Thursday, 31 October 2024

Roads and Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Harriet Shing:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (17:13): I am pleased to speak on the Roads and Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. From the outset I will say that the opposition will not be opposing this bill.

The work that we do here in Parliament can seem sometimes a bit disconnected from the real world and our electorates and the issues that are raised in our communities, but not today, because we do need to have confidence in our roads. Roads are just about the biggest issue that is raised with me and a regular complaint, whether it be the condition of the roads; the traffic; frequently in the growth areas of Melbourne, the fact that roads have not changed in 20 years despite tens of thousands of homes going in around them; the severe lack of investment in the maintenance and the duplications – but mostly the condition of our roads.

We know, as I was discussing yesterday on Mrs Tyrrell’s excellent motion, Labor cannot manage money, and it is all Victorians who are paying the price through the deteriorating condition of our roads. I will go through a few fun facts just to remind everyone once again. Victoria’s road maintenance budget remains 16 per cent below what it was in 2020. The budget papers reveal a 96 per cent reduction in the level of maintenance undertaken on regional roads in 2023–24. Nearly 400 kilometres of roads are speed-reduced due to poor pavement conditions, and I know this to be the case on Watson Street in Wallan, in my electorate, which is just about permanently speed-reduced due to a lack of investment. Almost 2000 Victorians have lodged claims for vehicle damage due to the roads in the last three years. These might seem like abstract numbers or statistics, but they are not; they are a lived experience for many. I know it is a big issue in my electorate. Almost 1000 people have signed my petition to fix potholes in Wallan. Wallan spreads over two electorates, in the seat of Kalkallo and the seat of Yan Yean, and particularly our growth suburbs are really neglected when it comes to the state of our roads. I know I have got regional colleagues that will say the same thing about regional Victoria and the state of our roads, and it is not good enough. We see the government claiming a road maintenance blitz recently – the same road maintenance blitz they announced the year before and the year before that around the same time. It is not good enough.

Just to turn to some of the specifics of the legislation, it is something of an omnibus bill with a number of different road and road safety aspects to it. It allows enforcement of no-truck zones in the inner west of Melbourne through the use of new types of traffic cameras. It clarifies the validity of the new digital drivers licence under the Road Safety Act 1986. It makes changes to arrangements for custom numberplates, including allowing an up-front fee for ongoing periodical change, as well as transfer fees. It makes minor amendments to administration and infringement notices under a range of acts and includes other minor amendments about the use of language relating to accessible parking permits.

I will just go to the point, because I do want to get this on the record. The legislation also clarifies the arrangements around the digital drivers licence – the one that many Victorians had been waiting ages for. There was once a time when Victoria was a nation leader in innovation, but it is fair to say this has not been the case for the digital driver licence, unfortunately, and it is quite a shameful record for those opposite. No disrespect to anyone from South Australia or South Australians, but it is a sad day when it was only introduced in Victoria in May of this year and residents of the City of Churches could do so in 2019.

When it comes to both digital government and I guess outward-facing customer services and digitisation of services, the Victorian government has a long way to go. I was reminded of this yesterday, seeing the COVID report, because we know the government leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to the digitisation of government services. During the pandemic they were incorporating the use of fax machines because the systems did not speak to each other. Of course we remember the disaster that was the regional travel voucher scheme, where many could not get even get onto a website and got blocked off. Many we were waiting a long time to get their payments for ones they had received. Meanwhile New South Wales had digital drivers licences, but they also had Dine and Discover vouchers that worked directly with the business owner rather than going through the wash of government, having to scan and send invoices and receipts and use fax machines and whatever else this government does. It is like they have not discovered technology. They are averse to technology.

The way this government works usually is that their idea of good government is what works best for the public service, not what works best for people. Getting departments out of the way to work together to focus on a better customer experience for every Victorian is not something the public service is very good at. You only have to look at Service NSW and what Dom Perrottet, Vic Dominello and Gladys Berejiklian were able to do in terms of digitisation of government services and how high the satisfaction level for Service NSW is – over 90 per cent. I suspect Service Victoria would not have that same level of satisfaction because it is clunky. You go into an app, and you do not want it to take you to a separate browser once you are in the app. Each department wants their own branded website, so the UX is very bad because the app has to take you to separate departments. Of course they are not going to relinquish their own websites and access to those. Again, this government is just focused on what works best for the public service and not what works best for the customer.

