Rail Safety National Law (ACT) Regulation 2014

The central concept in this regulation is the idea of "prescription" - the mechanism by which the legislature authorises specific, named devices or procedures for use in the rail safety testing framework. Prescription is an administrative law technique that delegates to the executive (through the regulation-making power) the task of identifying the precise equipment that meets the Act's standards. It avoids the need to amend the principal Act every time technology changes.

A second key concept is the "alcohol screening device", defined in section 10 of the Act as a device of a kind prescribed for screening. The regulation prescribes only one such device. A "drug screening device" is similarly defined, and the regulation currently prescribes three. An "oral fluid analysis instrument" is the confirmatory laboratory-grade instrument for quantifying the presence of drugs in an oral fluid sample; again, only one is prescribed.

Another important concept is the requirement for a "written statement" or "written notice" to be given to a rail safety worker after certain testing procedures. Section 15(6) of the Act requires a written statement containing prescribed particulars to be given to the worker after a breath analysis. Section 15(7) requires a separate written notice. This regulation consolidates them: providing the statement under subsection (6) is deemed compliance with subsection (7). The regulation also specifies that the statement must include the identifying details of the authorised person (or police officer) who conducted the test or took the worker into custody, plus particulars from the road transport regulation's schedule 1 (with two items excluded). The exclusion of items 4 and 5 from schedule 1 is a deliberate omission - those items are not required for the rail safety context. The regulation does not say why, but it may be because they relate to matters already covered by other provisions of the Act or because they are inapplicable (e.g., roadside testing procedures specific to road traffic).

For oral fluid analysis on a sample from a worker in custody, section 21(4) of the Act requires a statement with prescribed particulars. The regulation simply points to schedule 2 of the road transport regulation. This is a complete adoption of that schedule's requirements. The content presumably covers chain-of-custody details, sample handling, and analysis results.

The concept of "custody" arises. The Act (section 14) allows a police officer to take a rail safety worker into custody for the purpose of conducting a breath analysis if the worker fails or refuses a preliminary screening test, or if other grounds exist. This regulation's statement requirements apply only when custody occurs - an important nuance for compliance. If the breath analysis is conducted without custody (e.g., voluntary cooperation at a workplace), the statement requirements may differ or may not apply at all. The regulation does not create a separate regime for voluntary testing; it only addresses the custodial context.

The cross-reference to the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Regulation 2000 is a notable feature. It means that the specific particulars required in the rail safety context are not reproduced in this regulation. Anyone seeking to comply must locate and read the road transport regulation. This may be efficient for drafters but burdensome for end-users, especially if the two instruments are not kept in the same repository or if the road transport regulation is amended without corresponding notice to rail safety stakeholders.

Finally, the "penalty unit" concept is relevant but only through the general law. The regulation itself does not set penalties, but the Act may impose penalties for offences such as failing to submit to testing, tampering with samples, or failing to provide required statements. The republication note sets the value of a penalty unit at $160 for an individual and $810 for a corporation, as per section 133 of the Legislation Act 2001. Those figures are as at the republication date and may be updated periodically.

The regulation directly affects three categories of people and entities: rail safety workers, authorised persons (including police officers and other approved individuals) who conduct testing, and rail transport operators who employ or engage rail safety workers.

Rail safety workers are the primary subjects of the testing regime. The Act defines "rail safety worker" broadly to include any person who performs work that could affect the safe operation of a railway, such as drivers, signallers, track workers, and maintenance staff. These workers are required to submit to alcohol and drug screening and, in certain circumstances, to be taken into custody for further testing. This regulation determines the devices that will be used on them and the paperwork they must be given after a test. Workers have an interest in the accuracy and legality of the testing: if the wrong device is used or the required statement is not provided, the test results may be inadmissible or the worker may have grounds for challenging any disciplinary or criminal action.

Authorised persons - typically police officers, but potentially other persons authorised under the Act - are the ones who conduct the screening and analysis. They must ensure they use only the prescribed devices. The regulation provides certainty about what equipment is lawful. However, it also imposes a compliance burden: they must be trained on the specific devices, maintain them in working order, and ensure they are used according to manufacturer instructions. For the breath analysis statement under section 5A, authorised persons must record their name or service number and signature. Police officers who take a worker into custody must also record their service number and signature. This creates a paper trail that is essential for evidentiary purposes but also adds an administrative step to what might otherwise be a rapid procedure.

