funding, effective management and control of their operations and a safety management system in place; and to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the requirements of the act through regular audits and compliance inspections, and

covers accredited railways operating in Queensland, including Queensland Rail, Aurizon, Pacific National, Airtrain, and tourist and heritage rail operators.7

The Minister advised that in Queensland, rail regulation is conducted in a co-regulatory environment, which means that rail operators are responsible for determining and maintaining safety standards in their own operations, while the rail regulator is responsible for reviewing and checking that safety standards are met; and that co-regulation is intended to boost productivity and facilitate economic growth by empowering rail transport operators to take active responsibility for setting and meeting appropriate safety standards.8

2.3 Rail Safety National Law

As outlined above, in July 2009, COAG agreed for the Australian Transport Council to create a single national regulatory framework for rail safety with the establishment of a national rail safety regulator.9 The Australian Transport Safety Bureau was also to expand its role to cover national rail safety investigations. COAG then agreed in December 2009 that South Australia would host the national rail safety regulator, to be operational by January 2013.10

5 Explanatory notes, pp 1-2. 6 Explanatory notes, p 1. 7 DTMR, http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Rail-safety/Rail-safety-overview and Minister for Transport and the

Commonwealth Games, Queensland Parliament, Record of Proceedings, 13 September 2016, p 3397. 8 Queensland Parliament, Record of Proceedings, 13 September 2016, p 3397. 9 Explanatory notes, p 1. 10 https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/legislation/ntc_ris.aspx

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Rail-safety/Rail-safety-overview

https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/legislation/ntc_ris.aspx



The Rail Safety National Law was prepared and passed by South Australia, as the host jurisdiction, with the intention that all other States and Territories pass legislation to apply the Rail Safety National Law as a law of their own jurisdiction.11 The Rail Safety National Law can be viewed at https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au .

The Rail Safety National Law, as applied, commenced in:

South Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and New South Wales in January 2013

Victoria in May 2014

Australian Capital Territory in November 2014, and

Western Australia introduced ‘mirrored’ legislation in November 2015.12

Therefore, Queensland is the only jurisdiction that has not mirrored or applied the Rail Safety National Law. The explanatory notes advised that ‘as the remaining jurisdiction, applying the Rail Safety National Law in Queensland, will ensure consistency across Australia’. 13

The Minister advised the Legislative Assembly, when introducing the Bill, that the Rail Safety National Law ‘reflects many years of work, both in Queensland and nationally, to ensure a more consistent approach to policy and regulation across jurisdictions and to remove inconsistencies in the rail regulatory regimes between states and territories’. 14

DTMR explained to the committee:

As the last jurisdiction to apply the Rail Safety National Law, Queensland’s application of the law means that we would be again moving closer to a truly national rail safety regulation scheme. This has also enabled us to learn more from other jurisdictions’ experience and we believe that this would be a smooth transition for Queensland and all the stakeholders who are involved in the process.15

11 Explanatory notes, p 2. 12 Explanatory notes, p 2 and p 16. 13 Explanatory notes, p 2. 14 Queensland Parliament, Record of Proceedings, 13 September 2016, p 3398. 15 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 12 October 2016, p 2.

https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/



3. Examination of the Bill

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 Amendments proposed in the Bill

The purpose of the Bill is to adopt national rail safety regulation and investigation reforms by applying the Rail Safety National Law as the law of Queensland and establishing the ONRSR as the rail safety regulator in Queensland.16

The Bill proposes to:

apply the Rail Safety National Law, as modified by the Bill, as a law of Queensland

repeal the Transport (Rail Safety) Act 2010

define a number of terms to aid in the interpretation of the Rail Safety National Law in the Queensland context

provide for drug and alcohol testing of rail safety workers using procedures that are consistent with the procedures used by the police under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, and

provide transitional arrangements.17

The Bill also makes related minor and consequential amendments to the following Acts:

Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999

Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999

Queensland Rail Transit Authority Act 2013

Work Health and Safety Act 2011

Coroners Act 2003

Queensland Competition Authority Act 1997

Right to Information Act 2009

Surat Basin Rail (Infrastructure Development and Management) Act 2012

Transport Infrastructure Act 1994

Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994

Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994.18

16 Explanatory notes, p 1. 17 Explanatory notes, p 2. 18 Explanatory notes, p 5.



3.1.2 Benefits of applying the Rail Safety National Law in Queensland

The Minister summarised the benefits of moving to a single national law when he introduced the Bill to the House:

The move to a single national law and one set of processes and procedures will result in significant efficiency and productivity improvements for commercial rail organisations operating in more than one state. It will build on the substantial progress in rail safety achieved in Queensland since 2010 and underpin a culture of continuous improvement in rail safety across Australia. This bill will also benefit workers, including contractors who by choice or by contract will be working in different states and territories. These workers will better understand their responsibilities under the law and they might find the transition easier.19

DTMR explained to the committee that the efficiencies and productivity improvements for commercial rail operators, particularly those operating in more than one state, include a single national accreditation regime, and removing duplication of auditing, monitoring and compliance processes:

