Thursday, 2 November 2023

Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

Introduction and first reading

The PRESIDENT (17:22): I have a further message from the Assembly:

The Legislative Assembly presents for the agreement of the Legislative Council ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the Bus Safety Act 2009, the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017, the Marine (Domestic Commercial Vessel National Law Application) Act 2013, the Road Management Act 2004, the Road Safety Act 1986, the Sentencing Act 1991, the Transport Accident Act 1986, the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983, the Transport Integration Act 2010 and other Acts and for other purposes’.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (17:23): I move:

That the bill be now read a first time.

Motion agreed to.

Read first time.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I move, by leave:

That the second reading be taken forthwith.

Motion agreed to.

Statement of compatibility

Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (17:24): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 (the Bill).

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with the human rights protected by the Charter. I have this opinion for the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of the Bill

The Bill amends the Bus Safety Act 2009 (Bus Safety Act), the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act ‍2017 (CPVI Act), the Marine (Domestic Commercial Vessel National Law Application) Act 2013, the Road Management Act 2004, the Road Safety Act 1986 (Road Safety Act), the Sentencing Act 1991, the Transport Accident Act 1986, the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 (TCM Act) and the Transport Integration Act 2010 (Transport Integration Act).

The Bill also makes minor and technical amendments to other acts.

Relevantly to human rights, the purpose of the amendments to the Bus Safety Act is to provide for a bus driver accreditation scheme for drivers of commercial bus services that is aligned with the accreditation scheme for drivers providing commercial passenger vehicle services under the CPVI Act.

The relevant purpose of the amendments to the CPVI Act is to amend the provisions in relation to review of administrative decisions and in relation to information sharing arrangements.

The relevant purposes of the amendments to the Road Safety Act are to extend the time for which someone is subject to a zero blood or breath alcohol concentration requirement following the removal of an alcohol interlock condition, to expand the powers of police officers and protective services officers with respect to persons who are incapable of having proper control of a vehicle and to provide for requirements relating to vehicle sharing schemes.

The relevant purpose of the amendments to the TCM Act is to amend the Act in relation to use and disclosure of public transport movement information.

The relevant purpose of the amendments to the Transport Integration Act is to make changes consequential to the establishment of Safe Transport Victoria (STV).

Human rights issues

The human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill are the right to freedom of movement in section 12, the right to privacy in section 13(a), the right to not be deprived of property other than in accordance with law in section 20, the right to a fair hearing in section 24(1), the rights in criminal proceedings in section 25, the right not to be tried or punished more than once in section 26 and the protection against retrospective criminal laws in section 27.

Freedom of movement (s 12)

Section 12 of the Charter relevantly provides that every person lawfully within Victoria has the right to move freely within Victoria. The right extends, generally, to movement without impediment throughout the State, and a right of access to places and services used by members of the public, subject to compliance with regulations legitimately made in the public interest. The right is directed at restrictions that fall short of physical detention (restrictions amounting to physical detention fall within the right to liberty, protected under section 21 of the Charter) and may include freedom from physical barriers and procedural impediments. The right may also extend to protection of access to, or use of, facilities necessary to enjoy freedom of movement (such as vehicles).

The Bill limits the freedom of movement by operation of several provisions which amend the Road Safety Act.

Clause 44 of the Bill provides that a person will be subject to a zero blood or breath alcohol concentration (BAC) requirement for 3 years following the removal of an alcohol interlock condition. Clause 46 of the Bill expands existing police powers which currently allow an officer to take reasonable steps to prevent an incapable person from driving a motor vehicle to incorporate not just the motor vehicle that the person was driving or about to drive, but any other vehicle (whether motorised or not). Finally, clause 47 of the Bill prohibits the use of electric scooters on freeways and provides the power for police to remove these scooters from freeways. These provisions may operate to limit a person’s right to freedom of movement by imposing limitations on when and where a person may freely travel in their vehicle.