Rail transport operators are ultimately responsible for ensuring that their workers are tested in accordance with the law. While operators may not themselves conduct the testing (often it is done by police), they may have obligations under the Act to facilitate testing, e.g., by providing a suitable location or allowing workers to be taken into custody. Operators also have an interest in the reliability of the testing regime because positive results can lead to dismissal, suspension, or other employment consequences. If an operator relies on test results that were obtained using non-prescribed devices or defective statements, they may face legal exposure for unfair dismissal or breach of contract.

Manufacturers and suppliers of testing equipment are indirectly affected. The prescription of specific models creates a de facto monopoly or oligopoly for those devices. A manufacturer whose device is not listed cannot sell it for use in rail safety testing in the ACT, regardless of its technical merits. This may stifle competition and innovation. However, the amendment history shows that the regulation is updated periodically (2023 for the oral fluid analyser, 2025 for drug screening devices), which suggests that the government will consider new devices when they become available.

The regulator - likely the National Rail Safety Regulator (ONRSR) or the ACT government agency responsible for rail safety - is also affected. They must ensure that the prescribed devices remain suitable and that the cross-referenced road transport schedules are kept current. If the road transport regulation is amended, the changes automatically flow through to this regulation, which may create an unintended change in rail safety requirements without any specific rail safety consultation.

Finally, the courts may be affected when admissibility of test results is challenged. The prescription of devices and the statement requirements are designed to ensure reliability and procedural fairness. Non-compliance is likely to lead to exclusion of evidence or dismissal of charges.

The regulation does not create duties or rights; it operationalises duties and rights that exist in the principal Act. Nevertheless, identifying the duties and rights that this regulation activates is critical for compliance.

Duty of authorised persons to provide a compliant written statement or notice after a breath analysis. Under section 15(6) of the Act, an authorised person who has carried out a breath analysis on a rail safety worker must give the worker a written statement containing the particulars prescribed by the regulation. Section 5A of the regulation prescribes those particulars: the authorised person's name or service number and signature, the police officer's service number and signature (if the worker was taken into custody for the test), and the particulars from schedule 1 of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Regulation 2000 (excluding items 4 and 5). This is a mandatory obligation; failure to provide the statement may render the analysis procedurally invalid. The duty is to give the statement to the worker - presumably in person or by other means that ensure receipt. The regulation does not specify a time limit, but the Act's context suggests it should be given as soon as practicable after the analysis.

Duty of authorised persons to use only prescribed devices. Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the regulation define the lawful devices for alcohol screening, drug screening, and oral fluid analysis. Using a non-prescribed device may mean that the test results are not "alcohol screening" or "drug screening" within the meaning of the Act, and therefore any subsequent criminal or disciplinary action based on those results could fail. The duty is strict - there is no discretion to use an alternative device even if it is functionally equivalent.

Right of rail safety workers to receive the written statement. The worker has a procedural right to the statement containing the prescribed particulars. This right supports the worker's ability to check the legality of the testing process and to challenge any adverse findings. The statement is also a key piece of evidence if the worker is later charged with an offence under the Act (e.g., failing a breath analysis).

Right of rail safety workers to challenge test results based on non-compliance. If the prescribed device was not used, or if the statement omits required particulars, the worker may argue that the test results are inadmissible or that the testing process was unlawful. The regulation provides a clear benchmark: only the listed devices satisfy the statutory definitions. Any departure from the list is a failure of a legal precondition.

Duty of police officers who take a worker into custody under section 14 of the Act to provide their service number and signature for the statement (section 5A(1)(b)). This duty arises only when custody is used. If the worker voluntarily submits to breath analysis without being taken into custody, the officer's details may not be required (though they may still need to record their own details as the authorised person).