This means that not only are the words in the law more consistent across the jurisdictions but also the interpretation of those words, and the culture that underpins the decision-making would also be more consistent nationally. The national rail safety reforms will also allow for a better understanding of rail safety risk and mitigation measures on a national scale. 20

3.1.3 Continued role of the state government in monitoring and regulating rail safety

In response to a question from the committee, DTMR explained that if the Queensland Government had a serious concern about the management of safety or the management of the National Law in the future it would still be able to affect changes to the legislation:

We will continue to work closely with the National Rail Safety Regulator through a number of forums. We will be represented on the policy committee, so the Queensland Government will still have a role in rail safety. The Minister in fact will have a role to approve any changes to the national legislation in his role on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

….we will still be represented on the policy committees and we will still have contact with the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator. In addition there is a communication protocol that the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator has which ensures that the Minister is advised of any major incidents that they become aware of. The National Rail Safety Regulator also produces and annual report in December each year to the Minister that specifically outlines what has been happening in the state.21

The capacity for the National Law to include provisions specifically related to the requirements of an individual state is evidenced by the fact that on 13 May 2016, the Transport Infrastructure Council members unanimously agreed to the policy position to include Queensland’s train driver fatigue provisions in the Rail Safety National Law Regulations 2012.22

The Minister advised in his First Reading Speech that in July 2016, Queensland amended the Transport (Rail Safety) Regulation 2010 to introduce work hours and rest period provisions for train drivers as a

19 Queensland Parliament, Record of Proceedings, 13 September 2016, p 3397. 20 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 12 October 2016, p 2. 21 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 12 October 2016, p 5. 22 DTMR written brief, 7 October 2016, p 10.



fatigue risk safety net and that these provisions will be included in the Rail Safety National Law National Regulations 2012 ‘to ensure there is no reduction in safety in Queensland’. The Minister explained that these provisions will only apply to Queensland operators and are similar to the New South Wales fatigue provisions that are already contained in the national regulations.23

This means that Queensland operators will need to continue to comply with the Queensland specific standard work hours and rest periods.24

3.1.4 Proposed commencement of the Rail Safety National Law in Queensland

The Minister advised the commencement date for the National Law in Queensland will be 30 June 2017 to give industry, the ONRSR and DTMR certainty to aid in the transition.25 DTMR provided further advice that the commencement date had been selected for a number of reasons, including:

commencement date of the law coincides with the end of the financial year which simplifies financial management processes and accountability

rail transport operator fees cover the financial year, therefore no pro-rata payments or transactions will be required

provides certainty to rail transport operators to aid in a seamless transition

the preference of Rail Regulation staff was to have certainty with the date of transition and they supported the proposed date at the end of the day on 30 June 2017, and

provides time for formal employment officers to be made by ONRSR to Rail Regulation staff when the Bill is passed and before commencement.26

DTMR advised the committee that, if the Bill is passed, from 1 July 2017, responsibility for rail regulation would move to the ONRSR and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau would operate as a no-blame investigator in Queensland.

3.2 Differences between the proposed National Law (as applying in Queensland) and the current Queensland law

As the Rail Safety National Law and the Transport (Rail Safety) Act 2010 (which the Bill proposes to repeal) were both based on the NTC’s Rail Safety Model Law there would be only a small number of policy changes for Queensland in moving from the current legislation to the Rail Safety National Law.27

The explanatory notes advise that consistent with the Transport (Rail Safety) Act 2010, the Bill proposes that the co-regulatory approach be retained.28

The explanatory notes outlined the key differences between the National Law (as applying the Rail Safety National Law) and the Transport (Rail Safety) Act 2010. These are summarised below.

23 Queensland Parliament, Record of Proceedings, 13 September 2016, p 3398. 24 DTMR written brief, 7 October 2016, p 10. 25 Queensland Parliament, Record of Proceedings, 13 September 2016, p 3399. 26 DTMR written brief, 7 October 2016, p 9. 27 Explanatory notes, p 3. 28 Explanatory notes, p 2.



3.2.1 Requirement to undertake a cost benefit analysis

The Transport (Rail Safety) Act 2010 does not require a cost benefit analysis, however, under the Rail Safety National Law, the ONRSR will be required to undertake a cost benefit analysis if a particular decision is likely to result in significant costs or expenses to the rail transport operator.29

A DTMR discussion paper on the proposed national rail safety law provisions advised that “the intent of the cost benefit analysis provisions are to introduce additional rigour into ONRSR’s decision making process and reduce the likelihood of the ONRSR imposing requirements on rail transport operators that may require a high cost of compliance with little or no resulting safety benefit.30

The explanatory notes advised ‘the cost benefit analysis is undertaken as a comprehensive assessment of a decision’s appropriateness, efficiency and effectiveness. The outcome of a cost benefit analysis does not prevent a decision being made, but does ensure the decision made is the best option available to achieve the desired outcome’.31