It is good that we finally have digital drivers licences. It was long promised. They were slow off the mark. Shamefully we were beaten by South Australia to the punch and beaten by most other states as well. We know that a digital drivers licence is simply a function of your hard copy plastic licence and is linked directly to it in real time. If these licences are cancelled, suspended or otherwise dealt with, that will appear on the digital drivers licence. The bill introduces definitions for digital drivers licences and learner permits. I know that P-plate and learner permits are coming; I believe this summer they will be made available in digital format. This bill does allow for that, whilst the drivers licence provisions are effectively retrospective.

In an era when many people are somewhat fond of or addicted to their phones, this clarification in the legislation is most welcome. The bill clarifies that a user of a digital drivers licence is compliant with the law by displaying their phone to a police officer. That is to say, they are not required to hand over the device itself – a small but welcome clarification. Other aspects of this legislation include some amendments to custom numberplate legislation which allow the operator of the VicRoads joint venture to charge either an up-front fee or a periodic fee for custom plates. What this legislation does is allow them to do one or to do both if they choose to. There is the introduction of a framework to allow the charging of fees for the transfer of custom plates. Credit where credit is due: this Labor government really know how to squeeze Victorians for even more money to pay for their skyrocketing debt. There is always a new fee or a new charge to help fund the Treasurer’s debt legacy or to help fund anything when the Premier overrules him on new spending.

The final provisions in the bill include a couple of other minor changes with respect to the wording of disability access permits and also some changes to the way fines are dealt with, in particular that fines and associated costs are refunded if a person has been granted an extension of time to deal with that infringement notice. It is not just the fine itself. If you have been given an extension of time, you will also be refunded any additional charges that you may have incurred in that. That applies to a number of different pieces of legislation which the opposition do oppose. While we are on the topic of fines – and of course we are on a roads bill – I just want to speak on the issue of roads in the north but particularly narrow roads. It is something that I have sought the action of the Minister for Planning on, and I know in the western suburbs and in the northern suburbs quite a big issue that we are finding at the moment is how narrow some of the streets in new estates are. So narrow are some of the streets that buses cannot get through into suburban streets like they used to. So narrow are some of the streets and so void of public transport are some of these areas that buses cannot get into the estate, but each household has well over two cars, meaning that the cars have to park on the street. The problem is when you have a narrow street that is only about 1½ lanes wide, you will have cars blocking the street or receiving fines for something that is not their fault, because it is a narrow street.

Often residents are forced to park on the nature strip. I have been told of countless examples where a garbage truck could not actually get into a street, because of the narrowness of the street and the parking situation. In the City of Hume many residents have been fined for parking on their nature strip. This is usually where people live at the residence and have parked on the nature strip to allow other traffic to and from that area of the street. In compliance with the existing law, Hume City Council, for example, has been making a lot of money on fines, fining people for parking on a nature strip outside of their own home.

The government has not provided any public transport to these areas, so of course they have more cars. But these have also been very poorly designed new estates where they want to squeeze every space with new houses and squeeze in space for the roads – and we are talking about roads today. I was very, very pleased to see a motion passed at Hume City Council by my friends Sam Misho and Joseph Haweil, who put forward a motion dealing with these narrow streets that if someone gets a fine – and they cannot stop them from getting a fine, as they are obligated by law to fine someone for parking on their nature strip – but lives at that house and appeals that fine, it will then be withdrawn on appeal.