Duty of the person conducting oral fluid analysis to include the particulars from schedule 2 of the road transport regulation in the statement under section 21(4) of the Act. Section 6 of this regulation mandates those particulars. Again, failure to include them may affect the admissibility of the oral fluid analysis results.

Rights of rail transport operators. While the regulation does not explicitly grant rights to operators, they have an implied right to rely on the testing outcomes if the procedures were followed. Conversely, they have a right to expect that the regulator will only use prescribed devices and follow statement requirements, so that they can trust the testing regime.

Importantly, the regulation does not create any private right of action for breach. A breach of the regulation may be relevant in an employment dispute or prosecution, but it is not itself a cause of action. The likely consequences are procedural or evidentiary, not civil liability.

The regulation itself does not create any offences or penalties. It is purely definitional and procedural. However, its breach has serious consequences because it goes directly to the validity of testing procedures that underpin criminal and disciplinary sanctions in the principal Act.

The Act (Rail Safety National Law (ACT) Act 2014) contains numerous offences relating to alcohol and drugs. For example, section 64 may make it an offence for a rail safety worker to perform safety work while having a blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit or while under the influence of drugs. Section 74 may make it an offence to refuse or fail to provide a breath or oral fluid sample when required. These offences carry penalties that are not set out in the regulation but in the Act. The republication note on page 1 indicates that at the republication date a penalty unit is $160 for an individual and $810 for a corporation. Depending on the Act, a maximum penalty might be expressed as a number of penalty units (e.g., 50 penalty units) which would translate to $8,000 for an individual and $40,500 for a corporation. Without seeing the Act, the exact penalties are uncertain, but they are likely substantial because rail safety is serious.

Enforcement of the testing regime is typically carried out by police officers authorised under the Act. They have powers to stop rail safety workers, request samples, and take workers into custody for analysis if there is reasonable suspicion. The regulation ensures that the tools they use (devices) and the paperwork they produce are standardised. If an officer uses a non-prescribed device, any subsequent prosecution under the Act could be challenged. The regulation thus indirectly enforces discipline on law enforcement.

The Act also establishes a regulatory body (likely the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator) that may conduct audits, inspections, and investigations. Non-compliance with the regulation (e.g., failing to provide a proper statement) could be evidence of a broader failure to comply with safety duties under the Act. This could lead to improvement notices, prohibition notices, or prosecution for a category 1 or 2 offence (if the Act adopts the national scheme's offence categories). The regulation is therefore a compliance touchstone.

For rail safety workers, the main enforcement risk is that a positive test result is used against them in an internal disciplinary process or in a prosecution. If the testing was not conducted in accordance with the regulation, the result may be excluded. This gives workers a strong incentive to understand the regulation and check that they receive a compliant statement.

For employers, the risk is regulatory enforcement if they fail to facilitate proper testing or if their workers test positive and the procedures are flawed. Employers might also face civil liability if they dismiss a worker based on a test that is later shown to be invalid due to non-compliance with the regulation.

There is no specific penalty in the regulation for using a non-prescribed device; the penalty comes from the fact that the test results will not be legally recognised. However, an authorised person who intentionally uses a non-prescribed device might be acting outside the scope of their authority, potentially exposing themselves to charges of misconduct or assault (if they take a sample without lawful authority). The regulation thus has a strong deterrent effect on testing officers.

Enforcement of the statement requirements is likely to be reactive: a worker who receives an incomplete statement can complain, or their lawyer can challenge the admissibility of the test. The onus is on the prosecution or respondent to prove that the statement was given and contained the required particulars. The regulation sets the standard for that proof.

This regulation does not operate in isolation. It is part of a larger legal framework that includes the Rail Safety National Law (ACT) Act 2014 (the principal Act), the Rail Safety National Law (which is applied as a law of the ACT), the Legislation Act 2001, and the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Regulation 2000.

The interaction with the principal Act is straightforward: the regulation fills gaps in the Act. The Act defines terms by reference to what is "prescribed" in the regulation, meaning the regulation is incorporated by reference into the Act. For example, when the Act says "alcohol screening device means a device of a kind prescribed," it means only the AlcoQuant 6020. If the regulation were amended to remove that device, the Act's definition would effectively be empty until a new device is prescribed. This means the regulation is critical to the Act's operability.

