National Transport Commission

1
National Transport Commission
Rail Safety Regulation Reform October 2005
2
Purpose

• Inform rail industry stakeholders of
• Process of reform development
• Proposals in model Bill
• Proposals for other aspects of the regulatory
  framework
• Invite encourage comment on proposals

3
Background

• Independent Commission
• Established by IGA
• Reports to ATC
• Melbourne-based
• Six Commissioners (including CEO)
• 35 staff

4
What we do

• Regulatory reform for road, rail intermodal
• Improve outcomes with respect to
• Safety
• Environment
• Compliance
• Efficiency
• Productivity
• Reform Agency, not a regulator

5
ATC Directions for Rail Reform

• Improve and strengthen co-regulatory system
• National policy on key safety issues (eg.
  Fatigue)
• Review National Code of Practice for content more
  appropriate to be in regulation
• Review 1996 IGA on Rail Safety

6
Development of Proposed Reforms

• Review of Co-regulatory Framework
• Commenced late 2003
• During review, maintained on-going industry
  consultation through peak bodies
• ARA, ATHRA, RTBU
• Two rounds of public consultation
• May 2004 Issues Paper
• December 2004 Discussion Paper
• National Workshop
• June 2004
• SCOT Rail Group established Steering Committee
• Assisted NTC resolve matters of policy

7
Development of Proposed Reforms (2)

• Model Rail Safety (Reform) Bill
• Authorised by ATC, commenced late 2004
• NTC constituted Rail Legislation Advisory Panel
  (RLAP)
• RLAP purpose is to assist with development of
  drafting instructions for model Bill
• Steering Committee has continued to be a source
  of guidance on policy issues
• Drafting by Victorian Office of Parliamentary
  Counsel
• Model Bill refined with assistance from RLAP and
  Steering Committee prior to public release

8
Review of Current Rail Safety Framework

• Little evidence to warrant major changes
• Opportunities
• Reduce risk of regulatory failure
• Improve regulatory efficiency effectiveness
• Interim findings to ATC in Nov 2004
• Final recommendations to ATC in May 2005
• Formed the policy underpinning model Bill

9
Initiatives

• Rationalisation of Regulatory Instruments
• Development of Model Bill
• Development of Model Regulations
• Review of Institutional Framework

10
Rationalise regulatory instruments

• Regulatory requirements specified in mixture of
  Acts, regulations and standards
• Different mix in different jurisdictions
• No clear hierarchy
• Affords control over specification of regulatory
  requirements to external party
• Inconsistent with regulatory best practice

11
New Regulatory Framework
Regulatory Requirements specified by governments
Hierarchy of Regulatory Instruments
Promotes consistent interpretation of
requirements by all
Developed by Industry and tailored to context
Increased detail and level of prescription
12
Rail Safety (Reform) Bill

• Improve
• rail safety regulations by implementing best
  practice approaches
• Cost-effectiveness via regulatory harmonisation
• Key objects in Bill
• Principles in model Bill will compliment these
  objects

13
Key Changes

• Head of power for national compliance codes,
  standards guidelines
• General duties - SFAIRP
• Purpose of accreditation
• Limitation on accreditation requirement
• Increased regulator powers
• Hierarchy of enforcement sanction options

14
Key Changes (2)

• Regulators to co-ordinate decision making
• Provisions to enable timeliness transparency of
  decisions
• Workable appeal mechanisms
• Mandatory data reporting publishing
• Interface Co-ordination Plans
• Employee Participation in SMS development

15
Model Regulations

• Propose to maintain existing regulations but
  provide for consistency across jurisdictions
• Developing specific proposals for
• Accreditation
• SMS
• Risk management requirements
• Discussion paper argues for
• Develop regulations using AS4292 and NAP as
  source
• Net social benefit interpretation of SFAIRP
• Provision of Administrative guidelines to support
  consistent interpretation

16
Review of Institutional Arrangements

• Review undertaken in two Phases
• Phase A
• Future of 1996 intergovernmental agreement for
  Rail Safety
• Mechanisms to avoid duplication inconsistencies
• Process for approval of national codes, standards
  guidelines
• Process of recognition of industry codes
  technical standards
• Maintenance arrangements for regulatory
  instruments
• Phase B
• Separation of functions to avoid conflicts of
  interest
• Case for and against national regulator

17
Implications for Rail Organisations

• National Consistency
• Common legislative basis
• Co-ordinated decision making
• Guidelines to support consistent interpretation
• Greater Certainty Transparency of DM
• Processes defined (e.g. variations of
  accreditation)
• Requirement on regulator to make timely decisions
• Regulator to give Statement of reasons for
  decisions

18
Implications for Rail Organisations (2)

• Clarification of Roles Responsibilities
• Consistency with OHS Requirements
• Regulator Powers Sanctions
• Workable Appeal Mechanisms
• Internal Reviews, Mediation and access to
  Administrative Tribunals

19
Issues for TH rail organisations

• Scope for exemptions from accreditation
  requirements
• But should only assist those at margin
• SMS requirements are risk based and therefore
  scaleable
• RSRP developing SMS guidelines tailored to sector
• Reporting requirements
• In-principle more onerous
• But iterative process with regulator should
  minimise
• Data publishing
• Transparency of safety performance
• Will lead to insurance being risk reflective
• Transitional arrangements
• Existing accreditation maintained
• 3 years to comply with new SMS requirements

20
Feedback sought.

• Read Model Bill and Draft Regulatory Impact
  Statement together
• Paper on SMS and Risk Management provides
  context of what is proposed in regulations
• Paper on institutional arrangements indicates
  changes proposed to support consistent
  implementation
• Comments sought on
• Whether case for reform is made
• Issues arising from proposed changes
• Detail of the legislative drafting

21
Next Steps

• Public Comments by 18th November 2005
• Submissions to NTC directly or
• Channel your feedback through peak bodies
• Submissions considered by NTC, RLAP and SC
• Bill and RIS refined in response
• Final documents to ATC by late 2005
• If approved, aim to have new legislation
  effective in States Territories by late 2006

22
Information

• www.ntc.gov.au