Thursday, 16 November 2023

Bills

Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Lizzie Blandthorn:

That the bill be now read a second time.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:07): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. There are a few things that this bill does, but I want to start by talking about the changes related to drug driving to facilitate more substantive trials. As former Minister for Roads Ms Pulford would likely remember, because I asked her about it many times, I believe our drug driving laws are fundamentally unjust. The injustice stems from the fact that people can be charged with a road safety violation despite being completely sober, sharp as a tack and without any drugs in their possession. Due to having previously consumed one of the three substances tested for they can lose their licence. There is not an allegation that they are impaired or dangerous on the roads, and they are not charged with an offence under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981. This essentially amounts to being charged with drug use but under the pretence that it is a road safety charge.

You would not know this if you listened to statements from senior police after targeted operations or when commenting on individual cases. The language from the media, politicians and police usually implies or simply flat out states that people were impaired by drugs or charged with driving on drugs. Undoubtedly some of them are actually impaired, and no doubt the use of drugs can impair driving. But my point here is that the majority are not charged with that, and that is not proven. They are charged with driving with a prescribed amount of drugs in their system. There is a second drug driving offence that does actually find people guilty of impaired driving from drugs, but this is rarely used. When I asked former Minister Pulford about this, the written response noted that in the three years up to 2019 there were less than 200 of these tests done each year. I do not have updated statistics, but the most recent figures suggest that fewer of these assessments are being done.

While the measures in this bill do not actually resolve the flaws in our drug driving laws, they do represent a recognition from the government that the status quo is unacceptable, especially with more people now using medical cannabis. Now the injustice is compounded by people using a lawful medicine that is caught up in this flawed system. This bill will allow more substantive trials to better assess in what ways people are impaired and how we could better detect that.

I believe that a solution will be found but probably not in the way that people think. It is likely that this situation will eventually be resolved through the magic of technical innovation and capitalism. The current technology of oral saliva testing is not really fit for purpose. There are false positives and false negatives, and as I have explained, they do not actually test for impairment anyway. Modern technology is getting better at finding ways to determine impairment through eye tracking and responsiveness. When this is refined, I believe it will not only resolve the issues with drug driving but also help drivers to make our roads safer for everyone.

Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:10): I also rise to speak on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. May I say on the issue of transport that I cannot help but raise some issues in terms of my own region when it comes to transport, simply because we have such a great lack of public transport and availability. I often wonder if people want to have choices and not have to drive what they are going to do in the south-eastern region where we have such a lack of available buses and extensions of train lines. For instance, the train line was never extended to Cranbourne East or Clyde. What are these people supposed to do if they wish to not be on the road in a car or on an e-scooter? There really is not provision in a lot of areas for e-scooters or even e-bicycles because of a lack of lanes and the lack of safety given the number of cars that are gridlocked on our roads. I do see some other issues and challenges with this bill. I thank everybody that has come before me in terms of being able to speak on it.

There are obviously issues in Cranbourne. We have a gentleman that has been picked up with a positive result for cannabis. I do feel for a number of people and the issues that are out there. I have had a family member pass away, and the family was so desperate during those COVID times that they were willing to try anything and everything and felt that maybe cannabis use might have been a way to go. I am one that prefers the science. I want to see the documents, I want to see the research and I want us to be cautious in decisions that we make. I understand that with trials and driving we need to be really, really careful in what we do, because it is an issue if we are putting more lives at stake in order to be able to give people their liberties. These are things we need to think about.

I also want to raise, on the e-bike issue, that my son, who is living out this way, was recently hit by a car while on an e-bike. He was in a bike lane. Had the car been going just a little bit faster, he might not be with me today, so I am very thankful that we take the precautions necessary to be rigorous in the decisions that we make – that particular driver was just on their way to work and had nothing in their system. I sort of wonder: we need to be very careful, we need to be cautious, we need to think things through and we need to be looking at the research. I am very thankful that there are a lot of changes being made and that there are a lot of opportunities with this particular bill.

I cannot help mentioning that transport in the south-east has resulted in things like this government bringing in stabling yards in Heatherton. What an issue that is going to be for those local people. Where there was parkland, there will be a bunch of trains parked and in the way.

Whilst we are very, very thankful that there are rigorous changes being made and that we are looking at ways that we can upgrade acts and make them more relevant to today – and there are not any major concerns with this particular bill – the issue of medicinal cannabis is like a can being kicked down the road. I guess we are going to be looking at the details that are not provided in this bill.

I do also want to mention that the bus industry association has been incredibly disappointed that it was not consulted on the driver accreditation changes. It does not have any concerns with the issues in this bill but with the fact that it was not consulted. This government are constantly telling us that they are consulting with stakeholders, but if you are just talking but not really going and consulting and listening, then you are not really consulting, and that is a major issue. With something as big as this, when we are actually looking at transport issues, we are looking at changes, we are making amendments to things, consultation is vital. Not only does it tick people off in these various areas of the community where they are providing services, but it can allow particularly important information to be omitted or not considered when preparing a bill. So it is not just a matter of sitting down and getting on a computer and having a look through everything and trawling through and putting bits of data together and some numbers but of actually talking to the people concerned, who this is going to impact. That is incredibly important. So I do want to have that on record and note that the bus industry association was incredibly disappointed that it was not consulted in terms of the information in this bill, whilst it does not have any particular concerns with what is in here in principle.

I will say that the management of e-scooters is not an issue for us so much in the south-east, but I guess the question is: will it become that way in the future? If there is going to be this constant push to reduce emissions, then what are we looking at in places like the south-east, where people have no choice but to drive in cars because of the distance that they have to travel? It is already, can I say, over an hour in travelling time, maybe an hour and a half, one way for people who live, for example, in Cranbourne. Trust me; I know, because I have had to do those drives many, many times. But what are we doing if we do not actually provide the public transport for them and we do not even provide opportunities for e-bikes and e-scooters or any other option? If we are not looking at that in the planning and the development of these new areas, then we are not actually forward thinking, are we? We are not thinking it through: ‘We’re just going to cut this, cut that; we’re going to turn to this, turn to that,’ but the people that live in the south-eastern region have not been provided for. It is not even considered to be a rural area anymore, but it is made up of a number of former country towns, one being Berwick, another being Cranbourne, for instance. Some of these areas, even Clyde, up until not long ago were still paddocks. We are now finding that we have got housing development but we do not have the infrastructure in place to actually support that. So whilst we can see all the places and the people that were consulted, I think that if we are not actually going to go to those who are users or providers of these services, then we are not thinking through some of these things.

In terms of the Legalise Cannabis Party’s private members bill that was put forward in March, I think the coalition was very, very clear in acknowledging that there is a difficulty that medicinal cannabis users have. We are in a situation where we are open to looking at the data and the research. We are looking at the proposed research trials. We want to find permanent solutions. We are not interested in promoting things, though, that are going to cause more harm. As I said, I have already had a son hit by a car as a result of going to work on an e-bike. I can tell you that he did not have far to go, he was in a bike lane and he was obviously going at the speed limit. It does concern me that we could actually have lives being put at risk.

Whilst it is a great pleasure to be able to speak on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill, it is something that I think we need to consider. There are a number of issues that are involved in this particular amendment bill. It is good that there is some clarification that the government is providing. It is providing clarification and governance arrangements for various transport agencies, including V/Line, which is a good thing. It is looking at road safety reforms, speed cameras, speed detection devices and how they can be used with bikes and e-scooters, with rules around alcohol interlocks. But I think, again, the whole issue around cannabis and what that can do to people on the road is something that we need to genuinely consider. I do not want to have happen what happened to my son if somebody has been under the influence of something and impaired. I can say, as a person that in my time has had my fair share of pain and surgery, I have just simply accepted that when I have had to be on pain medication I could not drive – that was just how it was. These are things that we need to be aware of. You cannot expect to be able to take whatever you feel like and drive and think that there will be no implications. That is why the research is important. I am not saying that we are pooh-poohing these things; I am simply saying that we need more research.

