Principles of Business Governance
The fact that the national park comes under the jurisdiction of the state property, regulation to access to normal people would not interfere with the freedom of movement law (Alrc.gov.au, 2016).
In this case study, the issue is Mary, a cyclist had been restricted to have access to the Ellenbrook National Park. According to the Restriction of Entry bill suggested by National Park, the vehicular access to the park needs to be circumvented. This bill has been passed to address the situation of heavy traffic in the Ellenbrook National Park.
The heavy traffic was due to the fact that the park is located on Commonwealth land and has been a center for leisure, unwinding and recreation for the people such as bushwalkers, cyclists and family picnickers living in that area.
However, this heavy traffic has affected the serenity offered by the park to these visitors and increased vehicular access only worsened the scenario. Therefore, this bill has been passed to control the traffic in the park located in the commonwealth area and it suggests no vehicular access to this park (Ison, Merkert, & Mulley, 2014).
However, in this scenario, vehicles can be elaborated as the object which can lead to traffic and it does not apply to objects like bicycles as this does not come under the segment of vehicles.
So, the law stated in the bill does not restrict the cyclists to have access into the park and Mary has every right to cycle around the park. Any cyclists using her bicycle to cycle around the park would not be violating the provision of the Entry bill.
Under the protocols of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conversation Regulations, 2000 (Cth), the director of the park has the authority to restrict access to the Commonwealth areas on a permanent or temporary basis (Alrc.gov.au, 2016).
For example – visitors are not allowed to have access in the sacred sites of Kata Tjuta National Park. As stated by Section 5 of the Act, only vehicle would be restricted while getting entry into the park and Mary has not been driving any vehicle.
Therefore, the park ranger did not have the authority to hold her access to the park on any legal ground. Moreover, other factors need to be taken into consideration such as for the last 20 years, Mary had been visiting this park every weekend for cycling.
Hence, she had been a regular visitor and entitled by law to access the park. Thus, in this scenario, the steps taken by the park ranger by blocking Mary to have access to the park were quite irrational and do not come under the provision stated by the Bill.
Evaluating the case the fact that has been identified is Yvonne decided to leave her bag that consists of notebook computer and her other personal belongings to the Western Rail Cloakroom, where she paid $ 5 and received a ticket at the counter.
There was a signboard above the counter which had conditions written on it, the instructions were also being in scripted on back of the ticket where several clauses related to Western Rail were stated one such was that Western Rail will not be responsible for any package that exceeds the value of $ 50.
The issue that was noticed in the case was that once, she returned and presented her ticket she found out that her notebook laptop worth of $ 2500 and personal valuables of $ 500 were missing. And for the same as the instructions, Yvonne cannot claim for the full loss of $ 3000.
No, as per the policy of Railway Safety National Law Act 2015, Yvonne cannot claim for the full loss of $ 3000. As, per the legislation and governance rule if any passenger has belongings of more than $ 50, then it is of their consent to convey it to the concerned authority about the belongings (Onrsr, 2019).
If Yvonne had reported that she had personal belonging of more than $ 3000 then the authority would not have issued her a $ 5 ticket. There is whole different provision for the electronic gadgets for which there is another set of policies such as the individual had to fill up the personal details along with information of their belonging upon which the value of ticket would have been generated (Parliament, 2019).
Example- Brendan Podger while his way to Melbourne CBD deposited his belongings in the station room, where he was given a ticket and instructions clearly mentioned that valuables lost will not be responsible by the railway authority.
When Brendan arrived and claimed his belonging he found out that one of his mobile was missing from the bag, when enquired the concerned authority notified him about the instructions and told him to file a complaint with the lost and found department of railway division under Railway Safety National Law Act 2015.
Concluding the case it can be stated that although she cannot claim for the full loss of $ 3000, but she can file lost and found complain with the railway authority, where she needs to address full details about her belonging and as per the law of Railway Safety National Law Act 2015, it will take 7 working days to process her complaint and if the lost items are found then it will be communicated to her accordingly.