However, in my view, any such limitation will be reasonable and demonstrably justified having regard to the factors in section 7(2) of the Charter. Each of the new provisions are directed at the protection of public safety by mitigating the risk of a person operating a vehicle in a dangerous manner, including in a way that may result in serious injury and/or death. The extension of the requirement of a person to maintain a zero BAC while driving also sends a clear regulatory signal that they must continue to separate drinking from driving when their alcohol interlock condition is removed. The minor expansion of police powers to allow officers to prohibit a person from using not just the motor vehicle that the person was driving or about to drive, but any other vehicle (whether motorised or not), remains subject to the existing and appropriate safeguards in section ‍62 of the Road Safety Act including that the officer needs to hold the opinion on ‘reasonable grounds’ that the person is incapable of having proper control of the vehicle and that the detention of any keys or vehicle is not to be for any longer than is necessary having regard to the interests of the driver or the public. Accordingly, I consider these provisions represent a reasonable and proportionate response to the legitimate purpose of regulating drivers in the interests of public safety on the roads. Further, under section 38 of the Charter, the powers in preventing an incapable person from using a vehicle or removing an electric scooter from a freeway must be exercised by police or protective service officers in a manner that is compatible with human rights. For these reasons, I consider that these provisions are compatible with the right to freedom of movement in the Charter.

Right to privacy (s 13)

Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. An interference will be lawful if it is permitted by a law which is precise and appropriately circumscribed, and will be arbitrary only if it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable, in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought.

Clause 6 of the Bill amends the Bus Safety Act to require a person to provide certain personal information as part of their application for accreditation as a driver. Clauses 21 and 22 amends the CPVI Act to expand the power of the regulator to share sensitive information, defined as information obtained in exercise of functions and that is, or is stated to be, confidential or commercially sensitive in nature, with other agencies under information sharing arrangements. Clause 75 inserts new section 115U into the Transport Integration Act to allow STV to disclose and publish information collected in the exercise of its functions where it is considered necessary for the safe operation of bus or marine transport. Clause 63 amends the TCM Act to allow public transport movement information, defined as information or data relating to the movement of an individual into, out of or within a carriage or ticketed area and which includes myki data and CCTV footage and live feeds, to be used and disclosed in particular ways. The new provision (section 221) relevantly allows for the information to be used and disclosed by a relevant entity in connection with the Act or regulations, including for a legal proceeding, for a prescribed purpose or in accordance with a direction of the Minister. The new provision also allows for disclosure to certain certified people.

While not all information required under these clauses will be of a private nature, or be information concerning a natural person, as opposed to information concerning a corporation to which the Charter does not apply, the power afforded to an entity to collect, use and share information or documents may engage the right to privacy. However, to the extent that these provisions do require disclosure of personal information, this will occur in lawful and not arbitrary circumstances.

The requirement for a prospective driver to provide certain personal information to STV under the Bus Safety Act is clearly linked to the legitimate aim of properly assessing the application to ensure a prospective driver meets the relevant legislative requirements and is a fit and proper person to be accredited as a driver. The aim is important as matters of driver suitability are critical to safeguarding the health and safety of the public. The requirements will apply to prospective drivers who are voluntarily seeking to work in a regulated industry where special duties and responsibilities attach.

Amendments to the CPVI Act which expand the power of the regulator to share sensitive information with other agencies is particularly aimed at allowing the regulator to share data with the State Revenue Office to ensure that commercial passenger vehicle owners and operators are complying with their levy obligations under the Duties Act 2000. This data is highly unlikely to be private information concerning natural persons to which the Charter will apply. In any event, the provisions allow for the sharing of information in the specific circumstances outlined in the sections and the expansion serves a legitimate purpose, being to facilitate the effective administration of the CPVI Act and related legislation and to assist in compliance monitoring and enforcement activities where appropriate.

Amendments to the Transport Integration Act allows information to be disclosed and published (in a de-identified form). The provisions are circumscribed in their scope and only allow for the disclosure and publication of information where STV considers it necessary to do so for the safe operation of bus and marine transport. This serves the legitimate purpose of assisting STV to effectively administer the Transport Integration Act and other related legislation and to fulfil one of its key objectives in seeking the highest possible bus and marine safety standards.

Amendments to the TCM Act allows public transport movement information, including myki data and CCTV footage and live feeds to be used and disclosed in particular ways. The provisions are circumscribed in their scope and only allow for the use and sharing of information in the specific circumstances outlined in the sections, including for the legitimate purpose of administering the TCM Act and for a legal proceeding. The power to make further regulations or directions for the use and sharing of this information is reserved for where the need to use or share this information cannot be wholly anticipated or may need to be done in urgent circumstances. In any event, these circumstances will be specified in future regulations and in directions which are required by the TCM Act to be published unless it is inappropriate to do so. As such, the circumstances in which public transport information may be used and disclosed will be clear on the public record in all but exceptional circumstances.