We have questions. We can see some of the benefits. There are reasons for this bill to be amending legislation. There are some good points in here that we think are going to take us to the next level in terms of being a bit more careful and cautious. I do want to say too, as a former shadow minister for the TAC, part 7 of this bill corrects an anomaly of the government’s own making, which is free rego for apprentices – that policy raised concern that without paying a TAC third-party insurance charge motorists would not be covered by the TAC in the event of a serious injury or death. The correction in here is something that has been covered, so I would like to put that on the record and to say that that is a correction that perhaps was an oversight in the past and needed to be made.

I also just want to bring up the issue of PSOs preventing a person who is incapable of driving from not only driving their own vehicle but any other vehicle, whether motorised or not. That is in clause 6. It says that police and PSOs can prevent that person from doing that. On that issue, again we need to be mindful of people going behind the wheel. When they go behind the wheel, they are putting lives at risk. Every single one of us – if we are not alert, if we are not awake, if we are under any sort of influence, we can make mistakes, and it can cost lives. The families of the people that can be impacted by that have to live with that forever. I know that young people have gone to jail for manslaughter while on P-plates. Back in the day I remember all the young people used to be able to get in the back of a car and yahoo along after an 18th or a 21st, and the rules were not as they are now. The reason that people cannot do that now is because of a safety issue where people have lost their lives. I am pleased to see that there are some amendments being made here that could actually save lives.

Again I will just reiterate the fact that we always need to be aware of stakeholders. We need to make sure that we are constantly looking at that, and we need to be forward thinking. When it comes to transport and when it comes to the use of cannabis, the research needs to be there. We want to see the data. We want to know that when we are making a decision in this place that it is the right decision, that it is a decision that is going to protect lives in our community and that we are not going to be bringing something in that is going to be costly later, because a life can never be replaced. It might be somebody else, but it cannot be replaced.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (10:24): I rise to support the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. I want to start with the contributions from those opposite about the punctuality of trains in Gippsland. I find it incredible that those opposite – the very same people that ripped the trains out of Gippsland, out of towns like Korumburra, Leongatha and from Traralgon east to Bairnsdale – are talking about punctuality. I agree that we have to strive to get the punctuality of our trains up to their absolute peak level. We should be striving for that, and that is why this side is investing in the signalling, is investing in the train stations and is investing in level crossing removals to make sure that we get the best possible train services for Gippsland. Because it is not lost on me, it is not lost on the constituents of Gippsland, who pulled those trains out. I think it is very, very rich for those opposite to go on and on about the imperfections of the train line – the train line that we are investing in and we are bringing up to speed. I will tell you why it has taken a little while to get back: because you guys ripped it out. Everyone remembers exactly what you did and when you did it.

I am glad I addressed those points. There are a number of other things I would like to talk through in this bill. It does a lot of things – a lot of good things and a lot of important things. The purpose of this bill is to enable research trials to support evidence-based road safety policy, particularly in relation to medicinal cannabis trials; establish a legislative framework for local governments to manage issues in relation to vehicle-sharing schemes, such as e-scooters; implement important bus driver reforms; and implement changes to commercial passenger vehicle laws in relation to information sharing. It will enable Safe Transport Victoria to designate waters for the purposes of the National Standard for Commercial Vessels, clarify that persons exempt from paying the transport accident charge to the TAC are still fully covered for traffic accidents, reform the process for determining the disclosure and use of information in relation to the public transport network and support the efficient administration and regulation of the transport sector through a number of other improvements to the operation of those transport laws. This bill achieves these purposes by making amendments to a suite of acts, including the Road Safety Act 1986, the Road Management Act 2004, the Transport Accident Act 1986, the Bus Safety Act 2009, the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017, the Marine (Domestic Commercial Vessel National Law Application) Act 2013, the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous Act) 1983 and the Transport Integration Act 2010.

Part 2 of the bill implements important bus driver reforms. I think it is important to note that the government announced yesterday hydrogen buses are hitting the road as part of our work to ensure by 2025 that all buses purchased by the government will be net zero. This works alongside the investment and the trials that are being done with electric buses. I think that is another way we are showing that not only are we investing in public transport infrastructure and services, but we are also doing it to ensure that we meet our emission reduction standards.

It was around six years ago that the Andrews–Allan Labor government led a comprehensive reform of the commercial passenger vehicle, CPV, industry. The reforms created a separate, modernised scheme for commercial passenger vehicle drivers under the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017. However, the bus driver accreditation scheme remained unchanged. This bill will align the two driver accreditation schemes by establishing a bus driver accreditation scheme under the Bus Safety Act 2009. This scheme reflects best practices found in the commercial passenger vehicle driver accreditations scheme. This will both modernise the bus driver accreditation scheme as well as enable Safe Transport Victoria to find efficiencies in the administration of the aligned schemes. As part of the alignment, the bill will enable the recognition of driver accreditations between the two schemes. I am sure that this will be welcomed by both the bus industry and the commercial passenger vehicle industry. The bus safety reforms will also ensure Safe Transport Victoria’s, STV, exemption powers are aligned with commercial passenger and marine safety legislation.

I would like to take this opportunity to nod the hat to all of our bus drivers out there that do an incredible job, whether it is on our bus routes in our public transport services or whether it is indeed our school bus drivers, who do an incredible job every day of getting Victorians around the state and, whether it is from point A to point B or connecting to our train network or other bus services, connecting people all around the state.

Part 3 of the bill implements changes to commercial passenger vehicle laws in relation to information sharing. Safe Transport Victoria receives a significant amount of information from the commercial passenger vehicle industry. This enables Safe Transport Victoria to properly function as a regulator. Some of this information needs to be shared with other agencies. For example, Safe Transport Victoria may need to share information about commercial passenger vehicle services with the State Revenue Office to ensure that the CPV service levy is properly paid. The current process for this is prohibitively complex. The bill will enable Safe Transport Victoria to share information with appropriate external agencies through information-sharing agreements and will reduce administrative burdens.

Part 4 of the bill amends the Marine (Domestic Commercial Vessel National Law Application) Act ‍2013 to enable Safe Transport Victoria to designate waters. The National Standard for Commercial Vessels sets standards for domestic commercial vessels in Australia. To be effective these standards require the designation of areas of waters based on the safety characteristics of vessels. This ensures vessels are used on areas of water where they can safely operate. Regulations are needed to establish a process for Safe Transport Victoria to designate certain waters for the purpose of standards. This bill will provide for those regulation-making powers. I will take this opportunity to give a shout-out to all those Maritime Union of Australia members out there – an incredible union and an incredible history, with workers who have seen goods come and go from our island continent way back when. My great-uncle worked on the wharves for a very, very long time. These workers have played an incredible role in Australia and Victoria and will continue to do so into the future.

Part 6 of the bill proposes a number of road safety reforms. While the effects of alcohol on driver impairment are well known, the effects of other drugs and fatigue on impairment are less well understood. To continue to make our roads safer for all users, we ensure that this government’s decisions are based on robust evidence, hence we require research and trials on the effects of drugs and alcohol – including the combination of drugs and alcohol – and fatigue on driving. To allow such research trials to be lawfully conducted the bill proposes to empower the Minister for Roads and Road Safety to designate road safety research trials. This will allow participants in these trials to undertake behaviours which would otherwise be unlawful under road laws. The Minister for Roads and Road Safety will be required to consult with affected ministers before declaring a road safety research trial. This will ensure a coordinated and collaborative approach to road safety enforcement.

