Re: What does ATSB do, Railwise?

["Allen Hope" <ahope@ozemail.com.au>]

Maurie Daly <mauried@commslab.gov.au> wrote in message
mauried.378.3855FADB@commslab.gov.au">news:mauried.378.3855FADB@commslab.gov.au...
> In article <Fgj54.43$5a3.222192@news0.optus.net.au>
dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage) writes:
SNIP
> >That's the idea of ATSB. It would take over the roles of BASI, MIIU, FORS
> >and have a new national rail safety unit.
>
> >Cheers
> >David
>
>
> Whilst the above goals are admirable, unlike BASI,MIIU and FORS where the
Feds
> have constitutional authority,thats not the case for rail, except for
> federally owned tracks.
> Whilst theoretically ATSB could be invited by a State Infrastructure owner
to
> investigate an accident in a State,it would have no legislative power to
do
> anything,other than make recommendations.
> It seems to me that we have created yet another rail regulator which
really
> cant do much regulating.
>
> Better than nothing though I guess.
>
> MD
>
The Feds have exactly the same constitutional powers over rail as they do
over aviation, that is, none to speak of! The constitution was adopted in
1900, the Wright brothers didn't fly until 1903 so aviation missed out
getting a mention.
All Federal regulation of aviation depends on a "gentleman's agreement" not
to mention the unconstitutionality of it all.
The only legal endorsement of any kind is a High Court ruling that the feds
had control of air safety. But any constitutional law expert will point out
the legal flaws in this ruling, but hey! it works so why make waves. The
recent use of the external affairs powers does put it on a somewhat sounder
footing.
Something similar COULD be worked out for rail. Is there an international
treaty on rail safety?

Allen