3.2.2 Exemptions and exclusions

The Transport (Rail Safety) Act 2010 currently allows the chief executive to grant an exemption from the requirement to be accredited to low risk railways. Low risk railways are defined as being ‘a railway that is not connected to or associated with railway tracks of any other rail infrastructure of another railway or connected or associated with a rail or public road crossing’.32

While the provision for exemption of accreditation to a low risk railway is not provided for in the Bill, there are railways which are excluded from the operation of both the Transport (Rail Safety) Act 2010 and the Rail Safety National Law. For example, Monorails are also excluded under the current legislation and will remain excluded under proposed section 9 of the National Law. 33

DTMR advised the committee at the public briefing that there are approximately seven operators excluded on the basis that they do not connect with the public railways system, these include cane rail, some very small tourist and heritage operators and operators at places like Dreamworld and other theme park operators which fall under the mandate of Workplace Health and Safety.34

If the Bill is passed, there would be some differences between which railways are excluded, for example, a mining railway that is currently excluded under the Transport (Rail Safety) Act 2010 might not be excluded under the Rail Safety National Law due to its above ground operation.35 The Minister advised that this provision will affect a mining railway in Weipa and that its operator Rio Tinto has ‘been involved in discussions and have indicated that they will ensure they comply with any requirements under the Bill’. 36

29 Explanatory notes, p 3. 30 DTMR, “National rail safety reforms in Queensland: Discussion paper for commercial rail transport operators”,

April 2016, p 2. 31 Explanatory notes, p 3. 32 DTMR, “National rail safety reforms in Queensland: Discussion paper for rail transport operators who are

currently exempted from the requirement to be accredited”, April 2016, p 1. 33 Explanatory notes, p 19. 34 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 12 October 2016, pp 4-5. 35 Explanatory notes, p 3. 36 Queensland Parliament, Record of Proceedings, 13 September 2016, p 3398.



The explanatory notes advised that transitional provisions will provide a period of 36 months to allow railways that are currently excluded from coverage of the Transport (Rail Safety) Act 2010, but included under the Rail Safety National Law, time to gain accreditation to enable them to operate in compliance with the Rail Safety National Law (see section 66 of the Bill).37

3.2.3 Duties for loaders and unloaders

The explanatory notes advised the Rail Safety National Law recognises there is a shared responsibility to ensure the safety of railway operations and that the lack of any safety duty on persons engaged in the loading or unloading of rolling stock has made rail transport operators disproportionately responsible for the safety of these activities:

Therefore, the Rail Safety National Law introduces a duty for persons who load or unload freight on rolling stock to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that such operations are carried out safely. This change is expected to increase rail safety standards in Queensland.38

3.2.4 Drug and alcohol management

Under the Transport (Rail Safety) Act 2010, a railway operator must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that each rail safety worker who is on duty has a blood alcohol limit of less than 0.02 in their blood or breath, or is not impaired by a defined drug. Currently, drug and alcohol testing of rail safety workers extends only to train drivers who may be tested by police under the provisions of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, section 80.39

It is proposed that the current requirements be changed in order to increase safety standards in Queensland. The Bill proposes that the Rail Safety National Law be applied so that it will be an offence for a rail safety worker (which includes a train driver) to carry out, or attempt to carry out, rail safety work while there is present in their blood more than the prescribed concentration of alcohol (0.00); or while a prescribed drug is present in their oral fluid or blood; or while they are so much under the influence of alcohol or a drug as to be incapable of effectively discharging a function or duty of a rail safety worker. This policy will be supported by the ONRSR undertaking random, targeted and post incident testing of rail safety workers. 40

The explanatory notes advised:

drug and alcohol testing of rail safety workers will be undertaken by authorised persons appointed by the ONRSR

the testing of train drivers under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 will continue to be conducted by the Queensland Police Service

if a rail safety worker who is a train driver is involved in an incident, they may be tested by either and authorised person or a police officer but the rail safety worker cannot be charged under both the Rail Safety National Law and the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995. 41

37 Explanatory notes, p 3. 38 Explanatory notes, pp 3-4. 39 Explanatory notes, p 4. 40 Explanatory notes, p 4. 41 Explanatory notes, p 4.



The Minister further explained:

The drug and alcohol testing procedures contained in the Bill are largely consistent with road testing rules under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995. Queensland Police Officers will continue to test train drivers, as they currently do, under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995. Drug and alcohol testing by the National Rail Safety Regulator is in addition to the requirement for rail transport operators to prepare and implement a drug and alcohol management plan.42

DTMR advised the committee that the drug and alcohol management procedures under the Rail Safety National Law will result in improved safety:

At the moment, each operator is expected to have a drug and alcohol management plan. That will continue to be the case under the national regulator. However, they are also bringing in another layer of drug and alcohol management to the national scheme in which Queensland will now participate, That means that, in addition to the drug and alcohol testing that organisations do, and will continue to do, the national regulator will do their own random testing provided through a contract supplier.43

3.2.5 Penalties

A large number of the proposed penalties in the Rail Safety National Law are significantly higher than the penalties currently contained within the Transport (Rail Safety) Act 2010. However, the explanatory notes justified the increase on the basis that the proposed penalty amounts in the Rail Safety National Law have been aligned to penalty amounts contained in Work Health and Safety legislation and also reflect the national harmonisation of rail safety law:

The increase in penalties may act as a greater incentive to comply with the Rail Safety National Law and reflect the potentially serious outcomes should a person not comply with the Law.

