ITSR Body Text

ITSR Body Text

Name of organisation:

Name of respondent:

Title of respondent:

Discussion point / Question / Response
Cost recovery model principles /
  1. Do you agree with these principles? Are there other principles that you think we should consider. If so what are they and why do you think they should be included?

The role of industry and jurisdictional governments in meeting the cost of regulation /
  1. Do you believe the cost of regulatory oversight should be funded by both government and industry?

  1. Do you believe that there is a service provided by the ONRSR to governments? If so, how would you describe that service?

  1. Should any costs be recovered from governments for this service?

  1. The varied levels of government funding provided by jurisdictions to the ONRSR mean that an RTO currently pays a different fee rate for each jurisdiction in which they operate. Do you support this approach? If not, how could fees be applied equitably?

Major projects (capital expenditure / significant change) /
  1. Do you consider it appropriate that there should be a charge (using a different schedule of fees) for the ONRSR work undertaken in relation to accreditation of a major project?

  1. If so, should this be based on a percentage of the approved cost of the project? If not, how would you suggest the fee should be calculated?

  1. Should a maximum fee limit apply? If so, how should this maximum fee be determined?

  1. Should this fee be paid by the project owner or another party? If you think another party should pay, please identify them and provide reasoning.

  1. Do you think payments should be made up front or spread over the life of the project?

  1. Should this payment also cover the application for accreditation or variation?

Risk according to type of operation /
  1. What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of developing a model based on type of operation?

  1. What factors would you consider appropriate to include to reflect ‘types of operation’?

  1. If adopted, how would you account for RTOs who move through different risk environments (eg. urban and regional)?

  1. Currently, 30 percent of the variable fee component is apportioned to below rail operations and 70 percent to above rail operations. Do you believe this fairly represents the risks associated with below and above rail operations?

  1. In the past, governments have generally agreed to provide a contribution for T&H operators. Do you believe governments should continue to support T&H operators in this manner?

  1. Of the annual accreditation fees currently paid by industry, the fixed fee component comprises 19 percent and the variable fee component comprises 81 percent. Do you think this sufficiently reflects scalability of operations? If not, how would you suggest this be better reflected?

‘Insurance-type’ approach /
  1. Do you think the insurance framework could apply to rail safety regulation cost recovery?

  1. Would operators accept a third party’s ranking?

  1. Do you think there would be any issues in sharing such a ranking with the ONRSR?

  1. Due to the vulnerability / changing nature of operations, what do you think would be the advantages and disadvantages of averaging fees over a 3-5 year period?

  1. Should the ranking hold for a three year period and then be reviewed?

  1. How should new RTOs (with no operating history) be charged?

  1. Do you think this approach would be simple or complex to administer? Why?

  1. Would this approach require an appeal process? If so, how do you think appeal provisions could operate?

Tiered approach /
  1. What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach?

  1. Should the base fee be calculated on the ONRSR aggregate average cost of one visit per operator per year? Should this be applied uniformly or dependent on the type of operation?

  1. The purpose of the activity fee is to recognise the size and type of operations. What components do you think should be included in calculating this component?

  1. ONRSR would make an assessment of the level of maturity of an operators SMS and operations to determine the variable fee component. Would the ONRSR assessment of individual operators’ maturity be required to be made publically available?

  1. Do you think this approach would be simple or complex to administer? Why?

  1. Would this approach require an appeal process?

Fee for service /
  1. What activities would it be appropriate to apply a fee to?

  1. Should this apply only to services requested by operators, or also to services required by the ONRSR? In which case how would fees be recovered for activities that the ONRSR judge as essential?

  1. What are the advantage and disadvantages of this approach?

  1. Do you think this approach should be based on an hourly rate determined by the ONRSR or a flat fee for service?

Fees based on revenue /
  1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach?

  1. Should there be a minimum revenue threshold before fees would apply?

  1. Should fees be applied on a sliding scale based on revenue amounts?

  1. Should this approach include revenue other than from rail operations? In multi-functional companies where rail in an enabler (rather than the generator of income) is it feasible to apply this model?

Other considerations /
  1. Are there any other factors that you believe should be explored in developing a cost recovery methodology? If so, what are they?

  1. Depending on the model chosen, do you think it would be useful for fees to be calculated over a three year period, but charged annually (eg. in terms of budgeting)? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of this approach?

  1. Do you think it is appropriate for the cost recovery model to include financial incentives, or should other regulatory mechanisms be used for that purpose?

  1. If any of the other features explored in this paper were included in the cost recovery model, would you expect an appeal process to be provided? If so, how do you think an appeal process should work?

| 17 February 2011PAGE 1 OF 7