NTC PowerPoint Presentation of 2
NTC PowerPoint Presentation of 27 October 2005
on the
Model Draft Bill on Rail Safety Reform
Main Headings
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
Background
•
Independent Commission
•
Established by IGA
•
Reports to ATC
•
Melbourne-based
•
Six Commissioners (including CEO)
•
35 staff
What we do
•
Regulatory reform for road, rail & intermodal
•
Improve outcomes with respect to:
–
Safety
–
Environment
–
Compliance
–
Efficiency
–
Productivity
•
Reform Agency, not a regulator
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
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
Development of Proposed
Reforms (2)
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
Initiatives
•
Rationalisation of Regulatory Instruments
•
Development of Model Bill
•
Development of Model Regulations
•
Review of Institutional Framework
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
New Regulatory Framework
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Issues for T&H 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
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
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