Due to jurisdictional variations in the value of a penalty unit, penalties in the Rail Safety National Law are not from the penalty unit system. The Rail Safety National Law provides a monetary penalty amount to ensure the penalty is the same in each jurisdiction.44

3.2.6 Compliance and enforcement

The explanatory notes advised the ONRSR will have the power under the Rail Safety National Law to issue an infringement notice in circumstances where a rail transport operator or an individual has breached the Rail Safety National Law, if that particular breach has an infringement penalty as contained in section 233 of the Rail Safety National Law.45

3.2.7 Fees

The Transport (Rail Safety) Act 2010 and the Rail Safety National Law prescribe different fee structures and cost recovery mechanisms which will impact the fees paid by Queensland rail operators post-transition. DTMR provided the committee with detailed information about the fee structures and cost recovery mechanisms which will apply, and made an assessment of the potential impact of the changes which is summarised below:

42 Queensland Parliament, Record of Proceedings, 13 September 2016, p 3398. 43 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 12 October 2016, p 3. 44 Explanatory notes, pp 4-5. 45 Explanatory notes, p 5.



Application fees – minimal impact

Annual accreditation fees – currently only 16 out of 67 accredited rail transport operators pay annual accreditation fees, under the new system every accredited operator will pay a fixed flat fee and a variable fee based on the kilometres of track and kilometres travelled - small operators and track managers are likely to pay more with high frequency operators benefiting from a reduction in fees (seven commercial operators will pay less, 21 will pay more and there will be little impact on the remaining 15 operators)

Annual registration fee (for private sidings) – the 20 rail infrastructure managers in Queensland will pay increased fees under the Rail Safety National Law, with increases ranging from between $145.45 and $382.15 annually, and

Adjusted Rail Safety Investigation fee – the existing rail accreditation fee calculation will be remodelled for Queensland to cost recover the Australian Transport Safety Bureaus’ services – the fee will be aimed at the high frequency rail transport operators travelling the most rail kilometres because they have the higher risk of an incident.46

3.3 The transfer of staff to the ONRSR

If the Bill is passed, the responsibilities carried out by DTMR’s Rail Regulation Unit will transfer to the ONRSR. There will be a Queensland branch of the ONRSR of approximately the same size as currently exists in the Rail Regulation Unit. The Queensland branch will be governed through the head office in South Australia.47

DTMR advised that, if the Bill is passed, all permanent staff within DTMR’s Rail Regulation Unit will receive an offer of employment to join the ONRSR:

staff transitioning will be no worse off in relation to their overall remuneration and conditions package and will be given a reasonable time to make an informed decision

those employees that do not accept the offer of employment will remain with the departments and processes will be put in place to assist with deployment opportunities in accordance with Government’s Employment Security, and

there will be no voluntary or involuntary redundancies as a result of employees not accepting the offer of employment from ONRSR.48

The committee was advised that staff have been kept regularly informed on the progress of discussions between DTMR and ONRSR and ‘staff are aware and are supportive of the proposed offer of employment arrangements’; and the relevant union, Together Queensland, has also been consulted throughout the process.49

46 DTMR written brief, 7 October 2016, pp 2-7. 47 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 12 October 2016, p 3. 48 DTMR written brief, 7 October 2016, p 11 and Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 12 October 2016, pp 3-4. 49 DTMR written brief, 7 October 2016, p 11 and Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 12 October 2016, p 3.



3.4 Consultation

3.4.1 Consultation on the Rail Safety National Law

The Minister, in his First Reading Speech on the Bill, informed the House about the broad consultation undertaken during the development of the rail safety national law:

The rail safety national law was developed in consultation with all Australian states and territories as well as the rail industry, unions and other representative groups and that the Australasian Railway Association, the Association of Tourist and Heritage Rail Australia, and the Rail, Tram and Bus Union were members of the National Rail Safety Regulator Advisory Committee during the development of the rail safety national law.50

DTMR advised further that on 18 July 2011, the NTC publicly released the Regulatory Impact Statement for consultation and this consultation process included public information forums that were conducted nationally, including sessions in Brisbane and Townsville.51

3.4.2 Consultation on the Bill

The explanatory notes advised the following consultation was undertaken on the Bill:

DTMR in conjunction with the ONRSR held discussion forums on 19 April 2016 and 20 April 2016 for rail transport operators, unions and rail representative bodies to discuss how the rail safety reforms will be applied in Queensland, the cost recovery methodology and how the transition to the National Rail Safety Regulator will impact on their operations, and

a discussion paper was distributed to all the rail transport commercial operators (April 2016) and the tourist and heritage operators (May 2016) detailing the key legislative changes proposed in the Bill and how these changes will impact on their operations.52

DTMR provided more detailed advice to the committee that the April 2016 consultation papers was released to Queensland’s commercial rail transport operators, private siding managers, Rio Tinto, the Australasian Railway Association, the Australian Sugar Milling Council, the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Employees and the Rail, Tram and Bus Union.53

Tourist and heritage operators were engaged in consultation in June 2016 to further understand the impact of the Bill on their particular operations. Tourist and heritage operators were also advised of the intention for the Queensland Government to pay annual accreditation fees of tourist and heritage operators under a Community Service Obligation.