I therefore consider that any interference with the right to privacy resulting from these provisions will be neither unlawful nor arbitrary.

Right to property

Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. This right requires that powers which authorise the deprivation of property are conferred by legislation or common law, are confined and structured rather than unclear, are accessible to the public, and are formulated precisely.

The Bill engages the right to property by operation of several provisions which amend the Road Safety Act. These are the same provisions identified above in relation to the right to freedom of movement being clauses 44, 46 and 47 of the Bill. These provisions engage the right to property as each imposes conditions on where and how a person may use their vehicle, which may affect elements that comprise the bundle of proprietary rights, such as the right to enjoyment of their property.

However, in my view, to the extent that these provisions constitute a deprivation of a proprietary right (such as enjoyment of property) this Bill does not act to limit the right to property as any interference with this right is done according to legislation which clearly specifies the scope and circumstances of the allowable conditions which can be imposed on the use of a person’s vehicle, and does so for legitimate purposes. As outlined above, section 62 of the Road Safety Act lists the criteria for officers to exercise their powers to prevent a person from using a vehicle. Further, section 68A of the Road Safety Act, as amended by clause 47, provides a clear prohibition on the use of electric scooters on freeways without reasonable excuse and where not otherwise authorised. Clause 44 also creates an express statement that people who have been subject to an alcohol interlock condition will be subject to a further 3 year zero BAC requirement after the alcohol interlock condition is removed. The interlock condition remains in place for a specific, defined time period which I am satisfied is no longer than is necessary to ensure that the person continues to separate drinking and driving after the interlock is removed from their vehicle. For these reasons, I consider that these provisions are compatible with the right to freedom of property in the Charter.

Right to a fair hearing (s 24)

Section 24(1) of the Charter relevantly provides that a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing. The concept of a ‘civil proceeding’ is not limited to judicial decision makers, but may encompass the decision-making procedures of many types of tribunals, boards and other administrative decision-makers with the power to determine private rights and interests. While recognising the broad scope of section 24(1), the term ‘proceeding’ and ‘party’ suggest that section 24(1) was intended to apply only to decision-makers who conduct proceedings with parties. As the administrative decisions at issue here do not involve the conduct of proceedings with parties, there is a question as to whether the right to a fair hearing is engaged.

In any event, if a broad reading of section 24(1) was adopted and it was understood that the fair hearing right was engaged by this Bill, this right would nonetheless not be limited. The right to a fair hearing is concerned with the procedural fairness of a decision and the right may be limited if a person faces a procedural barrier to bringing their case before a court, or where procedural fairness is not provided. The entire decision-making process, including reviews and appeals, must be examined in order to determine whether the right is limited.

Review rights of administrative decisions

The new provisions inserted into the Bus Safety Act (clauses 3–11 of the Bill) which provide for a bus driver accreditation scheme for drivers of commercial bus services may engage the right to a fair hearing. Decisions made by the newly established STV in relation to disciplinary action against drivers are made pursuant to a show cause process whereby the driver is notified of the proposed disciplinary action, the grounds of this proposed action are specified and the driver is provided with the opportunity to make written submissions in response (new section 55Y). STV is required to provide reasons for any decision in relation to disciplinary action or accreditation and notify the driver or prospective driver of their review rights (pursuant to new sections 55P, 55Q, 55T, 55V and 55ZA). Except for a decision made to refuse accreditation on the grounds set out in new section 55O(2) or to cancel a driver’s accreditation pursuant to new section 55ZB, these decisions are subject to internal review (new section 58A). Finally, any decision made in relation to existing accreditations or taking disciplinary action towards drivers by STV (including the two decisions mentioned above which are not subject to internal review) will be subject to external review by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (new Division 4 of Part 6). This affords drivers a hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal and satisfies the requirements in section 24(1) of the Charter.