Yes, if Western Rail had allowed the third party to claim Yvonne’s big and contents inside without producing a ticket then my answer would have been changed. My answer will have been different as because in the earlier situation
The issue raised when Yvonne lost his belongings that she had kept with Western Rail. The railway department had provided ticket which had all the information on the back of it, and there was clear instruction that if the goods are of more than $ 50, then the management will not be responsible if the items get lost. Therefore, it was her duty to read all the instructions carefully before depositing their valuables with the Cloakroom.
Application of law in this case study has identified that the third party neither provided any tickets nor did they provided any specific instructions to Yvonne therefore, she can claim for her loss.
Moreover, under the law of Railway Safety National Law Act 2015, if the personal belong of the Passengers gets lost under their supervision then the Railway Department holds the accountability of paying the compensation to the passengers (Legislation, 2019).
While, evaluating this case it has been noticed out that Yvonne did not pay attention to the instructions and deposited her belonging, therefore it was on her own risk and therefore she did not hold any passion to claim for her compensation as she lost her belonging of $ 3000.
Whereas, if the case is compared with that of the example, there Brendan Podger cannot also claim for the loss, as instructions were being provided to him.
Therefore, the concluding evidences that have been gathered after evaluating the situation is that if the third party does not provide any ticket or instructions then Yvonne has the right of claiming for her lost items.
If there had not been the situation where there were no instructions above the counter or no mention of any instructions in face of the tickets than it would have been possible for Yvonne to claim for her lost belonging of $ 3000.
It was the instruction that made her restricted to sue Western Rail as because as per the guidelines if any passengers had any costly items then they should report it to the Railway authority so that they can issue special tickets against it. But if the situation were being different such as if the ticket provided to her had no conditions then the situation would been different for Yvonne.
Such as Under the Railway Safety National Law Act 2015, if there is no provision of instructions mentioned with any tickets or no guidelines mentioned then the Western Railway will be liable to pay for the compensation of lost items that Yvonne has suffered due to the negligence of the concerned authority (Austlii, 2019).
Moreover, there is also a provision that has been laid down by Railway Safety National Law Act 2015, such as if there is no instructions clearly made by the railway management then they will also might have to suffer from legal consequences if any belongingness of the person get lost under the surveillance of the railway management.
Hence, if there were no instructions then she could have been claiming for her belongings from the Western Rail, furthermore if any damages would have been suffered by the product then appropriate compensation needs to be provided to the railway management.
Alrc.gov.au. (2016). Laws that interfere with freedom of movement. Retrieved September 25, 2019, from Alrc.gov.au: https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/traditional-rights-and-freedoms-encroachments-by-commonwealth-laws-alrc-report-129/7-freedom-of-movement/laws-that-interfere-with-freedom-of-movement-2/
Austlii. (2019, September 24). RAIL SAFETY NATIONAL LAW (WA) ACT 2015. Retrieved from RAIL SAFETY NATIONAL LAW (WA) ACT 2015: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/rsnla2015260/
Ison, S., Merkert, R., & Mulley, C. (2014). Policy approaches to public transport at airports—Some diverging evidence from the UK and Australia. Transport policy, 35(1), 265-274.
Legislation. (2019, September 24). Rail Safety National Law (WA) Regulations 2015. Retrieved from Rail Safety National Law (WA) Regulations 2015: https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_13704_homepage.html
Onrsr. (2019, September 24). Legislation. Retrieved from Legislation: https://www.onrsr.com.au/about-onrsr/legislation
Parliament. (2019, September 24). Rail Safety National Law (WA) Regulations 2015. Retrieved from Rail Safety National Law (WA) Regulations 2015: http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/publications/tabledpapers.nsf/displaypaper/3913533ce8c69a07e1b62fbd48257ee50004aba3/$file/tp-3533.pdf