The bill also ensures that the existing three-year zero BAC requirement for all drink drivers is applied from the time the alcohol interlock licensing condition is removed. This will avoid circumstances where repeat or high-risk offenders are not subject to zero BAC requirements simply because of the length of the period the interlock condition is applied.

I just want to take a moment to talk about how proud I am of this government’s work over successive terms of government to lean into what have been not only nation-leading but world-leading inquiries and royal commissions into family violence and mental health – to be prepared to lean into the conversations about where Victorians are at and how we support them in their lives. These things are inextricably linked when we are talking about workers who perhaps have a physical injury and who are using drugs to support their pain management, or when there are mental health issues and alcohol is being abused and other drugs are being abused, whether that is to support mental health issues or physical pain issues. The fact that this government has been willing to lean in, to invest the time and energy to understand the issues and to invest the money to meaningfully go about supporting people in these issues loops back to the work that we have done on family violence. When we see mental health issues with drug and alcohol issues playing out – which are often the result of people starting in a place of pain or difficulty with their mental health – that is when these situations play out down the track. I am incredibly proud that we have leaned in and been willing to have meaningful conversations, meaningful investigations and meaningful investment in these issues for the people of Victoria. I think the benefits of these will play out for generations to come – because the easiest thing in the world to do is just throw the book at people and take a hard-nosed approach, which actually does not help people, which actually does not deal with trauma and which actually does not prevent trauma recurring in future generations.

Part 7 of the bill clarifies that persons exempt from paying the Transport Accident Commission charge are still covered for traffic accidents. Earlier this year the Allan Labor government made vehicle registration and the TAC charge free for eligible apprentices. This was part of our commitment to back hardworking apprentices and help to ease cost-of-living pressures. Easing cost-of-living pressures is such an important thing. It is anti-inflationary, and we are supporting people to get into the workforce. We know those opposite do not believe in TAFE and we know those opposite do not believe in training people up or in apprentices. They just want to leave it all to the free market, and then of course we see a shortage of people with the skills, with the knowledge, with the qualifications and with the commitment to work in our industries and our sectors to deliver for Victoria. That is actually inflationary, because then people, when they cannot get workers to do jobs and when they cannot get people with the relevant required skills and knowledge to complete the sometimes incredibly complex tasks we need to build the infrastructure that we need for our state, turn around and ask why they cannot get anyone. It is because the rug was pulled out from underneath people’s feet, and we saw that.

When I did my apprenticeship, I think we saw the last of the generation of people who through the 1990s had worn that set of overalls with one employer for all their life. That was their mindset. They were there to go to work every day to deliver for their employer, to deliver the services that the state needed, to deliver the infrastructure that the state needed and to do so professionally. Then it was a mindset of ‘Everyone can be a contractor. Everyone can come and go. It doesn’t matter about the quality of work. We’re going to rip TAFE apart’. We were not going to see the quality of training for workers of that next generation. That played out, but fortunately this side has reinvested in our TAFEs and has recommitted the state government to ensuring that there is an understanding in our community that we absolutely back and support people – whether it is young people or people who are retraining ‍– to get the skills they need to deliver what we need here in Victoria.

Part 8 reforms the process for determining the disclosure and use of information in relation to the public transport network. Entities involved in the operation of the public transport network hold records, such as ticketing data, on persons moving through the network. In certain situations there are public benefits to disclosing this data to other organisations; for example, the disclosure of CCTV records to the police for criminal investigations or the provision of Myki movement records to contact tracers during a pandemic. A more transparent process for determining how this information is used and disclosed will be introduced as part of this bill.

This bill also expands the flexibility in setting dimensional and mass limits associated with permit fees for large vehicles crossing railway or tramway tracks. I spoke earlier about the investment this government has made in not only our public transport from a metro perspective but our regional trains and transport system. I will take this opportunity to give a shout-out to all those working particularly on our rail network and our rail system – all those great workers – and the Rail, Tram and Bus Union of course, who do an incredible job in supporting their workers.

In my last 15 seconds, part 9 deals with the transport restructuring orders. The bill updates the Transport Integration Act to reflect the constitutional changes made to V/Line by the transport restructuring order. I am out of time.

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (10:39): This is an omnibus bill, so I will not speak to every aspect of it, but there are a few select areas that I just want to make some comments on this morning. I want to recognise that the establishment of the medicinal cannabis driving trial through the legislation will be of great interest to many Victorians. It is long awaited. My colleagues have spoken in this chamber on a number of occasions to encourage the government to take steps towards harmonising regulations that impact on the day-to-day lives of medicinal cannabis patients.

In 2016 qualified Victorian health practitioners were given the green light by this government to prescribe medicinal cannabis products for a whole range of conditions, and it is beyond a shame that it has taken this long for patients to be reassured that they will not face unnecessary consequences if driving whilst safely using their medication. We look forward to this being resolved for patients through this trial. We do note that the trials will be replicating very similar research to many other jurisdictions, and we trust that the impulse to ignore that established evidence base is not a regular feature of future bills.

However, it is really good to finally see progress. It is also good to see that scooter and bike share programs are being regulated in this bill, allowing oversight of these schemes as shared mobility options expand at a local level. This bill requires companies to make arrangements with local governments before introducing share schemes for e-scooters and e-bikes, which will allow local governments to regulate the way they operate, or to refuse them if they do not meet safety and community expectations. Clearly this is a positive step, but it falls short of how these modes of transport should and must fit into the larger transport picture in the future.

Legislating control over these schemes at the local government level instead of in a regulated uniform way across the state does perpetuate a fragmented system, and it completely misses an opportunity for a properly integrated short-distance, final-mile transport solution. As my colleague Dr Tim Read observed in the other place, under the current e-scooter trial e-scooters pile up along Brunswick Road and Nicholson Street because that is the boundary of the City of Yarra where they are allowed. Because they are GPS-limited to that LGA, they stop working as soon as you cross the boundary. That is one issue that is potentially going to persist if we have a patchwork of LGAs expanding these schemes. If companies also need to contract with individual councils, there is a risk of us ending up with adjacent councils contracting with different companies, meaning Victorians who just want to get from A to B on their scooter will need to switch from one company to another at the LGA border – not only a pointless inconvenience but adding extra cost as well. So while we welcome the move that allows for the expansion of these schemes to more of our neighbourhoods with local oversight, we do hope that the government remains on track to move swiftly to a statewide regulatory approach that helps this flexible and low-emission form of transport be more readily and conveniently available to more Victorians.

The bill also misses out in this regard on providing uniform solutions to safety and accident prevention. Emergency doctors have reported an increase in scooter injuries as they become more widely used, and the AMA have called on the government to have a statewide scheme in place to enable the sort of linked-up thinking that will help keep Victorians safe if they choose to use this mode of transport. The government does need to get serious about planning and investing in separated bike lanes to keep e-scooter and bike users safe. The government belatedly released its cycling strategy in 2018, but we are not moving fast enough on separated cycling infrastructure, and it has become even more necessary today with the advent of e-transport and population growth. The cycling strategy does state the obvious: that more people, particularly more women, will use active transport if it is made safe to do so. But this government simply has not invested in the relatively inexpensive infrastructure of separated bike lanes at the levels required to make vulnerable road users less vulnerable, and where it has, that rollout does tend to remain piecemeal, leaving people vulnerable for at least part of their trips.

