Anderton Jim: Railways Bill — First Reading 
Anderton Jim: Railways Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7417] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Industry and Regional Development) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of this important measure. The aim of the proposed legislation as members have noted is to promote the safety of rail operations by adopting recommendations made by the Ministerial Inquiry into Tranz Rail Occupational Safety and Health led by my colleague Margaret Wilson. This bill will transfer rail safety legislation into a single piece of law and consolidate the laws relating to the management of the railway corridor. 
As the explanatory to the bill outlines a number of gaps in existing laws have been identified and they will be exacerbated if action is not taken by a number of users that may ultimately be using the lines. Those gaps will if not addressed compromise safety for rail employees and for the general public. I do no know whether Mr Sowry has noticed this fact but most of the people who are killed on the rail network are killed while working for Tranz Rail. In particular the ministerial inquiry highlighted deficiencies in Tranz Rail’s safety system and in the audit and inspection processes. 
The duties of all rail participants in New Zealand whether they be rail vehicle owners railway premise owners infrastructure owners or long-term leaseholders of the railway lines whose operations contribute to the safe operation of rail activities are set out in this new bill. The bill places a duty on rail participants to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the rail activities for which they are responsible causes or is likely to cause the death of or serious injury to individuals or significant property damage. 
I heard Mr Sowry say that we are introducing draconian measures and that these measures are unreasonable and are not spelt out. Well I say they are spelt out firstly in clause 6 for the benefit of rail participants—the owners of the various sections of the rail system. Rail participants must take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the rail activities for which they are responsible causes or is likely to cause the death of or serious injury to individuals or significant damage to property. Why should they not take those steps? It would be extraordinary if we changed the legislation and said they should not worry because it was all right just to keep on killing people. Then in so far as rail personnel are concerned a rail participant may not do or omit to do anything in respect of a rail vehicle railway structure or railway premise if he or she knows that act or omission will cause or will be likely to cause the death of or a serious injury to individuals. If somebody knows that something will kill someone and does nothing about it why should that person not be held responsible? That is the problem with the present Act: those people cannot be held responsible. 
I urge all members to support this bill. It makes sense and it represents an important improvement in the health and safety of rail employees as well as the travelling public. It also introduces significant financial penalties and even jail terms for serious neglect of safety measures. 
I first became aware of the failures of the present legislation surrounding the rail system when a tragic accident occurred to one of my young constituents. That is why I am here tonight—to celebrate the progress of this bill. I am sorry that Mr Sowry is not here to hear this because if he had asked Morgan Jones’ family what they thought about the existing legislation they would have told him plump and plain and he would not die wondering what they thought. On 2 July 1994 a 6-year-old boy Morgan Jones fell off a gangway leading to a viewing platform on a New Zealand Rail train. He suffered multiple head injuries. He lost a leg part of the use of one arm and the sight in both eyes. Is that serious enough for Mr Sowry? It was certainly serious enough for Morgan Jones. What could he claim from New Zealand Rail? He could claim nothing. What could he claim from the Accident Compensation Corporation? He could claim only $43.90 a week. Could he sue New Zealand Rail? No he could not.Did the agencies of the State take on New Zealand Rail? No they did not. 
I said this to the House at the time: “Despite the requirements in the Transport Services Licensing Act that the railway operators have a comprehensive safety system virtually every aspect of safety management was shown to be lacking in the circumstances surrounding Morgan Jones’ injury. The basic design of the guardrails was insufficient. There was no consistency in the actual guardrails and parts used no secondary safety devices no reliable system of safety checks and no designated responsibilities among management staff.” That is what the inquiry found and according to its report the guardrails used on the train would not have met the requirements even for a stationary ramp in a factory under the Factories and Commercial Premises Act of 1981. So even if Morgan Jones had been walking up a ramp into a factory instead of being on a train the guard rail on the train would not have complied. But because New Zealand Rail was exempt from those safety regulations no action was taken against it. 
Three Government agencies—the Department of Labour the Land Transport Safety Authority and the Police—had jurisdiction to investigate the circumstances of that accident and take appropriate action against New Zealand Rail. The Land Transport Safety Authority recommended some safety improvements; that is what it did. No prosecution of New Zealand Rail was mounted despite the prima facie evidence of negligence and the very serious injuries sustained by Morgan Jones. The Department of Labour and the Ministry of Transport passed the buck between one another. According to the Ministry of Transport there was scope for New Zealand Rail to be prosecuted under the Health and Safety in Employment Act. The Department of Labour however declined to initiate a prosecution and declared that the accident came under the jurisdiction of the transport legislation. Does that sound familiar? 
That is what this law change is about. It is about holding people accountable and making sure that the rail system in New Zealand is safe. The accident to Morgan Jones and other accidents like it were simply damning indictments of the safety standards of New Zealand Rail. The bracket that Morgan Jones held when he went across that platform did not secure the handrail against upward movement. The bracket was not in accordance with the original design of New Zealand Rail; it had actually been fixed so that it did not work. New Zealand Rail did not have adequate inspection systems in place even to detect that fault. This legislation is meant to make sure that New Zealanders feel safe when they travel on public transport in this country—and rail we hope will be an important element in that public transport system. 
Most if not all New Zealanders will support the measures that Parliament has before it today for the safety of rail operations. Many New Zealanders will know that this country’s record has been shamefully inadequate in the rail system network in recent years. They know that we have to do better than we have done. This legislation is aimed at doing just that. I recommend to the House that we support this bill get it through as rapidly as we can and take the steps that are long overdue to make sure that Morgan Jones’ experience is never again repeated in this country on a rail passenger system that should have known better than it did and should have been an awful lot better than it was.