Here we have a city council responding to an issue that is I think largely a state government issue because of the negative impacts of both the lack of public transport and the lack of planning that has gone into a lot of these new estates. I know that they have invested quite a bit into indented parking in some of these new estates, cutting out some of the nature strips so that people can park on their street, which is a good thing. It has caused a hell of a lot of issues. My office is in Meadow Heights, where many people have come in and spoken to me about the estates, particularly in Roxburgh Park but also in parts of the new areas of Greenvale and Craigieburn where this is quite a big issue and something that I have directed to or sought assurances from the planning minister on. We have had this long and quite delayed announcement of 10 years of new precinct structure plans, and I want to know from the planning minister in terms of the new PSPs if we are going to keep having the same issues. Of course when we are talking about new PSPs, they are boasting about releasing 180,000 lots over 10 years and think it is a good thing and want a pat on the back. But the Liberals and Nationals released over 200,000 lots in four years. That put a real handbrake on increasing costs for new homes and stabilised the rental market across Victoria, so it is quite clear that the Liberals have the better options when it comes to housing affordability in this state as well.

I just want to get back to the bill. As I flagged, the introduction of no-truck zones itself was facilitated by legislation a number of years ago. The purpose of this legislation I understand is to provide a framework on the introduction of no-truck-zone cameras. There are a few issues that are still to be cleared with that. We understand that these cameras will be placed on existing road infrastructure where possible, whether that is traffic lights or other signage, and they will be able to show things instantly to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, who will be in charge of policing and regulation of these no-truck zones. They have been that for some time, but one of the challenges is that they have literally physically had to be there to catch trucks in the act of going through these no-truck zones. These cameras will hopefully make that a far more efficient process. I know my good friend and colleague the member for Gippsland South engaged with the Maribyrnong Truck Action Group, which is a little far from his electorate, and he advises that they support this aspect of this bill.

There are exemptions for those operating in prescribed circumstances that will of course allow trucks to go through these streets that are designated no-truck zones if they have a legitimate reason for being in those streets. Whether they operate from a premises in those areas, whether it is for supermarket deliveries or whether it is for a truck delivering equipment or materials to a building site, they will be able to do so. The question we have and share with the sector is: how will this actually work in practice? Understandably, the drivers and operators do not want some kind of system where they are constantly required to prove to officers of the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator why they are where they are at any given moment. Ideally, some kind of system is put in place to inform the regulator so that they are already aware that this truck is doing a supermarket delivery or this truck is taking materials to a building site. The government does like to say that there is a truck ban and that there are going to be no trucks, but in fact there will still be trucks in parts of the inner west.

I want to go to a flagged amendment from my colleague Mr Ettershank. I appreciate him briefing the opposition on that amendment. It is something we spoke to I think a few months ago now in this chamber. The Liberals and Nationals have always understood the apparent unfairness of current road laws for genuine medical cannabis users, particularly when it comes to losing your licence. The issue is complicated by the current testing technology, which does not test for impairment and makes it hard to distinguish a medicinal user from an illicit cannabis user. Our position has always been about ensuring safety on the roads. That must be the starting point, so we will not oppose these amendments, as they seek to provide equity to at least give medical cannabis users their opportunity for a day in court and the opportunity to keep their licence, which is I think pretty fair.

It would also give magistrates the same discretion they have in most other cases. We are a little bit concerned about the haste in which this decision is being made, particularly by the government, who is apparently supporting the amendment. The Parsons consultation report was only tabled yesterday, as were these amendments. We would have, with the fullness of time, preferred significantly more time to consider that report and consult with the community and experts and come to a position more fully informed. We support the government trials seeking a better understanding of the impacts of impairment on driving and look forward to seeing the results, but in the meantime we will not stand in the way of these interim changes, which allow magistrates some discretion.

Again, it would have been nice to consider it in a broader context with a bit more time to go through our proper consultation processes. I suspect we may have landed on the same position, but it is always good to have the time to give proper thought when amendments come to this place. But, as I said, we will not be opposing this. I can see definitely, both at an opposition and a personal level, the fairness argument to these amendments and what we are trying to do here. I personally know many – it seems like it is growing – people who use medicinal cannabis and understand the predicament a lot of them are in where they are not recreational users but are medicinal users for a specific purpose. So I think there is a fairness argument to this.