This kind of fragmented and ad hoc approach to the issue of e-scooters and e-bikes is unfortunately still typical of our current approach to transport in this state. Government is spending a lot of money on welcome upgrades to the rail network, but it is not taking full advantage of those upgrades, with trains on existing services running about as frequently as they did a decade ago. Melbourne’s buses not only tend to run less frequently than trains, they also tend to run on 15-, 30- or 60-minute schedules, and that prevents them from syncing up with trains that are running every 20 or 40 minutes. Today we are seeing further confirmation, with the federal infrastructure review, as it becomes available, that Victoria’s approach to transport remains fragmented and ad hoc. The federal government’s review commented on that. Early excerpts from the report include that the review found that many of the cost blowouts were due to the ad hoc way in which the government is dealing with projects, noting it was not responsive to evidence of looming cost increases or aligned with long-term plans and strategies, and also that decision-making lacks transparency and consistency. We must address these issues going forward for the transport needs of our state.

There also appears to be not much evidence that the government is grappling with the stark fact that transport is Victoria’s second-largest and fastest-growing source of carbon emissions, as well as a significant cost pressure to families and absolutely crucial to connecting Victorians to jobs, education, friends and family. There is an urgent need to cut our transport emissions and enable Victorians to get around cheaply and conveniently, and electric micromobility – like e-scooters and e-bikes – has huge potential to be part of that solution. But for these technologies to reach their potential, the government needs to create and publish a real integrated transport plan – the one which has been required by legislation since 2010, which the government and the department still stubbornly refuse to comply with. An integrated transport plan would address how trains, trams and buses can be coordinated with each other; how e-bikes and e-scooters can help join the dots to provide that last mile of public transport trips; how to strike the right balance between cars and all other road users; and how to power our cars and vehicles with renewable electricity.

The Greens will support this bill but with some degree of frustration, as Victoria’s transport solutions should and could be so much better. What we see, again, is underwhelming and disappointing. We have a vision in the Greens for transport that is fit for purpose, focused on a whole-of-sector approach, bringing down emissions and bringing transport solutions that really work to get people from A to B. The Greens are pushing for a future where the people of Melbourne are not forced to pay huge amounts at the petrol pump every week; a future where your Myki can give you access to a comprehensive, coordinated, frequent and accessible electrified public transport network across the whole city anytime of the day or week; a future where you can easily unlock a shared e-bike to get you from the train station to your home; a future where that e-bike trip is safe and comfortable, on a bike lane protected from cars; and a future where our transport system really works for people and the environment.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:47): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, which is an extensive piece of legislation covering a wide range of matters, including enabling research trials to support evidence-based road safety policy, particularly in relation to medicinal cannabis; establishing a legislative framework for local governments to manage issues related to vehicle-sharing schemes, such as e-scooters and e-bikes; implementing important reforms relating to bus drivers as well as changes to commercial passenger vehicle laws in relation to information sharing; enabling Safe Transport Victoria to designate waters for the purposes of the National Standard for Commercial Vessels; clarifying that certain persons exempt from paying the Transport Accident Commission are still fully covered for traffic accidents; reforming the processes for determining the disclosure and use of information relating to the public transport network; and supporting the efficient administration and regulation of the transport sector through a number of other improvements to the operation of transport laws. There are a range of principal acts that this bill seeks to amend, including the Road Safety Act 1986, the Road Management Act 2004, the Bus Safety Act 2009, the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017, the Transport Integration Act 2010 and a few others.

Victoria has really been a leading light in road safety efforts in this country and globally. We have been world-leading in our efforts to improve safety on our roads. In 1970 we were the first jurisdiction in the world to introduce mandatory wearing of seatbelts. In 1976 we were the first state in Australia to introduce random breath testing. In the late 1980s we again became a world leader by introducing speed camera technology to help enforce compliance with our speed limits. In 2004 we were the first state to introduce mandatory roadside drug tests, and in 2008 we introduced our graduated licensing system. Victoria’s efforts in road safety not only have been leading the nation, and leading the world on several occasions, but they have saved lives. That is fundamentally what our road safety efforts need to be in aid of. There needs to be every effort made to ensure that Victorians do not die on our roads. I note the several very tragic incidents we have had recently on our roads across the state and the difficulties that they have caused for many families, and I acknowledge that the road toll here in Victoria is up on last year. That just goes to show that we must never think we have done enough on road safety and that vigilance in both policy and practice and improvements to our road safety system must always be at the forefront of our minds.

One of the things this bill does to aid those ongoing efforts that this government supports to improve safety on our roads is it enables the minister to designate road safety research trials. The purpose of these trials in general terms is to determine to what degree it is safe for someone to drive a vehicle after, for example, consuming drugs and/or alcohol and/or while affected by fatigue. It is part of our ongoing approach, informed by evidence and by science, about what is best from a regulatory point of view and an enforcement point of view to ensure that our roads are used safely and that people are not injured or do not tragically die on our roads.

The amendment in this bill relating to road safety is important, but it also has the potential to enable Victoria to remain at the leading edge of global efforts in relation to road safety. Obviously one of the big motivating reasons for this piece of legislation is to enable the trial with respect to medicinal cannabis that has been announced by the government, but it is not only about medicinal cannabis. The legislative framework enabled by the amendments in this legislation will facilitate other avenues – additional research to support ongoing work in the road safety area. Ultimately there is an initial idea about what this legislation will be used for, in relation to the trials of medicinal cannabis, but that could be expanded into different areas that we might not foresee today but which could impact on road safety tomorrow. It will ensure that the Victorian government’s efforts with respect to road safety remain leading edge and fundamentally ensure that our roads are safe for all road users. This could include things like better understanding the impacts and management of things like fatigue as well as illicit drugs but also prescribed medications.

The Victorian government earlier this year announced a trial to better understand the effects of medicinal cannabis on driving and driving impairment. The trial will enable participants to drive in a controlled environment after taking their prescribed medicinal cannabis without fear of breaking the law whilst participating in valuable research to inform Victoria’s approach to someone driving whilst having medicinal cannabis in their system.

Victoria in recent years has moved to have a regulated system of access to medicinal cannabis on prescription. I know that it is something that increasingly many members of the community are using in this safe and legal framework under the supervision of a doctor. Just up the road from my electorate office on Centre Road in Bentleigh there is a medicinal cannabis dispensary that is participating in this new legal and therapeutic prescription of cannabis products.

The challenge – and it has been well advocated for by our colleagues on the crossbench from Legalise Cannabis Victoria – is that the current road safety rules have a framework around the presence of some of the intoxicating substances in cannabis, THC, which means that any detectable amount of THC in a person’s system constitutes an offence against the Road Safety Act 1986, including if it is the result of prescribed medicinal cannabis. So through the advocacy that the members of Legalise Cannabis have made to this chamber and have made to the government and more broadly from people in the community, the government acknowledges this is an issue which needs further consideration, and the best way to do that is through a proper research study so that we can have evidence driving policy in this space.

The closed-circuit track trial will provide us with valuable information about how low levels of THC in a person’s system affect road usage, and whilst that learning is undertaken it will not endanger other road users. The proposed trial, which will be developed and implemented by an independent research organisation, will help us understand these issues, including how THC contained in medicinal cannabis impacts driving performance in different patient cohorts – because these things do not always affect everybody in the same way – and under different circumstances. We know that the circumstances on our roads and road conditions vary quite considerably from time to time, and everyone needs to adjust their driving to those conditions. The trial will enable this independent research to understand the impact of the presence of THC in someone’s system on their ability to respond to those changing road conditions.

More and more Victorians are turning to medicinal cannabis. We recognise this as a legitimate part of the therapeutic framework that is available to people. It could be for chronic pain. Some people use it to treat their anxiety, others for cancer-related symptoms. People are using it for epilepsy, multiple sclerosis and a number of other very important reasons. They, from evidence, are finding it very useful, but it does impact on their ability to drive under existing road rules and comply with those road rules. So the purpose of the trial facilitated by this legislation is to enable the government to be informed by independent evidence about those effects and make its decisions about what is best for all road users accordingly.