On 3 June 2016, officers from the Department met with the Australasian Railway Association and a number of operators to discuss issues relevant to their operations, including the adjusted fee for rail safety investigations and the inclusion of Queensland specific fatigue provisions in the Rail Safety National Law. 54

50 Queensland Parliament, Record of Proceedings, 13 September 2016, p 3399. 51 DTMR written brief, 7 October 2016, p 10. 52 Explanatory notes, p 16. 53 DTMR written brief, 7 October 2016, p 10. 54 DTMR written brief, 7 October 2016, p 10.



While the explanatory notes advised that feedback was largely supportive of the reforms, there were a number of concerns raised by tourist and heritage operators.55 These issues are further investigated in the next section of the report on stakeholder views.

DTMR has advised stakeholders that the department is committed to continued consultation with affected stakeholders throughout the reform and transition process.56

3.5 Issues raised by stakeholders

The committee called for submissions on the Bill from key stakeholders and received two submissions:

Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited (ARTC) advised the committee it has no objection to the introduction of the Bill and the introduction of the National Law in Queensland ‘will see major benefits for interstate rail transport operators, bringing legislative consistency between states and territories of Australia’57

Association of Tourist Railways – Queensland Inc. (ARTQ) raised a number of issues on behalf of its constituent Tourist and Heritage Railway operators. These issues are discussed below.

3.5.1 Annual accreditation fees and rail safety investigation fees

As outlined in the previous section of this report on Fees there are a number of differences between the current fees and those that will apply under the Rail Safety National Law.

A DTMR discussion paper advised industry in April 2016 that in approving the current cost recovery model the Ministerial Council asked ONRSR to undertake a review of the model and report back to them in November 2016 and that this review is currently underway and all stakeholders will be consulted on the proposed model. 58

The explanatory notes advised that during consultation on the Bill a small number of concerns were raised by tourist and heritage operators59 relating to:

…. the implementation of a national regulator and the impact on their relationship with the Queensland rail safety regulator, and on the fee methodology and the impacts that the payment of fees would have on their tourist and heritage operations. As a result, the Queensland Government agreed to pay the annual accreditation fees of tourist and heritage operators to ensure minimal impact on tourism operations in the State.60

The Minister confirmed this agreement in his First Reading Speech on the Bill:

In recognition of the important contribution tourist and heritage railways make to Queensland’s tourism industry and cultural heritage, the Department of Transport and Main

55 Explanatory notes, p 16. 56 DTMR, “National rail safety reforms in Queensland: Discussion Paper for commercial rail transport operators”,

April 2016, p 6. 57 Submission 1, p 1. 58 DTMR, “National rail safety reforms in Queensland: Discussion Paper for commercial rail transport operators”,

April 2016, p 3. 59 Of the 67 rail operators in Queensland, 24 are tourist and heritage operators. See Public briefing transcript,

Brisbane, 12 October 2016, p 4. 60 Explanatory notes, p 16.



Roads will pay the annual accreditation fees for tourist and heritage rail operations in Queensland for the foreseeable future.61

ARTQ concerns

The ARTQ provided the following advice in its submission:

under current Queensland law, Tourist and Heritage Railway operators do not pay accreditation fees and charges because their operations are sufficiently small to fall below the thresholds for such fees, and

the ONRSR levies various fees and charges (with reduced rates for tourism and heritage operators) and, by agreement, the various state governments have arranged to pay certain of these fees under a community service arrangement.62

The ARTQ requested in its submission that clause 59 of the Bill be amended to provide a guaranteed exemption from this type of charge for tourist and heritage railway operators “given the extremely limited resources of not-for-profit Tourist and Heritage Railway operators, and to provide certainty for budgeting and resource planning purposes.’63 The ARTQ also requested that, for the same reasons, the community service obligation for payment of ONRSR fees and charges on behalf of Tourist and Heritage Railway operators in Queensland be included within an appropriate section of the Bill.64

In relation to the rail safety accreditation fee, DTMR responded:

the accredited railway operators who are required to pay the rail safety investigation fee will be prescribed by local regulation

consultation will occur on the content of the local regulation when it is drafted, however the rail investigation fee is targeted at high frequency operators who have reduced accreditation fees, and

it is not intended to apply to tourist and heritage operators.65

In relation to the ARTQ’s request to legislate the Queensland Government’s community service obligation payment of tourist and heritage operator’s accreditation fees, DTMR responded:

this is seen as impracticable for a number of reasons

the community service obligation payment is a policy position based on government priorities, and therefore DTMR is unable to pre-empt a future government’s policy position, and

DTMR and the Queensland Government fully support the community service obligation and it is intended that this arrangement will continue. 66

DTMR advised the committee that the total commitment under the Community Service Obligation would be about $50,000.67

61 Queensland Parliament, Record of Proceedings, 13 September 2016, p 3399. 62 Submission 2, p 1. 63 Submission 2, p 1. 64 Submission 2, p 1. 65 DTMR written brief, 7 October 2016, p 11. 66 DTMR written brief, 7 October 2016, p 12. 67 Public briefing transcript, Brisbane, 12 October 2016, p 4.