The interaction with the Rail Safety National Law is structural. The Rail Safety National Law (ACT) Act 2014 applies the national law as in force from time to time. The regulation is made under that Act, not under the national law itself. This means that the regulation can be amended locally without amending the national law, which is a common technique in cooperative federal schemes. However, it also means that the regulation may differ from equivalent regulations in other states and territories. While the national law aims for uniformity, this regulation's prescription of specific devices may not be identical to those in other jurisdictions. Practitioners dealing with cross-border rail operations should check each jurisdiction's regulation.

The interaction with the Legislation Act 2001 is formal. The regulation is a subordinate law subject to the Legislation Act's requirements for making, notification, and republication. The republication note on the front page confirms that the regulation is republished under that Act. The penalty unit values are set by section 133 of the Legislation Act, not by this regulation. Any amendment to the penalty unit value automatically applies to offences under the Act without needing to amend the regulation.

The most significant interaction is with the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Regulation 2000. Sections 5A and 6 of this regulation expressly incorporate that regulation's schedules by reference. This has several consequences:

• The content of the required statements is not found in this regulation; you must look at the road transport regulation. This creates a cross-referencing burden. Lawyers and compliance officers need to maintain a current copy of both instruments.
• Any amendment to the road transport regulation's schedules automatically changes the requirements under this regulation. For example, if the legislature removes an item from schedule 1, that item would no longer be required in the breath analysis statement. This may happen without any notice to rail safety stakeholders. It means that rail safety statement requirements can drift in tandem with road transport policy, which may not always align with rail safety needs.
• The regulation partially adopts schedule 1 by excluding items 4 and 5. This shows that the drafter exercised judgment about which road transport requirements are appropriate for rail. It is not a wholesale adoption. However, the regulation does not explain the rationale for the exclusion. For schedule 2 (oral fluid analysis), the adoption is complete - no items are excluded. This suggests that the drafter considered the chain-of-custody and procedural details for oral fluid analysis to be equally applicable to rail.

The regulation also interacts with employment law indirectly. A rail safety worker who is tested and found to have alcohol or drugs in their system may face dismissal or discipline. If the testing did not comply with this regulation, the worker may have a claim for unfair dismissal or breach of contract. The regulation thus provides a procedural shield.

Finally, the regulation interacts with evidence law. In any proceeding (criminal or civil), the test results and statements will need to be proved. The regulation sets the standard for what constitutes a valid testing procedure. If the device is prescribed and the statement includes the required particulars, the evidence is more likely to be admitted. If not, the evidence may be excluded under the uniform evidence law (if applicable in ACT courts) as being improperly obtained. The regulation therefore affects the probative value and admissibility of testing evidence.

The regulation has been amended four times since its original enactment, leading to the current republication (R4). Tracking these amendments reveals the evolution of testing technology and legislative refinement.

The regulation was originally made in 2014 as SL2014-29, notified on 17 November 2014 and commencing on 20 November 2014. The original version contained sections 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Section 2 (commencement) was omitted later by operation of the Legislation Act 2001, section 89(4), which is a standard provision that removes such sections from republications. The original devices prescribed for drug screening are not listed in the current endnotes, but the amendment history shows that section 4 was substituted in 2025, meaning the original devices were replaced. Similarly, the original oral fluid analysis instrument was replaced in 2023. The original breath analysis statement requirements (section 5A) did not exist; they were inserted in 2017.

The first amendment was the Rail Safety National Law (ACT) Amendment Regulation 2017 (SL2017-2), notified on 23 February 2017 and commencing on 24 February 2017. This amendment inserted section 5A, which introduced the requirements for the written statement or notice following a breath analysis. This filled a gap in the original regulation where the Act required prescribed particulars but none had been provided. The amendment also ensured that giving the statement under subsection (6) satisfied the notice requirement under subsection (7), and it cross-referenced the road transport regulation's schedule 1. This brought the rail safety regime into line with the road transport framework for procedural documentation.