Clause 18 of the Bill amends the CPVI Act to remove the right of review in relation to a decision by STV or an authorised officer to direct a person to provide information, documents and related items. As outlined above, there is a significant question as to whether this power involves the conduct of proceedings, as these are powers of investigation or monitoring, rather than decisions that determine existing rights or interests. In any event, the nature of this power indicates that it is justifiable to limit review rights. These requests may be made by the regulator for compliance and investigative purposes. The requests apply to people who have chosen to assume roles in relation to the operation of commercial passenger vehicles and to which special regulatory and legal responsibilities and duties attach. Further, these are documents which are required under the CPVI Act to be kept by the person or are within their control and relate to relevant matters, and to be produced to the regulator - and are generally not, in the context of comparative regulatory regimes, subject to review. As such, the legitimate purpose of checking compliance with regulatory requirements and investigating possible breaches of the law justifies any limitation on fair hearing rights which may result from removing the right of review of this decision. Additionally, providing for review in relation to directions to produce documents would prejudice the efficient and prompt monitoring of compliance with the scheme, which ultimately serves to safeguard public safety.

As such, I conclude that the fair hearing rights in section 24(1) of the Charter are not limited by the provisions amending the Bus Safety Act or the CPVI Act.

Certain officers are immune from liability when exercising powers under the Act

The Bill inserts new section 115P into the Transport Integration Act, which establishes that the Chief Executive or an employee of STV are not subject to personal liability for their acts, decisions and omissions conducted in good faith under that or other Acts.

The fair hearing right is relevant to new section 115P as the right has been held to encompass a right of access to the courts to have one’s civil claims submitted to a judge for determination. Similarly, insofar as a cause of action may be considered ‘property’ within the meaning of section 20 of the Charter, new section 115P may also engage this right. Nevertheless, the new section 115P(2) provides that where actions or omissions of the relevant person give rise to a civil claim, liability is transferred to STV. Accordingly, the exclusion from personal liability under the provision will not interfere with the right to a fair hearing or constitute a deprivation of property, because parties seeking redress are instead able to bring a claim against STV. The provision also serves a necessary purpose by ensuring that the Chief Executive and employees of STV are able to exercise their duties effectively without the threat of significant personal repercussions and overall interference that responding to court claims has. Additionally, the Chief Executive and employees will still remain personally liable for any conduct not performed in good faith. Accordingly, this provision does not limit the rights to a fair hearing or property under the Charter.

Right to be presumed innocent (s 25(1))

Section 25(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. The right is relevant where a statutory provision allows for the imposition of criminal liability without the need for the prosecution to prove fault.

The Bill inserts a number of strict liability offences in relation to driver accreditation into the Bus Safety Act (clause 6), an offence imposing an obligation to obtain authorisation to operate vehicle sharing schemes into the Road Safety Act (clause 55) and offences in relation to the unauthorised use or disclosure of public transport movement information into the TCM Act (clause 63). These offences do not require proof of fault, being that the person or entity did so ‘knowingly or recklessly’.

The inclusion of these strict liability offences in the Bill is relevant to the right to be presumed innocent under s 25(1) of the Charter.

To the extent that this imposition limits the presumption of innocence, I consider that this limitation can be reasonably justified pursuant to the factors in section 7(2) of the Charter. Strict liability offences will generally be compatible with the presumption of innocence where they are reasonable, necessary and proportionate in pursuit of a legitimate objective. The strict liability offence in the TCM Act is aimed at deterring the unlawful or arbitrary interference with a person’s privacy by requiring that public transport movement information, which includes myki data and CCTV footage, is only used and disclosed for specified purposes. This assists to enhance compliance with regulatory requirements and to ensure that people’s privacy is only limited to the extent authorised and legitimately justified.

The strict liability offences in the Bus Safety Act and Road Safety Act are aimed at deterring actions which may endanger public safety including drivers operating vehicles without proper accreditation or in contravention of particular conditions and the operation of vehicle sharing schemes without regulatory oversight where proper safety controls may not be in place. This assists to enhance compliance with regulatory requirements and ultimately to protect the public on the roads. It is reasonable that the offences do not require proof of fault given significant harm to property and to people that can arise regardless of whether a person or entity acted intentionally or recklessly. Further the offences are reasonable in that they do not exclude the common law defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact, and they do not attract penalties of imprisonment.

For these reasons, the limitation to section 25(1) of the Charter is reasonable and justifiable within the meaning of section 7(2) of the Charter.