Briefly, before my time expires, I will just mention a couple of other things that this bill seeks to amend. One of them is obviously the establishment of a regulatory framework for vehicle-sharing schemes, e-scooter and shared e-bicycle schemes being the most obvious and common of these that will be regulated as a result of the changes here. For the past few years we have had a trial of e-scooters on our roads. They are a new form of technology, a new form of mobility, and it has been important to understand how they are used through the trial, which has been operating in some of the local government areas in metropolitan Melbourne but also in Ballarat. That has enabled government to understand usage patterns and behaviours and to establish and think about a regulatory framework that would sit around that to best regulate this new form of transport. There has also been an expansion of privately owned e-scooters in addition to those which are available under hire schemes like those run by Neuron or Lime.

The bill will introduce a new part to the Road Safety Act to govern these vehicle-sharing schemes. This is important because we know from the past that when bike-sharing schemes descended upon Melbourne the oBike hire bicycles cluttered our streets, and in that case the City of Melbourne but more broadly local governments have not had legal powers to compel the providers of these services to provide better services or manage the amenity and impacts and the nuisance that those bicycles in that instance were creating. The regulatory schemes enabled by this legislation will enable local governments to have that legal power and remove that deficiency from our regulatory framework to ensure that the new modes of transport can be properly and effectively regulated by local government, because fundamental to these sharing schemes is that they use public space to enable people to find and use the vehicles. Vehicles are parked in public spaces. Many of these areas are managed by the local council. It is a common part of our existence in the suburbs where they operate. What this trial will do, enabled by this legislation, is enable local governments to more effectively regulate these types of schemes. They will be able to listen to the desires of local residents. They will be able to take into account local conditions. It is a flexible system of regulation that can be tailored to the needs of local communities and the users of the vehicles – the e-scooters, for example – but also take into account the needs of local residents.

There are a range of other things that the bill does. I do not have time to go through them. Others in the context of this debate have been able to make those contributions. They are important amendments that we are seeing to our road safety, particularly in relation to the medicinal cannabis trial, and I am pleased to speak on the bill today.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:02): I also join colleagues here today in rising to speak on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. I do so having just crossed over from the gallery of the other place, where I had the real privilege of watching a speech by the member for Frankston regarding a very important bill that I am absolutely looking forward to seeing come to this place in our next sitting week. I am very much anxious that we should put that bill through as soon as we possibly can. But today in this place I am back in the familiarity of the red carpet. I always feel a bit uncertain being on the green carpet; it feels like I am in the wrong place. And why would you want to be there when you could be here on the red carpet, where it is much, much better? As I stand on the red carpet today, I am of course here to talk about transport.

This is an important bill that will make a few significant changes which will improve our approach to transport across a number of different facets, particularly with regard to public safety. Of course this is a government that is committed to ensuring the safety, efficiency and sustainability of our transport systems, which is a matter of paramount importance to our communities statewide. It is a particularly important issue to my constituents in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, and it is very important to note the future development and the future trends as well that we must adapt to and make sure the legislation is keeping pace with and keeping with the times, as we need it to.

The amendments in this bill will enhance transport regulation to improve outcomes for various different transport users and local communities. By addressing critical issues such as road safety and matters such as the regulation of commercial passenger vehicles and the modernisation of our public transport systems, this bill aims to establish a more robust, a more equitable and a more forward-thinking transport framework in the state of Victoria. This bill acquits several important policy objectives, being to safeguard our citizens, streamline transport options and operations, and pave the way for innovative solutions in our journey toward a safer and more connected society.

I had the privilege yesterday of speaking on a motion on the Suburban Rail Loop, one of the many other ways in which we are reshaping the transport future of our great state, just as we are already doing with the Melbourne Metro Tunnel as well, and this bill is yet further demonstration. Though perhaps not as groundbreaking as a new rail tunnel, it is still a very important piece of that work.

The Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 does mark an unprecedented step in our journey towards redefining transport in Victoria. The key reforms introduced in this bill encompass a series of critical reforms designed to address evolving needs – things such as enhancing road safety, which is an important concern for many constituents of mine in the South-Eastern Metropolitan Region. Many have contacted me about various other matters as well, which are important, and I thank all those constituents who have reached out to me on various road safety matters as well.

Recognising the link between road safety and public health, this bill introduces robust measures to mitigate risks and to reduce accidents. These include stringent regulations and enhanced enforcement mechanisms, which underline our commitment to making our roads are safe as they can be.

Another significant aspect of this bill is the reform of bus driver accreditation. In recognising the pivotal role that they play in our public transport system, this bill proposes rigorous standards and training requirements. This will not only elevate the quality of our bus services but also ensure that our bus drivers are equipped with the skills and knowledge that they need to navigate the demands of our modern network.

Furthermore, this bill will take a bold step in regulating vehicle-sharing schemes, a rapidly emerging facet of urban mobility. By setting a legislative framework for these schemes, we are not only embracing innovation but also ensuring that it is integrated into our transport network in a manner that is both sustainable and user-friendly. This is a critical approach in addressing the growing demand for flexible and environmentally friendly transport options.

Another key reform in this bill relates to research trials on medical cannabis and road safety. The need for such research trials stems from the growing recognition of medicinal cannabis as a potential treatment for various medical conditions. However, its impact on driving ability and road safety remains a largely uncharted domain. By facilitating these trials this bill will seek to bridge that knowledge gap, ensuring that our road safety policies are informed by scientific evidence and contemporary practices. The bill proposes a structured framework for conducting these trials, encompassing strict guidelines to ensure accuracy and reliability of those results. Participants in those trials will be closely monitored, with a focus on understanding how medicinal cannabis affects driving skills, reaction times and overall road safety and the extent to which it is an impact, if at all. This research is not only innovative but necessary in an age where the use of medicinal cannabis is becoming far more prevalent. Medicinal cannabis of course was one of the earliest reforms of the then Andrews Labor government – another nation-leading reform at that time in recognition of the fact that for many Victorians medicinal cannabis is the best option for their treatment and to deny them that only serves to prolong and compound their suffering over long, long periods of time. It is a very important reform that was put through a previous Parliament as an initiative of the then Andrews Labor government.

This bill today recognises the fact that people who might need to take medicinal cannabis still have mobility needs, and they still from time to time at the very least, if not more often, will have the need to drive. It is a sensible step forward to give them the support they need to ensure that because of their illness they are not being disenfranchised. The whole point of providing these options is so that people can live their best possible lives. By having this barrier in place for too long some people have been prevented from being able to access all their educational, career or other opportunities based on their transportation difficulties. That is something that this bill will seek to address. It is not only important obviously for transport regulation but very important for the health and wellbeing of our society as well.

In terms of bus transport, this bill makes changes to bus driver accreditation schemes. These reforms are designed to enhance the quality of bus services and ensure greater safety and satisfaction of passengers. The bill introduces more rigorous accreditation processes for drivers, involving enhanced background checks, comprehensive training programs and regular skill assessments. Such measures are critical in ensuring that bus drivers are not only proficient in vehicle operation but also well versed in customer service, emergency response and other various safety protocols. These reforms are in line with global best practices in public transport. By adopting these standards, we are not just modernising our bus industry but also aligning it with international benchmarks. This modernisation is not only about improving the technical skills of our drivers but also about fostering a culture of professionalism and dedication within the industry. Moreover, these reforms will have a far-reaching effect. They will instil greater confidence amongst the public in our bus services, encourage the use of public transport and contribute to the overall improvements to our transport sector.