As I said, in regard to the Roads and Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 we will not be opposing this, but I would like to particularly thank my colleague Danny O’Brien, who is the Shadow Minister for Roads and Road Safety and a great advocate for our roads, particularly holding this government to account for the neglect of our roads that we see. I might leave my contribution there. As I said, we will not be opposing this bill.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:38): Before I begin, I would like to touch upon what I said the other evening during the adjournment. The community of Auburn South Primary School will be struggling through this tragedy for some time, and we have a responsibility to all Victorian children to keep them safe on their way to school and on their way back, no matter what.

I also want to pay tribute to all the hardworking truck drivers of Victoria. As the former secretary of the Transport Workers’ Union, I am deeply aware of how integral and at times dangerous their line of work is. I would also like to thank the Minister for Roads and Road Safety in the other place for bringing this bill into Parliament, proposing many critical amendments to our existing road safety legislation.

This bill affects every Victorian across the state with changes to registration laws and changes to infringement administration and processes as well as more specific legislation for the inner west arising from the West Gate Tunnel project, trucks and the freight industry. All in all, this is an excellent bill, and I am proud to speak in support of it today.

There are multiple facets to this bill that aim to improve road safety both in the inner western suburbs of Melbourne and across the board as well as enshrine into legislation provisions regarding digital drivers licences. There are numerous legislative changes that are made to achieve these many aims, and they are as follows. This bill is designed to make several key changes to the Road Safety Act 1986, the Road Safety Camera Commissioner Act 2011, the Melbourne City Link Act 1995, the EastLink Project Act 2004, the West Gate Tunnel (Truck Bans and Traffic Management) Act 2019, the North East Link Act 2020 and the Marine (Drug, Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act 1988 to improve safety and livability for Victorians, whether they be motorists, truck drivers or pedestrians. More specifically, these are:

(a) to amend the Road Safety Act 1986 –

(i) to provide for the enforcement of no-truck zones using camera systems; and

(ii) to make various amendments in relation to registration number rights, including to allow the regulations to provide that a fee is payable for the transfer of registration number rights; and

(iii) to modernise language in relation to accessible parking; and

(iv) to provide for the refunding of additional fees and costs that have been added to an infringement fine or penalty in circumstances where that fine or penalty is refunded; and

(v) to make provision for digital driver licences; and

(vi) to make other minor and miscellaneous amendments; and

(b) to amend the Road Safety Camera Commissioner Act 2011 to make a consequential amendment to that Act; and

(c) to amend the Melbourne City Link Act 1995, the EastLink Project Act 2004, the West Gate Tunnel (Truck Bans and Traffic Management) Act 2019, the North East Link Act 2020 and the Marine (Drug, Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act 1988 –

(i) to provide for the refunding of additional fees and costs that have been added to an infringement fine or penalty in circumstances where that fine or penalty is refunded; and

(ii) to make other minor and miscellaneous amendments.

Parts of this amendment bill intend to improve safety on our streets in the inner western suburbs following the opening of the West Gate Tunnel in 2025. We are at the seven-year mark of this project, and we are close to reaching the end, which I hear the inner-west residents are incredibly excited about. As the member for Sunbury in the other place aptly pointed out, over 200,000 vehicles rely on the West Gate Bridge for their commutes and any incidents that occur on these roads can seriously disrupt our road networks. The completion of the West Gate Tunnel will be a significant step in expediting the commutes of many thousands of Victorians each day without them dreading a traffic jam, leaving them running late on their way to work. Not only that, we can also see the creation of over 6000 jobs and 9 hectares of new public open space – a pretty good bonus.

The West Gate Freeway will boast increased lanes, from eight to 12, with two tunnels under Yarraville. The western suburbs matter to the Allan Labor government, as evidenced by our $1.8 billion investment into road upgrades, completed in 2021 and covering the suburbs of Point Cook, Truganina, Tarneit, Laverton North, Hoppers Crossing and Werribee, as well as into strengthening bridges and structures and resurfacing and maintaining key roads across Melbourne’s western suburbs. We have removed bottlenecks and improved safety across eight roads; facilitated better connections to interchanges on the Western and Princes freeways; created better walking and cycling connections, including three walking and cycling bridges over major roads along the Federation Trail; and strengthened seven structures, primarily bridges, including through the installation of new safety barriers and corrosion protection works.

