Tranz Rail says safety legislation outdated

Proposed rail safety legislation is already outdated and fails to link with broader transport strategies, Tranz Rail told MPs today.

Tranz Rail said the Railways Bill was designed to deal with an environment that did not exist today, and was unlikely to ever exist.

In its submission to Parliament's transport committee, the rail operator outlined "significant risks" with the bill's prescriptive approach.

Rail operators could face fines of up to $100,000 or imprisonment for breaching provisions of the legislation, announced by the Government last July.

It was intended to implement the recommendations of a ministerial inquiry into rail safety, which reported in 2000.

That inquiry was prompted by four shunting deaths in the mid-1990s, but failed to address where rail accidents were happening now, Tranz Rail said.

"It's a bill based on perception rather than reality," engineering general manager Lloyd Major said.

Tranz Rail argued that the bill needed updating, as it was written before the Government bought back the rail track.

It did not address safety issues such as level crossings and people walking on the tracks, both of which now killed more people than shunting accidents.

Tranz Rail officials argued responsibility for safety should be shared between rail operators and the regulator -- the Government.

Safety restrictions on rail operators were such that they would not be competitive against road transport if they had to bear the entire cost of safety.

Nor was staff accountability for safety addressed in the bill, Tranz Rail said.

Tranz Rail safety general manager Nicole Rosie said she supported stated safety objectives of the bill but "the proposed bill will not achieve this objective".

Outcomes would be the opposite of what the bill intended, she said.

The bill should ensure the industry was responsible and accountable for safety, setting standards and ensuring compliance with them.

Ms Rosie said the regulator should develop performance indicators and assess performance against them.

It should retain its safety audit and review functions.

The bill was structured for a "high risk" multi-party rail environment with multiple owners, both public and private, she said.

The actual environment was now lower risk, and more simple -- one Crown track owner, one freight operator, several passenger operators and Heritage operators.

The structure of the bill should reflect that, Ms Rosie said.

It should also ensure standards for regulatory intervention were in line with the risk being addressed.

"The standards applied to rail should be consistent with those applied to other transport modes," she said.

- NZPA