The second amendment was the Rail Safety National Law (ACT) Amendment Regulation 2023 (No 1) (SL2023-3), notified on 9 February 2023 and commencing on 10 February 2023. This amendment substituted section 5, which prescribes the oral fluid analysis instrument. The earlier device was replaced by the Shimadzu LCMS-8060. This reflects technological advancement in mass spectrometry for drug analysis. The amendment suggests that the previous instrument had become obsolete or insufficient, and the regulator considered it necessary to update to a more accurate or reliable device.

The third amendment was the Rail Safety National Law (ACT) Amendment Regulation 2025 (No 1) (SL2025-15), notified on 28 July 2025 and commencing on 29 July 2025. This amendment substituted section 4, which prescribes the drug screening devices. The previous devices were replaced by three new ones: Clonal Technologies Oral Fluid Drug Test 7, MedVet Oral7, and Oranoxis ToxWipe Oral 7+. This is a significant change because the drug screening devices are the frontline tools used in the field to determine whether a worker requires confirmatory oral fluid analysis. The previous devices (which are not named in the current text) may have been withdrawn from the market or superseded. The amendment indicates that the regulator has approved these three specific devices as meeting the required standards for rapid oral fluid drug screening.

The amendment history also notes that earlier republications (R1, R2, R3) correspond to these amendments. R1 was the original. R2 incorporated the 2017 amendment. R3 incorporated the 2023 amendment. R4 incorporates the 2025 amendment.

The pattern of amendments shows the regulation is updated roughly every two to six years to keep pace with device technology. The 2025 amendment is the most recent and is only days old as at the republication date (29 July 2025). This means the current regulation is very fresh. Anyone relying on the regulation before this amendment would have been using outdated devices and should now update their equipment and training.

There are no uncommenced provisions. All amendments are in force. The regulation appears to be well maintained.

The source text provides no litigation history. It does not cite any cases, nor does it mention any judicial interpretation of the regulation. This is consistent with a technical subordinate instrument that rarely generates its own case law. Nevertheless, a practitioner can infer potential areas of litigation from the regulation's structure.

The most likely context for litigation is a challenge to a breath analysis or oral fluid analysis result in a prosecution under the Act. A defendant could argue that the test results are inadmissible because:

• The device used was not the one prescribed by sections 3, 4, or 5. For example, if a police officer used an older model drug screening device that had been removed by the 2025 amendment, any result would not be a "drug screening" within the meaning of the Act. This would be a strong ground for exclusion.
• The written statement provided after a breath analysis did not contain all the particulars required by section 5A. Perhaps the authorised person's signature was missing, or the police officer's service number was omitted. The defendant could argue that the procedural requirement is mandatory and that failure to comply renders the analysis void.
• For oral fluid analysis, if the statement under section 21(4) of the Act did not include all the particulars from schedule 2 of the road transport regulation, the chain of custody might be compromised, and the results might be excluded as unreliable.

There may also be civil cases. A rail safety worker dismissed after a positive test could bring an unfair dismissal claim. The employer would need to prove that the testing was lawful. If the regulation was not complied with, the dismissal could be found to be without a valid reason or procedurally unfair.

Quashing or judicial review proceedings could arise if a police officer took a worker into custody under section 14 of the Act for a breath analysis but failed to give the required statement. The worker could seek habeas corpus or argue that the detention was unlawful.

Because the regulation is part of a national scheme, there may be case law from other Australian jurisdictions interpreting identical or similar provisions. The ACT courts would likely consider interstate decisions to promote uniformity. However, since the regulation prescribes specific devices (which vary by jurisdiction), the interpretive issues are likely to be local. A decision from Victoria or NSW on the proper content of a breath analysis statement, if that jurisdiction has a similar cross-reference to a road transport regulation, could be persuasive.

Given the regulation's recent amendment in July 2025, there is as yet no litigation on the new devices. The previous devices may have been litigated, but no details are in the source.

Despite its brevity, this regulation contains several traps for the unwary.