Now we are focused on improving safety, health and livability in the inner west through the road law changes. In line with the Allan Labor government’s commitment to removing trucks off the road, the completion of the West Gate Tunnel Project will expedite the commutes of thousands of Victorians each day. We are ensuring not only safety but improved livability, access to amenities and health outcomes for residents of the inner west by introducing 24-hour truck bans on local streets.

Enforcement of these rules will come through the $10.2 million investment of the 2024–25 state budget in 24/7 camera surveillance, with reporting on the number of trucks on the roads of the inner west for the first five years of the truck ban enforcement so that local communities have access to data demonstrating the tangible impact of this regulation. This will ultimately serve to remove an estimated 9000 trucks from the streets each day, improving air quality, noise pollution and health outcomes for residents and families. Without the construction of the West Gate Tunnel, we would be seeing an increase from 11,000 motorists on the roads each day in 2016 to a staggering 34,000 in 2050. These new camera systems will have vehicle detection recognition that will be able to distinguish between cars and trucks with high accuracy, tested over 18 months throughout the smart camera trials. To reassure any potentially concerned inner-west residents, truck drivers with legitimate business and clear destinations in streets of the inner west will be exempt from these regulations. This will ensure that households and local businesses can still receive goods and deliveries, and it will keep our industries and homes running.

This West Gate Tunnel will support our freight industry through the 42-year partnership with the Port of Melbourne that was recently announced, moving more trucks off the roads across the west and generating millions of dollars into our economy. Specifically, this will be through the leasing of the 29-hectare former Melbourne market site to the Port of Melbourne until 2066 and by storing containers from shipping companies at the Port of Melbourne rather at than multiple smaller sites across the west. This will redirect truck trips through the inner west and further support our no-truck laws in this region. This site at its peak potential could increase the capacity of the port by an additional 1 million 20-foot containers per year.

As with this 42-year partnership, the Allan Labor government is investing in a long-term plan for motorists that is going to benefit generations to come. I am really proud of this partnership. It will also facilitate the provision of a dedicated rest space for truck drivers for when they need to take a break and re-energise. This is crucial for the safety of our hardworking truck drivers and Victorian motorists sharing the roads. The Allan Labor government is committed to occupational safety across all Victorian industries, and truck drivers on our roads are no exception. We have said time and time again of truck drivers that their office is the road. We also know that one of the greatest risk factors for injuries and fatalities on the road is motorist fatigue. That is why it is important that the government has invested in providing this dedicated rest space, and I am incredibly pleased that the safety of our truck drivers has been factored into consideration through this project development.

An achievement of the Allan Labor government that I know many people in our communities are excited about is the rollout of the digital licences, a more convenient way to keep and show legal identification on your phone in a state that is increasingly digitised. It is also a pretty useful way to show your identification if you have lost your physical card and are waiting for a replacement in the mail. Over 900,000 Victorians have access to a digital drivers licence on their phone as of September following the statewide rollout.

The bill, through amendments made to the Road Safety Act 1986, will provide clarity and certainty to drivers on the road that their digital licence will be recognised as a legal identification document on the roads and at the pub. It will be specified that if a driver is requested to produce a drivers licence to a police officer, handing over their digital licence on their phone will be considered valid. They are updated in real time, allowing for the accurate display of an address or a licence status change, so the validity and provisions such as sight can be properly verified. Any phone handed over to police with the intention of producing a drivers licence cannot be confiscated, retained or destroyed as per the Road Safety Act 1986 in order to protect the privacy of Victorians, but this will not preclude the police from doing so under other laws when there is the reasonable suspicion of a criminal offence.