How could I talk about buses without acknowledging the fact that just a few weeks ago it was of course Bus Awareness Week. As many in this chamber will know, buses are a particularly exciting policy passion of mine, being one of the reasons in fact from the early days that inspired me to get into politics in the first place. Access to and the provision of buses can make such a huge difference, whether it be to young people or people of middle age or older age. No matter what stage of life you are at, having a regular, reliable bus service means that you do not need to live within a short walk of a train station or live within the tram tracks in order to be able to access the best opportunities that our state has to offer. It is a really exciting part of public policy.

I was very excited to join other colleagues, including the outstanding member for Mordialloc, out on the buses in the Mordialloc electorate just a few weeks ago, along with now former Kingston mayor Hadi Saab as well. I also had a great time in joining the member for Monbulk out in her patch too, where we hopped on the 699 bus. Craig, the bus driver, was outstandingly friendly. There was outstanding service and outstanding driving too on some of those winding roads – quite remarkable skills, I have to say – and we very much appreciated the experience there too.

Of course not just in Bus Awareness Week but every day and every week thousands of Victorians, if not hundreds of thousands, me included, regularly use our bus network. It is often overlooked, and it is easy to do so when you have got big, exciting transport projects such as the Metro rail tunnel and the Suburban Rail Loop that we have, but it is always good to remember that buses do play a really important role in our transport system. It is the work of those bus drivers in particular that makes it all happen – of course with all the support staff in the depots as well – so a big shout-out to all the bus drivers in our state who make our state run.

Ryan Batchelor: Hail to the bus driver.

Michael GALEA: Hail to the bus driver – absolutely, Mr Batchelor. Beyond that, this bill will also introduce changes to laws governing commercial passenger vehicles, particularly in regard to how information sharing is dealt with. These amendments also will enhance transparency and efficiency within that space. A key change will be a mandate for more comprehensive information sharing between commercial passenger vehicle operators and the regulatory bodies. This includes the sharing of data related to vehicle registrations, driver accreditations and trip records. By facilitating access to such critical information the bill aims to streamline regulatory processes, ensuring that compliance and safety standards are met consistently.

These changes are highly significant. They enable regulatory bodies to monitor and manage the commercial passenger vehicle sector more effectively, improving those safety standards and addressing potential issues or violations. Additionally, they support data-driven policy development and resource allocation. Furthermore, these changes will also promote a collaborative environment between operators and regulators, adapting to the evolving demands of the transport sector and ensuring regulations keep pace with technological advancements and market dynamics. Ultimately, the focus on improved information sharing in this bill will lead to a responsive, accountable and well-regulated commercial passenger vehicle industry.

The bill establishes a legislative framework for local governments to manage vehicle-sharing schemes. This will integrate those schemes into our urban landscapes, recognising their growing significance in contemporary transport. Under this provision local governments will be empowered with the authority to oversee and regulate vehicle-sharing schemes within their jurisdictions. This includes the ability to set guidelines for the operation of those schemes, such as the designation of parking areas, the management of fleet sizes and the enforcement of safety standards. By decentralising the management and giving local government a significant role, the bill ensures that vehicle sharing will be tailored to the various unique needs of our many different communities across Victoria. The importance of that should not be understated: vehicle sharing can offer a flexible, cost-effective and indeed environmentally friendly alternative to traditional transport, particularly in those densely populated areas where it may not be viable for people to own private cars. It may be the case that people who most often use public transport will from time to time still require a private vehicle to get around.

Another area addressed by the bill is the role of Safe Transport Victoria in maritime safety and regulation. Though I do not have time today to talk in detail about that, I do note that that also represents a very important part of this bill.

As I have spoken about, there are various different initiatives within this bill. It is quite a broad, encompassing piece of legislation that will tidy up and improve several acts and, as I have said, keep pace with the various changing technological and regulatory needs of the transport industry in Victoria. It is a straightforward, commonsense bill, and I do commend it to the house.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (11:17): This bill delivers several essential reforms to our transport legislation. It covers technical amendments that improve the effectiveness of our transport legislation. It also introduces a legislative framework to enable research trials to support evidence-based road safety policy, particularly in relation to the presence of medicinal cannabis. This bill is important, as we all should have great interest in the effectiveness and safety of our transport system. Everyone in our state needs to have confidence that our transport network is effective and safe. As such, this bill proposes a number of road safety reforms.

I appreciate that our chamber has two members of the Legalise Cannabis Party, and their contributions have led us to debate on issues that have been both challenging and interesting. I have previously debated the topic of driving constraints for those taking medicinal cannabis, and I argued at the time that we need robust research and trials in order to be able to legislate in this space. Whilst we currently have very effective measurement of blood alcohol level in human systems, and there is plenty of evidence around impairment that that causes, there is no available testing technology and no evidence base that provides a systematic and controlled measurement of medicinal cannabis in a human person. I am very pleased today that this bill will enable research and subsequent trials to support the investigation of evidence-based road safety policies, particularly in relation to the presence of medicinal cannabis in a person’s blood stream.

This legislation will support a world-leading trial that will assess the effect of medicinal cannabis on road driving behaviour. Critically, to enable the lawful conduct of research trials, the bill will give authority to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety to officially designate road safety research trials. Participants will be able to engage in behaviours that have typically been considered illegal unless in a trial environment so that we can safely and scientifically assess the impacts of drugs and alcohol. This is complex. We also need to consider combinations of drugs and alcohol, let alone the impact of fatigue. So we do need to get this right. As I have argued previously, one of the further reasons why we need to get this right is that if we inadvertently legislate to allow someone to travel on the road with medicinal cannabis in their system and they are impaired and that causes a safety incident for other travellers on the road network, then we will have failed.

The trial will be developed and implemented by an independent research organisation. The Department of Transport and Planning, road safety partners, experts and health professionals will oversee the trial from a governance and logistical perspective. A designated, controlled driving environment will be created for the trial. This will be physically separated from the public roads and take into account safety for the research staff and participants. Under this legislation the Minister for Roads and Road Safety will be required to consult with affected ministers before declaring a road safety research trial, ensuring a coordinated and cooperative approach to the enforcement of road safety measures.

This bill will also establish a state-level legislative framework for local, city and shire councils to manage vehicle-sharing schemes, specifically on issues that they present in relation to amenity and accessibility. As a former councillor and mayor of Warrnambool City Council, I know firsthand how much easier it is to implement new initiatives when there is a guiding framework. This bill aims to address this problem by requiring operators of vehicle-sharing schemes for e-scooters or bicycles to have an authorising agreement in place with a local council. Sensibly, with this model local councils can best determine what their local community needs and create by-laws to that effect. On that note, each local council is different and their little city centre areas – or big city centre areas in the case of Melbourne – are all unique and have different dynamics when it comes to the use of bicycles, the extent of pedestrians and the number of cars, and any actual activity that that precinct might also be supporting might vary as well. So this is a very good model that is going to provide a fit-for-purpose regulation system for each local government area.

Additionally, the bill will update and clarify the Road Safety Act 1986 to provide improved road safety outcomes for all Victorians. It will support and reform the reorganisation of our transport sector agencies and regulation schemes in addition to making reforms with the intention of establishing a more efficient transport sector, administration and regulation. Who does not want that?

The bill will amend the following acts: 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 and the Transport Integration Act 2010.

The bill also addresses efficiencies in the organisation and function of Victoria’s network of transport sector administration and regulation bodies. This will overall improve the function of transport bodies in the state of Victoria. It will align regulatory schemes and bring the standard of Victoria’s transport sector industries up to leading practice. This bill also clarifies that persons exempt from paying the transport accident charge, better known as the TAC charge, are still covered for traffic accidents.