Right not to be tried or punished more than once

Section 26 of the Charter provides that a person must not be tried or punished more than once for an offence in respect of which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with law. This right reflects the principle of double jeopardy. However the principle only applies in respect of criminal offences - it will not prevent civil proceedings being brought in respect of a person’s conduct which has previously been the subject of criminal proceedings, or vice versa.

Penalties and sanctions imposed by professional disciplinary bodies do not usually constitute a form of ‘punishment’ for the purposes of this right as they are not considered to be punitive.

The new accreditation scheme inserted into the Bus Safety Act (clauses 3–11 of the Bill) which affords STV the ability to refuse accreditation or to undertake disciplinary action against a driver does not engage this right. This is because the purpose of each of these sanctions, for example the requirement that accreditation is refused where the driver does not hold a licence or has been convicted of particular serious offences, is imposed to protect the public from potential harm.

Similarly, the extension of the requirement of a person to maintain a zero BAC while driving following the removal of an alcohol interlock condition (clause 44) which acts to send a clear regulatory signal for the person to separate drinking from driving also acts to protect the person and the public from the risk of potential harm.

As these sanctions are for protective rather than punitive purposes they do not engage the right against double punishment set out in section 26 of the Charter.

Retrospective criminal laws

Section 27(2) of the Charter provides that a penalty must not be imposed on any person for a criminal offence that is greater than the penalty that applied to the offence when it was committed.

Clause 57 of the Bill expressly provides that the imposition of a requirement that a person has zero BAC while driving for a period of 3 years following the removal of any alcohol interlock conditions imposed under current sections 31KA, 31KB or 50AAA of the Road Safety Act will apply where the condition was imposed on the basis of at least two offences and the latest of those offences was committed on or after the commencement of the relevant provisions. Clause 57 further provides that the imposition of a requirement that a person has zero BAC while driving for a period of 3 years applies where a person would have had an alcohol interlock condition imposed if not for an exemption granted under section 50AAAD and the condition would have been imposed on the basis of at least two offences and the latest of those offences was committed on or after the commencement of the relevant provisions. The imposition of a zero BAC condition is in effect a regulatory condition to mitigate a person’s risk of driving impaired, and as such, constitutes a measure to protect the community. Accordingly, in my view it is unlikely to constitute a ‘penalty’ within the meaning of this right, and as such, does not engage this right.

Conclusion

I am therefore of the view that the Bill is compatible with the Charter.

Hon Harriet Shing MP

Minister for Housing

Minister for Water

Minister for Equality

Second reading

Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (17:24): I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Ordered that second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard:

Overview

The main purpose of this Bill is to continue the Government’s strong commitment to road safety and the delivery of the Road Safety Strategy, through enabling the conduct of a world leading research trial into medicinal cannabis and driving. While this is a road safety challenge, it is also an issue of human rights – we currently have a situation where Victorians are forced to choose between taking prescribed medicinal cannabis to treat medical conditions and being able to drive. The safety of all road users is our highest priority however, this Government recognises that many people prescribed medicinal cannabis have a genuine driving need. This Government is committed to further research to better understand the road safety risk profile associated with those taking medicinal cannabis, to support the Government establishing an evidence-based policy position on medicinal cannabis and safe driving. This Bill will create a mechanism to declare that specified provisions of the Road Safety Act 1986 do not apply for the purposes of the trial.

The Bill is also intended to further improve safety by protecting amenity and accessibility in public spaces in relation to e-scooter and bicycle (including e-bicycle) share schemes. Whilst e-scooters in Victoria have many benefits in terms of transport and mobility, there can be issues with shared scheme e-scooters or bicycles being left on footpaths or in other public places in a way that blocks access, introduces tripping hazards, or otherwise creates an impact on the use or amenity of public spaces. The Bill will give local government greater control over e-scooter and bicycle (including e-bicycle) share schemes within their local government areas.

The Bill will also support the implementation of other reforms in the transport portfolio by improving governance and better support the functioning of sector transport agencies by amending the Transport Integration Act 2010 to reflect Transport Restructuring Orders that establish Safe Transport Victoria as a sector transport agency and reconstitute the V/Line Corporation from a statutory corporation with a board to a single member corporation.

The Bill will also provide consistency across transport legislation by aligning bus driver accreditation under the Bus Safety Act 2009 with accreditation of drivers of commercial passenger vehicles under the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017.