In 2022 the Allan Labor government entered into a 40-year partnership with a consortium of Aware Super, Australian Retirement Trust and Macquarie Asset Management for the purpose of a joint venture: the operation of the former VicRoads registration and licensing business. This partnership has already generated $7.9 billion up-front for Victoria, and it will deliver more efficient and upgraded customer service and plate services for Victorian motorists. Through amendments made to the Road Safety Act 1986, provisions will be created for the sale of registration number rights for an up-front fee or a periodic ongoing charge. To support the latter option, these amendments will stipulate that certain rights can be suspended under regulations if this periodical charge is not paid. Due to legal obligations and the financial responsibility that comes with registration number ownership, this bill will also introduce a minimum age at which an individual can have a registration number sold to them. This will be set at 16 years of age, when a person can register a vehicle under their name in line with the minimum age requirement to obtain a learners permit.

Finally, a number of minor amendments to the EastLink Project Act 2004, the Marine (Drug, Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act 1988, the Melbourne City Link Act 1995, the North East Link Act 2020 and the West Gate Tunnel (Truck Bans and Traffic Management) Act 2019 will be made through this bill to improve the processes of administrating infringement notices and ensure fair process by clarifying that all fines and associated costs will be refunded if an extension on paying has been extended to an individual. With the cost-of-living crisis affecting countless Victorians, having these provisions in place is critical to ensure that fines do not drive vulnerable people into poverty. Fines disproportionately affect groups such as our First Nations people, socially and economically disadvantaged people and people with a disability, so having these extensions properly administered so these people do not incur unnecessary financial costs through this amendment is incredibly important.

The Allan Labor government is committed to improving transportation across Victoria. Not only are we delivering the West Gate Tunnel project, but we are also delivering the North East Link; the removal of 80 level crossings; the Metro Tunnel, with five new stations – Arden, Parkville, State Library, Anzac and Town Hall; and the Sunbury and Pakenham–Cranbourne direct rail connection. We are providing funding from a pool of $210 million to support 79 local councils in road maintenance across the state, with up to $2 million available for crucial works.

The City of Greater Geelong have completed the first of their works through the safe local roads and streets program – the installation of a roundabout and raised pedestrian crossing in Clifton Springs – and Brimbank is going to see the commencement of works to build speed humps over three roads, slowing the speeds of motorists on a 1.5-kilometre stretch of road. This is an ambitious program that has already seen tangible results for Victoria on the road, and I am looking forward to its completion across all councils in 2027. I would like to thank the Transport Accident Commission, the Department of Transport and Planning, the Minister for Roads and Road Safety in the other place and all local councils involved for their dedication to road safety.

We have invested $1.5 million in 2024 into our community road safety grants program to fund education initiatives on road safety, from Mildura in the north-west through to the Bass Coast in the south-east, adding to a total of $6.4 million in the past five years. We are facilitating programs such as campaigns and education targeting vulnerable and at-risk drivers, cyclists and pedestrians; addressing motorist fatigue and high-risk behaviours on roads through roadside signage and community awareness; and providing education for newly arrived migrants as well as learners and probationary drivers on road safety and programs to prevent driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

Last year works were completed on upgrading five intersections along one of the busiest corridors in Melbourne’s inner northern suburbs, on Sydney Road between Park Street in Brunswick and Bell Street in Coburg, installing early-stage signals and pedestrian crossings, improved traffic lights, pedestrian safety signage and accessibility improvements. Through this joint venture between the Victorian and Australian governments we have improved road safety in one of the busiest areas of the state.

I am incredibly pleased with all the work that has been done to improve our roads and commutes across our state by the Allan Labor government, and this bill will serve to facilitate even greater safety measures for all Victorians on our roads. I am proud to stand here today and commend this comprehensive and deeply necessary bill to the house.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (17:53): I rise to make a contribution on the Roads and Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. The bill before the house seeks to make a number of amendments to the Road Safety Act 1986. It imposes a 24-hour truck ban in the inner west, using cameras to detect noncompliant heavy vehicles driving in no-truck zones, it provides certainty around the validity of digital drivers licences and learners permits, it clarifies contractual arrangements for the sale or transfer of registered numberplates and it improves the administration of infringement processes.