I was so pleased when earlier this year the Allan government made vehicle registration and transport accident charges free for eligible apprentices. We all know how popular that strategy is and how important it is in the context of cost of living and the particular financial challenges that young apprentices often experience. This was a real cost-of-living saving for those learning a trade. I know in Western Victoria this made a huge difference, particularly to our young people starting out on new career paths. This was particularly noted by the Neil Porter Legacy, which makes career education a priority with a locally focused and action-based approach in the south-west. They are a not-for-profit that is committed to exposing students to a variety of careers through their schooling, and I commend the difference they make. Matt Porter of Neil Porter Legacy was very supportive of this policy at the time of its announcement. He stated in the Standard on 11 November 2022 that offering free registrations to apprentices is a great way to show them the value of choosing a trade as a career. He went on to say:

Anything we can do to encourage young people to take up apprenticeships is a great idea and free car registration is an excellent initiative …

I should state the obvious: 90 per cent of apprentices need to have a vehicle for their work, and that same 90-plus per cent need to travel in those vehicles to each of their worksites. It is pretty rare that an apprentice would be travelling on public transport but perhaps not quite so rare that apprentices are transported to their jobs by their mums or their dads.

To support this measure the bill clarifies that the owners of motor vehicles exempted from paying the transport accident charge do not lose coverage for transport accidents. I must emphasise that trade apprentices exempt from paying vehicle registration fees have always been covered for transport accidents. However, the legislation was not completely explicit on this point, so the bill will put beyond doubt that even though someone is exempt from paying the transport accident charge, they will still be fully covered for transport accidents.

Another important part of this bill is the acknowledgement of this government’s action in 2021 to bring V/Line more directly into the centre of our public transport system. One of the intentions of this bill is to confirm that arrangement in legislation. For the south-west, the Allan Labor government’s absolute commitment to provide regional Victorians with faster and more frequent connections is so welcomed. Passengers have saved millions of dollars on the Warrnambool line since the introduction of capped fares, for example, let alone the multimillion dollar regional rail upgrade that is at the stage 2 phase for the Warrnambool line. On 31 March fares were capped at the same price as metropolitan Melbourne. Usage on the line is now up 38 per cent in the first seven months of capped fares. A daily return ticket is $10. More than 280,000 one-way trips were taken on the Warrnambool line in the first seven months of capped fares. This is achieving exactly what this legislation is reinforcing: bringing the regional rail network and regional communities into the centre, literally, of our state. Passengers who previously paid $78.80 for a return trip now pay $10. Concession is $5. This has transformed the experience for families, particularly on weekends, of accessing Melbourne for entertainment and family gatherings but also for young people who are students, either studying in regional Victoria or studying in Melbourne, and for those attending health appointments, a most stressful time in anybody’s life, where perhaps they have a condition that does need to be either assessed or treated in Melbourne and have had to pay so much extra money to access that treatment.

The state of Victoria has led the nation for over 50 years in life-saving road safety policies. In 1970, for instance, we led the world to become the first jurisdiction to introduce mandatory seatbelts. In 1976 we were the first state to introduce random breath testing, and in the 1980s Victoria again led the world by introducing speed cameras. In 2004 Victoria was the first state to introduce mandatory roadside drug tests, and in 2008 we introduced a graduated licensing system. These initiatives have been found time and again to have saved countless Victorian lives. Our record on road safety in Victoria is a strong one, and the work that will be achieved through this piece of legislation will contribute to that. I look forward to the outcome of the research that is being conducted as a result of this legislation, and I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (11:34)

I just have three questions. My first one, Minister, is with regard to vehicle sharing schemes and e-mobility. The bill requires companies to make an agreement with a municipality. Just to avoid duplication and potential conflicts or issues at LGA boundaries, it would seem that in the future a statewide scheme would make sense and would make ease of use of these devices better for residents. Will you consider a wider statewide scheme regulation in future?

The bill at this particular point in time explains the status quo. I do not have any announcements to make in this committee stage about any expansion of the scheme.

Also, just with the expected increase in the use of e-scooters and e-bikes that this bill will likely present, will the government invest in necessary infrastructure for protected bike lanes to improve safety and reduce accidents for bike and scooter users and all other road users?

Thanks, Ms Copsey, for that question and for your interest in e-scooters and the very vocal position that you take on bike lanes. There are a range of parameters around the use of e-scooters, which are well understood by you and your colleagues, in particular around the way in which e-scooters can be used around various locations, including in trial sites. Again, the use of infrastructure is part of the trial and part of the scheme. However, we do have a separate process for discussion of infrastructure, including on and across our road networks. So again I would ask, with your indulgence and with a pun intended, that we perhaps park that one given that it does relate to other parts of the network.

This is my last question. Minister, electric unicycles are omitted from this bill particularly, and these are the self-balancing rides. These are not the unicycles we might imagine from the circus but usually the self-balancing rides with the foot pads on either side of the wheel. They travel at similar speeds to e-scooters and they present from a public policy point of view a similar mode of transport and similar risks. My colleague in the other place Dr Tim Read advises that one of his constituents in Brunswick was riding one of these devices recently and received a fine. Can you explain why devices like this have been excluded from the bill?

Thanks, Ms Copsey, for that somewhat unorthodox question about the use of electronic or electric unicycles. In noting Dr Read’s reference in the other place and also the nature of an infringement notice being issued to somebody using an electric unicycle, I do not accept that we are talking about an equivalent form of electric transportation. When we are talking about a piece of machinery that moves from two wheels to one and we are noting that it requires an inherent measure of balance and stability – and I will put on the record that I have neither of these things as far as spatial awareness is concerned – I would not necessarily accept that these are equivalent forms of transportation. But what I would say is I do not have the details of any infringement. The law is clear on two-wheeled vehicles and, again, we want to make sure that public safety and appropriate use of our road network take place and are not imperilled because of any stretch or latitude that might be sought by people who have these new and different forms of electric transportation.

What I would also urge people to do is make sure that we are at all points in time sending very clear messages about what is and what is not acceptable. We have had a not dissimilar conversation around monkey bikes – those very, very small motorcycles which caused a range of very significant safety issues – and they were the subject of widespread public comment at the time that there were injuries. Again, I also want to make it clear that technology is always evolving around the way in which we use and deploy machinery and equipment for the purpose of transportation. Safety, however, must trump everything, and that is what this objective does with the electric scooter process, confined as it is to vehicles with two wheels.

Where or at what sort of facility is the trial likely to be undertaken?

Thank you, Mr McCracken, for your important question about one component part of this omnibus legislation which I suspect we will spend some time on today. What this bill does ‍– and this might help to shape the way in which this discussion in the committee stage evolves – is to create the framework for this trial. When we operationalise it, there will be a range of things that are taken into consideration, including as they relate to the site and to the process for the conduct of that trial. Any trial site that is determined to be in contemplation will need to satisfy a range of requirements, including as that relates to driver safety and vehicle operation in the course of that trial. A few locations are being considered in the mix for the development of this trial, and we do want to make sure that we are taking care of the people who will be participating in that trial. As part of the trial scoping, we will make sure that it is, without a doubt, off the public network in order to quarantine it from any other risk that might arise to other people not within the scope of that trial.

I know you talked then about the criteria, about selecting the different sites and that sort of thing. My question then is: what sort of criteria are you going to think about to select those sites? I will just ask that question first – what is the criteria that will be used in selecting sites – and I will have a subsequent question after that.

Again, being off the public network is a key component of the trial here, so not within road infrastructure where that might interface with people not participating in the trial. Safety is the key driver for determination of that location, and that will be something that does inform the way in which that is determined, so primarily safety. Secondly, it will be about accessibility and the capacity to monitor and oversight what happens in that trial. That will involve a range of considerations, including visibility and the circumstances and the environments of the trial site. In undertaking that trial it is going be necessary to make sure that an assessment can take place in a variety of different circumstances, and again, any kind of track that is determined to be a site will have to take that into consideration.

