[19] Part 3 of the Act sets out a number of performance based safety duties which are required to be observed by designated rail industry participants including: "Rail contractor" is defined broadly by the Act to include a range of persons including those involved in design, construction, manufacture, supply, installation, maintenance, repair and modification who knows or ought reasonably to know that things were to be used as rail infrastructure or rolling stock.
[26] Penalties for breach of the safety duties are substantial and vary among natural person and body corporate offenders.
[27] That concept seeks to identify the parties who are in a sufficient position of control over risks, in this case to safety, and to allocate responsibility by law accordingly.
[33] In essence, the SMS is the key safety plan for those parties who have ground level operational responsibilities in the rail sector.
[34] The compliance support scheme centres on provisions enabling the appointment of authorised officers, conferral of coercive powers and a range of administrative and court-based sanctions.
[6] The development of the proposal for the Act was managed by the former Department of Infrastructure in Victoria[42] as part of its Transport Legislation Review project.
[47] The review examined governance arrangements for safety regulation in the public transport sector drawing on Australian and overseas models.
[49] Ultimately, the review recommended the creation of an independent statutory office with a clearer charter and accountability arrangements.
[55] Mulder stated: In response, the Minister observed that: The Government moved a series of amendments to the Bill during the latter stages of its passage in the Legislative Assembly largely to give effect to national alignment matters agreed between the Department of Infrastructure and the National Transport Commission.
In June 2006, the Australian Transport Council approved a model Rail Safety Bill for adoption in law by the States and the Northern Territory.
Once it was clear that a majority of other jurisdictions had implemented the new framework, the Victorian Rail Safety Act was amended to acknowledge that the Victorian statute forms part of the nationally consistent rail safety scheme[62] A further national proposal emerged in 2008 at the instigation of the Rudd Government.
The proposal envisages the establishment of an applied laws scheme and a central rail safety regulation bureaucracy for Australia located in Adelaide in South Australia and the abolition of the current rail safety regulators in the States and the Northern Territory.
The original centralisation concept has been supported by interstate rail interests and jurisdictions such as Tasmania, Queensland, South Australia, the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory.
[69] In addition, smaller jurisdictions generally see the rail safety regulation function as expensive and wish to shift costs to the Commonwealth Government.
Concerns have also been expressed about the progress of harmonisation across Australia, including since the approval of the national model Rail Safety Bill.
The centralised regulator proposal has been opposed at times by New South Wales, Victoria and the Western Australian rail safety regulator who have pointed to a lack of quantitative or qualitative evidence of impacts of the current jurisdiction-based national system on operator costs, particularly in light of the predominance of intrastate urban rail movements in Australia over interstate movements.
Agreement has already been reached to excise the Melbourne tram system from the national proposal; however Victoria and New South Wales in particular have indicated ongoing difficulties with ceding safety control over the large Melbourne and Sydney suburban rail systems to an entity located in Adelaide.
Some jurisdictions and stakeholders have contrasted the more decentralised regulatory position in other large rail federations, particularly the European Union and Canada, where countries and provinces retain strong local control of rail safety regulation and administration, especially in relation to urban and metro systems.
Critics argue that the national proposal militates against the contemporary integrated transport directions evident in these larger jurisdictions in recent years.
Recent developments suggest that a centralised regulator will be established to take over the rail safety regulation functions of a majority of jurisdictions but that the most populous jurisdictions such as New South Wales and Victoria and potentially other large rail States such as Queensland and Western Australia may retain a local regulatory presence under service level agreements.