We will also be moving an amendment to this bill, which I will talk to in a moment. Firstly, let me commend the government for delivering on the 24-hour truck ban. As I have raised in this place previously, communities in the western suburbs, particularly in Footscray and Yarraville, have long called for a truck ban to mitigate the pollution and noise generated from the ever increasing heavy traffic vehicles in the west. The 24-hour truck ban as part of the West Gate Tunnel Project will remove an estimated 9000 trucks from local streets each day. Needless to say, the community are happy and relieved at this important change. The truck cameras are also a great piece of world-leading technology, and I suspect many members will look longingly at my region and wonder when they can get truck cameras installed in their electorates. It is actually quite a startling reversal of electorate benefits. We do not often get to claim such wins in the west, so this one is very, very welcome, and I commend the minister and her staff for the work that they have done on this important initiative.

Moving on to Legalise Cannabis Victoria’s amendments to the bill, under standing orders I wish to advise the house of amendments to this bill and request that they be circulated.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

David ETTERSHANK: Since the beginning of our parliamentary tenure, Legalise Cannabis have advocated for medicinal cannabis patients to be treated like any other person on legally prescribed medication who is not impaired when driving. This amendment is an interim step while the government considers broader reform, particularly in the context of the closed-track driving trial.

In 2016 Victoria became the first Australian state to approve the use of medicinal cannabis. Unfortunately, our road laws were not amended in conjunction with this reform, so it remains an offence under sections 49(1)(bb) and 49(1)(h) of the Road Safety Act to drive with cannabis, or more specifically THC, present in oral fluid. I will use those two terms, THC and cannabis, interchangeably during this speech. As these sections do not distinguish between medicinal and illicit cannabis, medicinal cannabis patients will be captured by a positive roadside test. These offences were created and inserted into the Road Safety Act in 2003, well before medicinal cannabis became lawful in Victoria. This was back when a positive test for cannabis could only mean illicit cannabis, but now lawful medicinal consumption is being captured by those same sections and subject to the same penalties. This is not the case with any other medication, where the Road Safety Act provides a defence, so a driver taking opiates or sedatives, for which there are both licit and illicit markets, has a right to their day in court. They have access to judicial discretion, a right enjoyed by any other Victorian taking a legally prescribed medication. But no such right exists for unimpaired medicinal cannabis patients who test positive to the presence of THC.

So how does the current law work? Under section 50(1E) of the Road Safety Act, if a medicinal cannabis patient tests positive, a magistrate must – and I say ‘must’ – cancel that driver’s licence for six months for a first offence and 12 months for a subsequent offence. The only exception is if a driver receives an infringement notice for drug driving, in which case they will have their licence suspended rather than cancelled, and it will be returned once the suspension period has ended. However, if a driver’s licence is cancelled, the driver will have to apply in court to be relicensed. They do not automatically get their licence back. They must apply to a court for another licence when the disqualification period ends. But first they must successfully complete a drug driving behavioural change program, a program solely designed for illicit drug users and recidivist drink drivers, where they are treated as criminals. They must literally go to those sessions and commit to not taking their legally prescribed medication. I am told this is excruciating for the patient and the program supervisors alike. They must then attend court to apply for a licence eligibility order court hearing and then attend that hearing at least 28 days later. If the order is granted by a court, the person can then attend VicRoads to apply for their licence to be reissued. Wait times and fees apply at each step, as well as a gruelling pile of paperwork. This is for people taking lawfully prescribed medicine.

And there is more. Despite no alcohol having been involved in the driver’s actions, a relicensed driver will be given a Z condition on their licence, so they cannot have any alcohol in their system when driving for the next three years – any alcohol whatsoever. It is punitive in the extreme – and, again, these people are taking a lawfully prescribed medicine. They are obeying the law. This conundrum was mentioned in the consultation paper on our proposed amendment, which was tabled yesterday. Former magistrate Tony Parsons consulted with legal experts, one of whom observed that:

[It] is an odd situation to have a legal right (to take prescribed medicinal cannabis) then if you comply strictly with the obligations that come with that legal right, you can still be guilty of an offence.