How will the government go about identifying the participants in that trial?

That is a really important question. When we go back to the rationale for this particular trial and the importance of understanding the impact of cannabis on driving, there is a range of cohorts to which the purpose and the rationale of this policy setting applies. We want to make sure that we have a really clear understanding of the impairment effects of THC on patients who have a range of different conditions. There are really significant gaps in our understanding of the impact of medicinal cannabis and THC on the operation of a vehicle. That is about understanding how patients have conditions that require medicinal cannabis and need to drive. Most of the studies have only demonstrated moderate driving impairment in its effects on young and healthy people without underlying conditions, but we need to understand the impairment impacts of THC on different cohorts. That is about people who have different underlying conditions, the time since their last use of medicinal cannabis and potential impairment effects due to other prescription drugs. When we think about medicinal cannabis access and the scheme for prescription of medicinal cannabis, it was also referenced that the purpose for that was to manage seizures or underlying significant conditions limiting quality of life. They are circumstances in which there are often a number of medications in play to help manage a patient or a consumer in pain, with nausea or lack of appetite and often with ongoing neurological conditions and management.

So we have limited ability to apply a per-se limit, as applies with blood alcohol content, simply because of the way in which its presence manifests differently, in a way that is harder to measure. THC threshold in blood indicative of driving impairment level and road safety risk is a challenging and complex area to traverse. THCs, as we know, metabolise differently in different sorts of individual circumstances, and the requirement for invasive testing for measurement is a part of the contemplation of selection here.

We have a lack of understanding of the impacts of legislative change as it relates to medicinal cannabis containing THC and driving within international jurisdictions and those road safety outcomes. This is something which the medicinal cannabis road safety group has been examining for a number of years. Given those gaps, a series of initiatives are being proposed to understand the impacts of medicinal cannabis containing THC.

When I refer to medicinal cannabis from this point onwards I will be referring to medicinal cannabis which does include THC, noting that that is not uniformly the case. We need to understand what that impact of THC presence does to driving performance, and again – to go to the purpose of this bill – use the regulatory reform process, including the proposed trial, to close those evidence gaps for medicinal cannabis users. Safety sits at the heart of this. Variation in the way in which presence and impairment manifest across different cohorts and the objectives of the trial will all be things that guide the way in which participant selection occurs.

Are there any waiver or liability issues for participants that are not covered by the legislation at all?

This is something which actually sits adjacent to the legislative issue that we are talking about here. Indemnities are actually developed separately to the contemplation of the framework and the establishment of the framework for the trial in this particular bill.

We have got some questions in terms of the scientific and legal oversight of the trial and who will actually run the trial, so could you please specify these things?

Again, I am looking forward to exploring some of these issues that you have talked about around the trial and the scientific underpinning of the components that I have talked about to date in response to Mr McCracken’s question. The Department of Transport and Planning will lead the proposed trial in partnership with the road safety partners, and this will be, as far as the trial and the closed-circuit trial are concerned, run independently by a research institution. The framework, again, for the development and the delivery of this proposed trial will have at its core safety in the way in which it is developed and then takes place.

You mentioned drugs. You mentioned THC. Are there any other drugs that this government has in mind for these trials, and would any of them be illegal drugs?

Harriet Shing interjected.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: In addition to medicinal cannabis, yes.

This is about a medicinal cannabis trial, so it is about the impact of the presence of THC on driving. It does not go any further than that.

We have got some questions too in terms of speed cameras. Given that we currently do not have numberplates on e-bikes and e-scooters for the use of speed cameras, how is it going to work with speed cameras enforcing the speed of bicycles or e-scooters if they have no registration plates?

There are already capabilities within the legislation under the Road Safety Act 1986 for infringement notices to be issued. They may not be captured through fixed or mobile speed cameras, but they are and can still be issued. Again, road safety is at the heart of what this omnibus bill is doing, and you are right to identify that bicycles do not have registration. That is not to say, however, in particular in metropolitan and those inner city areas, that infringements are not issued, because they are. Again, the primary purpose of issuing infringement notices for excessive speed relates to deterrence. We know that people can be significantly injured in the event of a collision of a bicycle with somebody or something at speeds higher than the prescribed speed limit in any one place or time, and we also want to make sure that police are in a position to issue infringements in a range of circumstances. That may well be about the deployment of radar cameras as an alternative to enforcement and the issuing of infringements because the means of a fixed or mobile speed camera has been deployed. Police will be in a position to issue those infringements, pulling people over if the speed in excess of the speed limit in any one place has been determined, including by reference to those radar cameras, and, again, that will apply to both bicycles and e-scooters.

Just to clarify then, you are not going to be able to use the speed cameras, obviously, if you have not got a way of identifying them. I mean, obviously police have not got time to be trying to figure out who the person with the denim jacket is when there could be a dozen people on the same type of e-scooter with a denim jacket. I appreciate that clarification.

In terms of costs, does the government have any indication of the compliance costs they are putting on local governments and e-scooter and e-bike companies by making them responsible for forming an agreement?

Under the Road Safety Act, Mrs Hermans, vehicles must meet a range of specifications. They must be capable of being operated in a safe manner. Again, there is an interface between user action and conduct on the one hand and what is fit for purpose. There is also consumer law which applies to goods being fit for purpose, and we have a range of legislative mechanisms that operate at state and indeed federal levels around that. It is also really important that we note that people will be expected to operate a scooter in a safe way, and that is where, again, the framework for the issuing of infringements is important. There is also a model agreement developed by the Department of Transport and Planning, which should reduce the costs for local government. I assume this is the area that you were going to there. So that is about what that model agreement can provide for in order to address the issue that you raised in your question.

I am going to go on the local government theme as well. What advice will be provided to councils on how to manage issues like footpath clutter, pedestrian safety and dumping of bikes and e-scooters? Will there be any advice promoted to local government about those matters?

Councils can decide if they want these shared schemes, so that does form the basis for a decision guided by local government as to what participation looks like. We also want to be clear about the existing obligations for councils in the maintenance and use of facilities that fall under their remit. Again, this is part of the existing framework for the work that councils do, and that is where, to come back to Mrs Herman’s question, a model agreement will be developed on the question of costs, and councils will be in a position to make decisions that are right for them as part of this shared scheme.

Can you just detail what the consultation is with local government in regard to these matters? Which councils were consulted and actually supported these sorts of ideas?

Councils have, for some time now, expressed a range of views about the shared scheme and about what this will mean for them and for their municipalities. Again, that work will continue – this is about setting up the framework for that ongoing conversation and dialogue with councils, including the way in which it may apply to them. Councils have already made their views clear. Those views do vary across various municipalities, and that work will continue, upon passage of this legislation, around what it looks like into the future. Again, it is a process of ongoing dialogue.

Minister, thank you for all of your responses. You did mention that there is some sort of an agreement that local governments are going to be using. When does the government anticipate the agreement will be available? Will all the data on this become available to the Parliament and the public – the compliance, the expectations, the costs and in terms of what your actual agreement with the local government is?

As you have mentioned, that model agreement will be developed by the Department of Transport and Planning, again to assist councils to reduce those costs. There will be guidance developed for local government to assist them in developing an agreement, so again it is about working with and alongside councils to better understand what the shared scheme will look like, how it will apply to them and what the terms of that agreement will be as a consequence of those discussions.

Will we be able to see it, Minister? Will that become available so that everybody will be able to see it, the public and the Parliament?

That will depend upon the agreements as reached and the parties to those agreements, Mrs Hermans.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.