3.5.2 Drug and alcohol testing requirements

As outlined in the section of this report on drug and alcohol management, the Bill proposes that it will now be an offence for any rail safety worker to carry out rail safety work while they have alcohol or a prescribed drug in their system or while they are impaired by a drug or alcohol.

The ARTQ advised in its submission that some concern was initially raised with regard to the requirement for zero blood alcohol levels (and the accompanying testing regime) on volunteer workers performing ‘rail safety work’ as the definition of that work in the National Law is considered by the ARTQ to be ‘exceptionally broad’. However, the ARTQ also advised that its concern has been allayed by the issue of a Draft Guideline for identifying rail safety and that on the presumption that this Guideline is implemented as written, it has no further comment on this issue. 68

3.5.3 Amendments to the Work Health and Safety Act 2011

Division 5 of Part 7 of the Bill proposes minor amendments to the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (WHSQ Act). The ARTQ raised a concern in its submission that while the proposed legislation maintains the status quo in relation to the WHSQ Act it does not deal specifically with the issue of registration of plant:

While the present regulator (Department of Transport and Main Roads) have an agreement with Workplace Health and Safety that items of plant which require to registered under the WHSQ Act but are also covered under the present Rail Safety Act because they are mounted on railway rolling stock (in particular locomotive boilers do not need to be registered under WHSQ, the WHSQ Act does not specifically include this exemption.69

The ARTQ advise that it understands there is an investigation currently underway that could lead to this type of responsibility being transferred to the ONRSR but this would mean the National Regulator would need to develop a similar agreement which ARTQ believes is ‘not ideal’. The ARTQ therefore suggests that it may be expeditious to include a provision amending Chapter 5 ‘Plant and Structures’ of the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 to include an exemption for registering plant located on rail vehicles covered by the National Rail Safety Law.70

In response DTMR advised:

discussions are currently underway with Workplace Health and Safety on the interaction between this Bill and the WHSQ Act, with a particular focus on the treatment of plant requirement on rolling stock, and

the intention is for the current system to remain in place, with plant located on rolling stock covered in the Rail Safety National Law rather than by Workplace Health and Safety

Workplace Health and Safety has advised it will look at developing a guideline to assist duty holders in clarifying their obligations, and

a new memorandum of understanding may also be developed between ONSRS and Workplace Health and Safety in Queensland.71

68 Submission 2, p 1. 69 Submission 2, p 2. 70 Submission 2, p 2. 71 DTMR written brief, 7 October 2016, p 12.



4. Compliance with the Legislative Standards Act 1992

Section 4 of the Legislative Standards Act 1992 (LSA) states that ‘fundamental legislative principles’ (FLPs) are the ‘principles relating to legislation that underlie a parliamentary democracy based on the rule of law’. The principles include that legislation has sufficient regard to:

the rights and liberties of individuals, and

the institution of Parliament.

The committee has examined the application of FLPs to the Bill and brings the following issues to the attention of the House.

4.1 Rights and liberties of individuals

4.1.1 Proposed sections 225 and 226 of the Rail Safety National Law – Onus of proof

Clause 4 of the Bill provides that the Rail Safety National Law is a law of Queensland and is referred to as the Rail Safety National Law (Queensland).

Section 225 relates to the dismissal or victimisation of an employee.

Section 225(2) of the Rail Safety National Law provides that an employer or prospective employer is guilty of an offence if the employer or prospective employer engaged in discriminatory conduct because an employee or prospective employee:

(a) has assisted or has given any information to a public agency in respect of a breach or alleged breach of an Australian rail safety law; or

(b) has made a complaint about a breach or alleged breach of an Australian rail safety law to the employer, a fellow employee, union, public authority or public official; or

(c) assists or has assisted, or gives or has given any information to, a public agency in respect of a breach or alleged breach of an Australian rail safety law; or

(d) has made a complaint about a breach or alleged breach of an Australian rail safety law to a former employer, former fellow employee, union, public authority or public official.

Pursuant to section 225(4) the defendant bears the onus of proving that the reason alleged in the charge was not the dominant reason why the defendant engaged in the conduct.

