I am confused who is at fault in this case?  The truck driver should not have proceeded through the rail crossing when the train there.

Does not say if it was a protected or non protected crossing.

Truckie's acute view blamed for rail crash

If you go to the Australian Transport Safety Bureaus report this article precis's badky it mentions that it was a passive crossing which due to it's angle didn't conform to the national standards.  The angle was such that it was not possible to see the track out the left hand side of the truck cab (ie you would be looking our the rear passenger side window in a car).  

In short the angle of the crossing was such that the truck driver couldn't see the train while in the driver's seat no matter how far they leant forward even with the seatbelt off.   Unfortunately it was an accident waiting to happen.

A lot of utes and vans have similar vision issues, particularly when loaded so the crossing should have had flashing lights (or been an active crossing).  The report states that the driver stopped, looked, couldn't see or hear the train then moved on believing there was no train.

Given this was a preventable systemic failure, not an accident, I would like to see every bureaucrat who approved the continued operation of the crossing in that configuration standing in the dock with the driver and taking an equal share of the sentence.

If they don't face the music, he shouldn't either.

The fact that no incidents happened that caused the crossing to be notorious, over many years might tell you something.

The design of some modern vehicles leaves a lot to be desired in regard to visibility around pillars.

If the determination is that we now need to comp-ly with the vehicle rather than the vehicle comply with the infrastructure, I suggest that these types of crossings should be closed.

https://www.railpage.com.au/f-t11384595-0-asc-s100.htm

This thread has a bunch of discussion on this already.