Enabling research trials to provide an evidence-base for future road safety reforms

Victoria is a leader in medical cannabis in Australia. In 2016, Victoria became the first state in Australia to approve the use of medicinal cannabis under prescription for therapeutic uses. We are now faced with a road safety and human rights challenge – where Victorians are forced to choose between taking prescription medicinal cannabis and having the freedom of being able to drive for work, education or family purposes. This is because it is not legal to drive while there is presence of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in the person’s system, not whether they are actually impaired at the time of driving the vehicle. Given THC can remain in a person’s system for a number of days, Victorians using medicinal cannabis are effectively banned from driving long after they become unimpaired from using this prescribed medication.

To address this situation, it is necessary to conduct world leading research to expand our knowledge of the impairment medicinal cannabis causes on driving, while ensuring the safety of all road users. This will be an Australian first. The reforms in this Bill will allow the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, in consultation with other relevant Ministers, to designate a road safety research trial and declare that specified provisions of the Road Safety Act 1986, or rules or regulations made under that Act, either do not apply or apply in a varied form to trial participants for the purposes of the trial.

Research trials will not be limited to the use of medicinal cannabis. This amendment will allow for the declaration of trials for a range of road safety initiatives. This provides flexibility in testing the efficiency and efficacy of a range of other technologies and approaches to further expand the evidence-base for future reforms and continue to deliver improvements in road safety outcomes.

Greater power for local governments to manage e-scooter and bicycle share schemes

The use of e-scooters provided under share schemes is proving to be popular in Victoria, with Melbournians, in particular, taking up the devices in high numbers. E-scooters, as well as bicycles and e-bikes, made available via share schemes are a useful and popular mode of transport for people wanting to travel short distances. They help ease congestion, they’re an affordable mode of transport and provide first/last mile access to public transport.

To ensure the safety of e-scooter riders, pedestrians and other road users, the Victorian Government has enabled the use of e-scooters through trials throughout Victoria under certain conditions. E-scooter riders using these devices as part of the trial are required to follow road safety rules, including the wearing of helmets and restrictions on speed and where the e-scooters are able to be lawfully ridden.

Whist there are many positives of e-scooters provided under share schemes, they can also present challenges for local governments. As these devices are provided for hire in public spaces and are not required to be returned to any particular location, there can be issues with e-scooters or bicycles being left on footpaths or in other public places in a way that blocks access, introduces tripping hazards, or otherwise creates an impact on the use or amenity of public spaces.

The reforms in this Bill will provide local governments with control over how e-scooter and bicycle share schemes operate in their municipalities. The reforms will effectively ban the provision of e-scooters and bicycles by share scheme operators in a local government area unless the operator has an agreement in place with the relevant council.

The obligation will be on the share scheme operator to ensure that the vehicles available in their scheme are only used in areas where they have an agreement with the relevant council. It will be an offence for a share scheme operator to make an e-scooter or bicycle available for hire in a given local government area without such an agreement.

Councils will also be able to set the conditions on how such schemes operate. The agreements between share scheme operators and councils will be required to specify the types of vehicles that can be made available for hire but can include a range of other matters including the period of time the scheme may operate, minimum service standards, and insurance requirements.

This reform strikes an appropriate balance between making the use of e-scooters and other vehicles available for use while maintaining Councils’ ability to ensure the amenity, use and safety of public spaces.

Other roads and road safety reforms

In addition to the road safety reforms above, the Bill contains other minor amendments to legislation in the Roads and Road Safety portfolio to ensure their effective operation. These amendments include:

• Ensuring that the removal of an alcohol interlock licensing condition imposed after a drink-driving offence is accompanied by the imposition of a ‘Zero BAC’ requirement to continue to support these drivers in their efforts to separate drinking from driving;

• Amending relevant sections in the Transport Accident Act 1986 to clarify that people who are exempted from paying the transport accident charge as part of the process of registering their vehicles are still fully covered by the protections available under the Transport Accident Act 1986 relating to traffic accidents;

• Extending the ability of police and protective services officers to prevent incapable persons from driving the motor vehicle in which they were detected, to be able to prevent incapable persons from driving any motor vehicle for a specified time;

• Repealing provisions in the Road Management Act 2004 relating to the establishment and functions of the Infrastructure Reference Panel and replacing them with a requirement to consult with relevant road authorities, utilities and public transport providers; and

• Other minor and technical amendments to the Road Safety Act 1986.