First, the cross-reference to the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Regulation 2000 is not static. Schedule 1 (with its exclusions of items 4 and 5) and schedule 2 are not reproduced in this regulation. An officer or compliance professional who relies solely on this regulation will not know the specific particulars required. They must locate and understand the road transport regulation, which may be amended independently. If that regulation changes, the rail safety statement requirements change automatically without any amendment to this regulation. For example, if the road transport regulation is amended to add a new requirement (e.g., a field for the officer's badge number), that requirement will immediately apply to rail safety statements even though no rail safety stakeholder was consulted. Conversely, if an item is removed from schedule 1, it is no longer required. This creates a risk of non-compliance if updates are not tracked.

Second, the exclusion of items 4 and 5 from schedule 1 is unexplained. What are those items? They are not listed in this regulation. A practitioner must check the road transport regulation to see what is excluded. If the excluded items are later amended or removed from schedule 1 themselves, the exclusion may become meaningless. There is a risk that someone might mistakenly believe that all items in schedule 1 are required, when in fact two are not. Alternatively, someone might think the excluded items are never required, but if the road transport regulation is amended to renumber schedule 1, the exclusion references may become ambiguous.

Third, the regulation only prescribes the statement requirements for breath analysis when the worker is taken into custody (section 5A(1)(b) refers to "if the worker was taken into custody under the Act, section 14"). If the worker is not taken into custody - for example, if they voluntarily accompany the officer for a breath analysis - the requirement to include the police officer's service number and signature may not apply. But the authorised person's details (name or service number and signature) are always required. This nuance could be missed, leading to an incomplete statement that might be challenged.

Fourth, the regulation prescribes only the AlcoQuant 6020 for alcohol screening. If the manufacturer discontinues that device, or if it becomes unavailable, there would be no lawful alcohol screening device in the ACT until the regulation is amended. This creates a vulnerability in the testing regime. Similarly, only one oral fluid analysis instrument is prescribed, creating a single point of failure.

Fifth, the drug screening devices prescribed in section 4 are three specific models. They are all oral fluid tests. The regulation does not allow urine tests or blood tests for screening. The prescribed devices are rapid tests. The regulation does not specify the procedures for their use or the cutoff concentrations that constitute a positive result. Those details presumably come from the Act or from manufacturer instructions. An officer using the devices must follow the manufacturer's directions; any deviation could invalidate the test.

Sixth, the regulation does not address the situation where a device malfunctions or is not available. If an officer cannot use the prescribed device (e.g., it is broken), they cannot lawfully conduct screening. They must wait until a functioning prescribed device is available. There is no fallback provision.

Seventh, the regulation's statement requirements for oral fluid analysis (section 6) incorporate schedule 2 of the road transport regulation in full. That schedule may include very detailed requirements about labeling, sealing, and documentation of samples. A failure to comply with any of those details could undermine the evidentiary value of the analysis. Given that oral fluid analysis is the confirmatory test, the stakes are high.

Eighth, the regulation does not mention the admissibility of test results if the statement is not given at the time of testing. The Act may require the statement to be given "as soon as practicable" or "immediately". If there is a delay, the statement might be late, but the regulation does not clarify whether a late statement still complies. This is a potential loophole for challenge.

Ninth, the regulation's amendment history shows that devices can be substituted without transitional provisions. If an older device was in use at the time of the amendment, tests conducted with that device after the amendment date are invalid. Operators and officers must ensure they have replaced old devices immediately upon the amendment's commencement. There is no grace period.

Tenth, the regulation is made under the Rail Safety National Law (ACT) Act 2014, but it does not apply to every railway in the ACT. There may be exemptions for heritage railways, tourist operations, or certain light rail systems. The regulation only applies to "rail safety workers" as defined in the Act, which may exclude some workers. A broad reading could be dangerous; a careful analysis of the Act's scope is necessary.

Finally, the regulation is silent on the cost of the prescribed devices. Rail operators and police forces must purchase these specific models. If a device is expensive or requires proprietary consumables, the compliance cost may be significant. The regulation does not provide for any subsidies or cost recovery.

Compliance with this regulation is largely a matter of ensuring the correct equipment is used and the correct paperwork is produced. Since the regulation is brief, the compliance burden is concentrated on a few actions.