Section 226 provides that it is an offence to give false or misleading information. Pursuant to section 226(2), a person must not produce a document in complying or purportedly complying with this law that the person knows to be false or misleading in a material particular without:

(a) indicating the respect in which it is false or misleading and, if practicable, providing correct information; or

(b) accompanying the document with a written certificate:

(i) stating that the document is, to the knowledge of the first-mentioned person, false or misleading in a material particular; and

(ii) setting out, or referring to, the material particular in which the document is, to the knowledge of the first-mentioned person, false or misleading.

Section 226(3) provides that the evidential burden is placed on the accused to show that he or she had indicated the extent to which the document was false or misleading or that the accompanying document sufficiently explained the extent to which the document was false or misleading.



Potential FLP issue

Sections 225 and 226 potentially breach section 4(3)(d) of the LSA which requires adequate justification for the reversal of the onus of proof.

For the reversal to be justified, the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel (OQPC) has stated that ‘the relevant fact must be something inherently impractical to test by alternative evidential means and the defendant would be particularly well positioned to disprove guilt’.72

The explanatory notes acknowledged the potential FLP and provided the following justification for the sections:

The reversal of the onus of proof is justified because the matter that is the subject of proof by the defendant is particularly within the defendant’s knowledge and would be extremely difficult for the State to prove.73

Committee consideration

The committee noted:

the provisions of section 225(2) relate to an employee or prospective employee being subject to victimisation if they provide information to an agency in relation to a rail safety matter, and

Section 226 relates to an individual knowing they are providing false and misleading information and/or documents.

The committee considered that the reversal of the onus of proof is justified in both instances given the gravity of the matters covered by these sections.

4.1.2 Proposed sections 143 and 145 of the Rail Safety National Law – power to enter premises

Section 143 of the Rail Safety National Law provides the following powers of entry to a rail safety officer:

(1) A rail safety officer may at any time enter a place that is, or that the officer reasonably suspects is, railway premises;

(2) If a rail safety officer enters a place under subsection (1) and it is not railway premises, the officer must leave the place immediately;

(3) A rail safety officer may enter a place that adjoins railway premises if the entry is urgently required for the purpose of dealing with a railway accident or incident;

(4) An entry may be made under subsection (1) or (3) with or without the consent of the person with control or management of the place;

(5) A rail safety officer may enter any place if the entry is authorised by a search warrant. Note - a rail safety officer may enter residential premises to gain access to railway premises pursuant to section 153(c).

Pursuant to section 145 a rail safety officer who enters a place under section 143 may do any of the following:

(a) inspect, examine and make inquiries at the place;

(b) inspect and examine any thing (including a document) at the place;

72 OQPC, Fundamental Legislative Principles: The OPQC Notebook, p 36. 73 Explanatory notes, p 8.



(c) bring to the place and use any equipment or materials that may be required;

(d) enter or open, using reasonable force, rail infrastructure, rolling stock, a road vehicle or other thing to examine the rail infrastructure, rolling stock, road vehicle or other thing;

(e) give directions with respect to the stopping or movement of any rolling stock or road vehicle;

(f) take measurements, make surveys and take levels and, for those purposes, dig trenches, break up the soil and set up any posts, stakes or markers;

(g) conduct tests and make sketches or recordings (including photographs, films, audio, video, digital or other recordings);

(h) mark, tag or otherwise identify rolling stock, a road vehicle or other thing;

(i) seize any thing (including a document) at the place if the officer reasonably believes the thing is evidence of an offence against this Law;

(j) take and remove for analysis, testing or examination a sample of any substance or thing without paying for it;

(k) require a person at the place to give the officer reasonable help to exercise the officer's powers under paragraphs (a) to (j);

(l) exercise any power that is reasonably necessary to be exercised by the officer for the purposes of this Law.

Potential FLP issue

Sections 143 and 145 of the Rail Safety National Law allow for a rail safety officer to enter premises and inspect and seize various documents. This potentially breaches section 4(3)(e) of the LSA which provides that legislation should confer power to enter premises, and search for or seize documents or other property, only with a warrant issued by a judge or other judicial officer.74

The OQPC handbook provides that this principle supports a long established rule of common law that protects the property of citizens. Power to enter premises should generally be permitted only with the occupier’s consent or under a warrant issued by a judge or magistrate. Strict adherence to the principle may not be required if the premises are business premises operating under a licence or premises of a public authority. The former Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s chief concern in this context was the range of additional powers that became exercisable after entry without a warrant or consent.75

The OQPC Notebook states, ‘FLPs are particularly important when powers of inspectors and similar officials are prescribed in legislation because these powers are very likely to interfere directly with the rights and liberties of individuals’.76

The explanatory notes acknowledged the potential breach and provided the following justification for the section:

74 LSA, section 4(3)(e). 75 Alert Digest 2004/5, p 31, paras 30-36; Alert Digest 2004/1, pp7-8, paras 49-54; Alert Digest 2003/11, pp 20-21, paras 14-19; Alert Digest 2003/9, p 4, para. 23 and p 31, paras 21-24; Alert Digest 2003/7, pp 34-35,paras 24-27; cited in OQPC, Fundamental Legislative Principles: The OQPC Notebook, p 45. 76 OQPC, Fundamental Legislative Principles: The OQPC Notebook, p 45.