Clarifying the governance of sector transport agencies

Sector transport agencies are public bodies established under the Transport Integration Act 2010 to perform specified functions in Victoria’s transport network.

Part 4B of the Transport Integration Act enables the making of Transport Restructuring Orders (tros). Tros are Orders in Council that can be used to create new sector transport agencies, alter the constitution and membership of existing sector transport agencies, and modify the application of provisions in transport legislation. However, tros cannot be used to abolish an existing sector transport agency.

Tros provide a flexible mechanism for responding to changing priorities and circumstances and can be used to deliver better integrated and connected transport services for Victorians.

On 14 June 2022, a TRO made by the Governor in Council established Safe Transport Victoria (ST Vic) as a new sector transport agency, with responsibility for managing compliance, accreditation and registration for commercial passenger vehicles, buses, and the maritime sector. The TRO transferred to ST Vic all of the duties, functions and powers previously held by the Director, Transport Safety and the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Commission (CPVC).

On 29 June 2021, a TRO was used to convert the V/Line Corporation from a corporation with a board to a single member corporation. This was to bring V/Line more directly into the centre of Victoria’s public transport system, aligning and integrating V/Line with transport planning, Big Build project delivery, and decision making. Aside from necessary amendments to reflect this new constitution, the V/Line Corporation was otherwise continued as the same entity.

As a flexible mechanism, a TRO is able to be made more quickly than would otherwise be possible if legislative amendments were required to achieve the same result. However, tros are not intended to remain in force indefinitely. The amendments in this Bill will give full legal effect to the objectives of the above tros, delivering transparency and certainty and eliminating any legal risk of challenges to authority on technical grounds.

These amendments will also formally abolish the CPVC and the Director, Transport Safety.

More transparency in the sharing of data from the public transport network

The Bill contains two reforms to improve the sharing of information arising from the operation of the public transport system.

The Bill will amend the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 to improve transparency around the disclosure and use of information relating to the movement of people across the public transport network, including closed circuit television (CCTV) footage and data collected from the Myki ticketing system. Presently, the sharing of such information is only permitted through ministerial directions. The reforms in this Bill will replace this ministerial direction process with standard circumstances in which such information can be divulged and a power to make regulations to allow for any additional standard circumstances in future. The ministerial direction power will be retained for any novel or urgent circumstances, but it is expected that the standard circumstances set out in the Act and regulations will cover most situations.

This Bill will also amend the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017 to make it clear that information sharing agreements under that Act explicitly enable Safe Transport Victoria to share commercially sensitive trip data with the State Revenue Office to support the SRO with its compliance and enforcement functions in relation to the commercial passenger vehicle service levy.

Improve alignment between bus driver and commercial passenger vehicle accreditations

In 2017, the Victorian Government introduced a series of reforms to the commercial passenger vehicle industry, including those in the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017. These reforms created a separate, modernised scheme for commercial passenger vehicle (CPV) drivers but left the existing bus driver accreditation scheme unchanged.

This Bill introduces a modernised, best practice bus driver accreditation scheme to the Bus Safety Act 2009 and removes the previous scheme from the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983. As well as introducing best practice bus driver accreditation, the reform in this Bill will also result in administrative efficiencies as both bus driver and CPV driver accreditations are overseen by the same regulator, Safe Transport Victoria.

Other amendments to the Bus Safety Act 2009 will broaden Safe Transport Victoria’s ability to grant exemptions from some accreditation requirements where the regulator is satisfied that the person is already complying with the requirement.

The Bill also makes a range of technical amendments to improve the operation of the TIA, the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act, and the Marine (Domestic Commercial Vessel National Law Application) Act 2013.

Conclusion

This Bill represents another step in the Victorian Government’s continued commitment to improving transport safety and improving the lives of Victorians.

We need to continue to take action to develop the evidence-base for future road safety initiatives and to ensure that road and road safety legislation represents best practice, keeping the balance right, and ensuring that Victorians are safe on our roads.

We also need to maintain clear governance arrangements across the transport portfolio and to ensure that relevant legislation is clear and fit for purpose.

I commend the Bill to the house.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (17:24): I move:

That debate on this matter be adjourned for one week.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for one week.