For rail transport operators and testing authorities (typically the police or workplace health and safety units):

1. Acquire and maintain only prescribed devices. As of 29 July 2025, the only lawful alcohol screening device is the AlcoQuant 6020 (section 3). The only lawful drug screening devices are Clonal Technologies Oral Fluid Drug Test 7, MedVet Oral7, and Oranoxis ToxWipe Oral 7+ (section 4). The only lawful oral fluid analysis instrument is the Shimadzu LCMS-8060 (section 5). Any other device must not be used for statutory testing. Operators should purchase these models and ensure they are in good working order, regularly calibrated (where applicable), and used in accordance with manufacturer instructions. Keep records of purchase, calibration, and maintenance.

2. Train authorised persons on the use of these specific devices. Training should cover not just the technical operation but also the documentation requirements. Ensure that officers know that only the prescribed devices are permitted.

3. Prepare written statements for breath analysis in compliance with section 5A. This means:

   • Include the authorised person's name or service number and their signature.
   • If the worker was taken into custody under section 14 of the Act for the analysis, include the police officer's service number and signature (the officer who took the worker into custody, not necessarily the analysing officer).
   • Include all the particulars listed in schedule 1 of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Regulation 2000, except items 4 and 5. You must obtain the current version of that schedule. Check that the schedule has not been amended since the last review.
   • The statement can be a physical document or an electronic record, provided it meets the legal requirements of a "written statement". It should be given to the worker - presumably at the time of the analysis or as soon as practicable thereafter. A copy should be retained.
   • Note that giving this statement also satisfies the notice requirement under section 15(7) of the Act, so no separate notice is needed.

4. Prepare written statements for oral fluid analysis on samples from workers in custody, under section 6. This requires including all the particulars from schedule 2 of the same road transport regulation. Again, check the current version of that schedule. The statement must be given to the worker as required by section 21(4) of the Act. Ensure the statement includes all chain-of-custody details and analysis results as specified in schedule 2.

5. Regularly review the road transport regulation for amendments to its schedules. Because the regulation incorporates those schedules by reference, any change affects rail safety compliance. Consider subscribing to notifications for that regulation or assigning a compliance officer to monitor changes.

6. Audit testing procedures and documentation. Periodically check that the correct devices are being used and that statements are being completed correctly. Spot-check completed statements against the regulatory requirements. Any non-compliance should be rectified immediately and steps taken to prevent recurrence.

For rail safety workers who are tested:

1. Know your rights. You are entitled to receive a written statement after a breath analysis that includes the prescribed particulars. You are also entitled to a statement after an oral fluid analysis on a sample taken while in custody. If the statement is incomplete or not given, ask for it. You may have grounds to challenge the test.

2. Request to see the device. You may ask to confirm that the alcohol screening device is the AlcoQuant 6020 or that the drug screening device is one of the three prescribed models. The officer should be able to show you the device's labeling. If it is not a prescribed model, note that fact and consider raising it later.

3. Keep a copy of any statement you receive. It may be crucial evidence in any subsequent proceeding.

For lawyers advising clients in the rail industry:

1. Verify the devices used in any testing that forms the basis of a charge or disciplinary action. Check the date of the test against the amendment history. If the test occurred after 29 July 2025, the new devices apply. If it was before, the old devices applied. Use the amendment history to determine which devices were prescribed at the time.

2. Scrutinise the written statements for compliance with sections 5A and 6. Obtain a copy of the road transport regulation's schedules in force at the time of the test. Compare every item. Any omission could be grounds to exclude the evidence.

3. Consider whether custody was lawful. If the worker was not taken into custody, the requirement for the police officer's service number and signature does not apply. But if the worker was in custody and those details are missing, the statement is defective.

4. Monitor future amendments. The regulation may be amended again to prescribe new devices. Advise clients to stay current with equipment purchases and training.

5. Cross-border issues. If the worker operates across state borders, note that each jurisdiction may prescribe different devices. A test conducted in New South Wales using a device not prescribed in the ACT may not be admissible in ACT proceedings.

Overall, compliance is achievable with a methodical approach to equipment procurement, training, and document review. The key is to treat the cross-referenced road transport regulation as integral to this regulation, and to keep track of amendments to both.