While the power to enter premises should generally be permitted only with the occupier’s consent or under a warrant, strict adherence to the principle may not be required if the premises are business premises operating under a licence. In this instance, the railway premises are operating under an accreditation as provided for by the Rail Safety National Law.77

It should also be noted that sections 143 and 145 are consistent with the current provisions of Queensland’s Transport (Rail Safety) Act 2010 where Part 7, Division 1 provides rail safety officers with the power to enter places while Part 7, Division 3 provides the power to seize evidence.


The committee considered that sections 143 and 145 are appropriate in the circumstances in light of the justification provided in the explanatory notes and the consistency of sections 143 and 145 with the current provisions of the Transport (Rail Safety) Act 2010.

4.2 Institution of Parliament

4.2.1 Clause 4 – National scheme legislation

Clause 4 provides that the Rail Safety National Law:

(a) applies as a law of this jurisdiction with the modifications set out in this part;

(b) as so applying may be referred to as the Rail Safety National Law (Queensland); and

(c) applies as if it were an Act.

Clause 63 provides a regulation-making power whereby:

(1) The Governor in Council may make regulations under this Act;

(2) A regulation may modify the application of a national regulation in this jurisdiction.

Potential FLP issues

Clause 4 incorporates national scheme legislation being the Rail Safety National Law, as Queensland law. The former Scrutiny of Legislation Committee was generally wary of national scheme legislation as it believed that when the legislation was introduced or tabled in Parliament following national agreement on the laws under administrative arrangements, there was little real capacity for the Parliament to amend, refuse to pass, or disallow the law.

The explanatory notes acknowledged the concern held by former Scrutiny of Legislation Committee and provided the following justification for the introduction of the national law:

Applying the Rail Safety National Law as a law of Queensland is considered justified as it will deliver efficiencies to government and industry, particularly operators working across different states and territories. Implementing the national rail safety reforms in Queensland will also introduce greater independence and a clear separation between government, the Regulator, and the Investigator.

To ensure changes to the Rail Safety National Law are not made without the support of the Queensland Government, the Intergovernmental Agreement on Rail Safety Regulation and

77 Explanatory notes, p 15.



Investigation Reform as signed by the Council of Australian Governments, provides that amendments and additions to the Rail Safety National Law and regulations will be carried upon the unanimous agreement of Ministers of the relevant Standing Council, currently the Transport and Infrastructure Council.

This is confirmed, in relation to national regulations, by section 264 of the Rail Safety National Law, which provides that the Governor of the State of South Australia can only make a national regulation on the unanimous recommendation of the responsible Ministers.78

Clause 63(2) allows a Queensland regulation to modify the application of a national regulation should circumstances require. This provides a safeguard to ensure consistency with current Queensland laws. The committee also noted that clause 14 provides for the application of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 for national regulations which gives the Queensland Parliament the option of disallowing an amendment to a national regulation.


In view of the justifications provided in the explanatory notes the committee considered that sufficient regard has been given to the institution of Parliament in relation to clause 4 and in particular noted:

the Bill has sought to address the concerns held by the former Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in relation to the application of national scheme legislation through clause 63

clause 63(2) allows for national laws to be modified by regulation if they are incompatible with those in the Queensland jurisdiction, and

clause 14 provides that any regulation is subject to disallowance and comes before the committee for its consideration.

4.3 Proposed new offence provision at clause 60 of the Bill

Clause Offence Proposed maximum penalty

60 Requirement to give chief executive information

(1) If requested by the chief executive, an accredited person must, as provided by subsection (2), give the chief executive the information prescribed by regulation for the purpose of calculating, administering and collecting a rail safety investigation fee.

(2) The information under subsection (1) must be given—

(a) in the way prescribed by regulation; and

(b) within the period prescribed by regulation; and

(c) for the periods prescribed by regulation.

200 penalty units

78 Explanatory notes, p 6.



4.4 Explanatory notes

Part 4 of the LSA relates to explanatory notes. It requires that an explanatory note be circulated when a Bill is introduced into the Legislative Assembly, and sets out the information an explanatory note should contain.

The explanatory notes tabled with the Bill are fairly detailed and contain the information required by Part 4 of the LSA including a reasonable level of background information and commentary to facilitate understanding of the Bill’s aims and origins.



Appendix A – List of Submissions

Sub # Submitter

001 Australian Rail Track Corporation

002 Association of Tourist Railways



Appendix B – List of witnesses at public departmental briefing

Witnesses at public departmental briefing held in Brisbane, 12 October 2016

Department of Transport and Main Roads

Ms Jane Richards, Executive Director, Road Safety

Ms Christina Heffner, Acting Executive Director, Legislation and Standards

Ms Kirrim Corley, Senior Manager, Safer Rail

Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator

Mr Peter Doggett, Acting Chief Executive

Ms Julie Bullas, Executive Director, Policy, Communications and Planning

rail safety national law (queensland) bill 2016 · 2016. 10. 24. · ntc national transport...

Documents