Hon Kim Chance questions the Minister for Transport about the anticipated safety benefits of BHP Billiton moving its rail operations from the Mines Safety and Inspection Act to the Rail Safety Act. The Minister acknowledges prior discussions and highlights the move's alignment with a national rail safety regime.

AnsweredQoN 329Legislative Council
Asked
2 April 2009
Portfolio
Transport

QuestionView source ↗

BHP BILLITON RAILWAYS — safety measures
I do not believe that the minister has had any notice of the question. I will arrange for the question to be taken to him. I refer to BHP Billiton’s decision to move its rail operations from the Mines Safety and Inspection Act to the Rail Safety Act. Will the minister outline any anticipated safety benefit to be achieved from this move that was announced by BHP Billiton in its media release on 1 April this year? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN

AnswerView source ↗

I thank the honourable member for the question and his interest in this issue. In my dealings on this matter with BHP Billiton, the company has indicated previously agreement in principle to move from the one regime to the other. Currently its rail safety regime is governed by virtue of its state agreement act through the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as opposed to other railways that are subject to the regime of the state’s Rail Safety Act, of which I am sure the member is aware. The proposal that has been mooted in the industry for sometime, and discussed with not only BHP Billiton but also other operators, is for them to come within the ambit of the Rail Safety Act, as are all other operations. That will then facilitate a smooth and uniform transition to a national rail safety regime, as the member is aware. In answer to the member’s reference to the BHP Billiton media release of yesterday, I have not seen it but I will view it with interest. I was in the house until late last night and it was not brought to my attention.
I refer to BHP Billiton’s decision to move its rail operations from the Mines Safety and Inspection Act to the Rail Safety Act. Will the minister outline any anticipated safety benefit to be achieved from this move that was announced by BHP Billiton in its media release on 1 April this year? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for the question and his interest in this issue. In my dealings on this matter with BHP Billiton, the company has indicated previously agreement in principle to move from the one regime to the other. Currently its rail safety regime is governed by virtue of its state agreement act through the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as opposed to other railways that are subject to the regime of the state’s Rail Safety Act, of which I am sure the member is aware. The proposal that has been mooted in the industry for sometime, and discussed with not only BHP Billiton but also other operators, is for them to come within the ambit of the Rail Safety Act, as are all other operations. That will then facilitate a smooth and uniform transition to a national rail safety regime, as the member is aware. In answer to the member’s reference to the BHP Billiton media release of yesterday, I have not seen it but I will view it with interest. I was in the house until late last night and it was not brought to my attention.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for the question and his interest in this issue. In my dealings on this matter with BHP Billiton, the company has indicated previously agreement in principle to move from the one regime to the other. Currently its rail safety regime is governed by virtue of its state agreement act through the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as opposed to other railways that are subject to the regime of the state’s Rail Safety Act, of which I am sure the member is aware. The proposal that has been mooted in the industry for sometime, and discussed with not only BHP Billiton but also other operators, is for them to come within the ambit of the Rail Safety Act, as are all other operations. That will then facilitate a smooth and uniform transition to a national rail safety regime, as the member is aware. In answer to the member’s reference to the BHP Billiton media release of yesterday, I have not seen it but I will view it with interest. I was in the house until late last night and it was not brought to my attention.
I thank the honourable member for the question and his interest in this issue. In my dealings on this matter with BHP Billiton, the company has indicated previously agreement in principle to move from the one regime to the other. Currently its rail safety regime is governed by virtue of its state agreement act through the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as opposed to other railways that are subject to the regime of the state’s Rail Safety Act, of which I am sure the member is aware. The proposal that has been mooted in the industry for sometime, and discussed with not only BHP Billiton but also other operators, is for them to come within the ambit of the Rail Safety Act, as are all other operations. That will then facilitate a smooth and uniform transition to a national rail safety regime, as the member is aware. In answer to the member’s reference to the BHP Billiton media release of yesterday, I have not seen it but I will view it with interest. I was in the house until late last night and it was not brought to my attention.
In answer to the member’s reference to the BHP Billiton media release of yesterday, I have not seen it but I will view it with interest. I was in the house until late last night and it was not brought to my attention.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more