The government has long recognised the need to resolve this issue and is undertaking a controlled closed-track driving trial to look at the effects of cannabis on driver performance. The trial will conclude sometime in mid-2026, and we may see some legislation in the next term of Parliament, in 2027 or thereabouts. For the thousands of medicinal cannabis patients in Victoria who risk losing their licences every time they drive, this is just too long to wait. What our amendment proposes is an interim solution for those Victorians which will operate until the completion of the trial and any consequential legislative outcome. It amends the act to allow discretion for a court in deciding whether to cancel or disqualify the licence of a person who is found with THC in their system if it is prescribed medicinal cannabis and it was taken in accordance with the doctor’s prescription. This only applies to the offence of driving with the presence of THC, not where impairment is alleged. Under the new provision, the court is given discretion to apply the penalty of loss of licence. It may, rather than must, cancel a drivers licence. Currently a magistrate has no choice but to cancel or suspend a drivers licence irrespective of any context or mitigating circumstances. The court is denied any discretion other than the quantum of the fine.

To be clear, what our amendment does not do is make it legal to drive with THC in your system. The amendment does not make any changes to what the offence is or to roadside drug-testing programs. It is still an offence to drive whilst impaired. It is still an offence to drive with THC present in your system. It will be the driver’s responsibility to demonstrate that they hold a valid prescription from a prescribing health professional – for example, the actual prescription or the current container in which the cannabis was dispensed by the pharmacist or a signed letter from the prescribing doctor. If they can and there is no evidence of impairment, a magistrate may look at all the facts of the individual case and then consider whether to suspend or cancel the drivers licence. It allows the magistrate to exercise some discretion, something that they do every day, and it allows you to have your day in court, nothing more. Patients on legally prescribed medication deserve that.

I have spoken before about the far more impairing drugs that we do not test for. We hear from so many medicinal cannabis patients who were previously prescribed opioids and benzodiazepines but stopped taking them, some of them suffering horrendous withdrawals because of the terrible side effects. The phrase ‘zombie-like’ has been used by many – by more than a few people – to describe the effects of being on these incredibly strong medications. These people found medicinal cannabis provided incredible relief in treating their conditions without the harmful debilitating effects they experienced when using opioids and benzos. Some of these same people are being forced to revert to using those harmful impairing drugs rather than risk losing their licence. It is simply not fair. Our amendment calls for judicial discretion in this matter, and to those who may be opposing the amendment – and I thank you, Mr Mulholland, for your indication of support for this amendment; it is greatly appreciated, as is the support of the government – and to any who do indicate that they are opposing this amendment, I ask: are you doubting the judiciary’s ability to decide this issue? One thing that came out loud and clear from Mr Parsons’s excellent consultation process is that the judiciary is expected to exercise this sort of discretion on a daily basis, just not for medicinal cannabis patients.

As I said earlier, we do acknowledge the government progressing this issue through its closed-track driving trial, but we may not know the results of the trial until 2026, and there may be no legislative change until the next parliamentary term. We simply cannot leave people who legally consume medicinal cannabis without a remedy until then. They have been waiting for too long already. I remind members that this amendment seeks an interim measure only, and we urge you to support it. Broader reform might be reconsidered once the closed-circuit driving trial is completed.

Once again, may I just reiterate that we applaud the Allan government for moving to address this issue, and we appreciate their support through this process. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (18:06): I rise to speak on the Roads and Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. Roads and road safety are certainly very important issues, and we know with Melbourne Cup coming up it is just a good reminder to everyone to drive safely on our roads.

Since I was elected to Parliament less than two years ago, I have raised the issue of roads in this chamber more than 50 times. The Nationals continue to raise this issue because we know that building quality roads that connect our state and keep people safe is very important. We know that businesses rely on our roads and families rely on roads, getting to and from numerous activities across the state, particularly if they are involved with sport. I certainly know a lot about that. Work, centres – we had CatholicCare Victoria come into Parliament yesterday and talk about their services. They are located all across the state, so they certainly rely on the roads to get around and help people in all sorts of different ways, including the homeless and refugees.

We know produce is important, getting it to and from market, and there are a lot of heavy vehicles now out there, and this bill talks to the trucks that are on our roads. I remember having a round table with a number of freight truck drivers with Senator Bridget McKenzie in Bendigo, and they raised a number of issues. They talked about the lack of waste disposal available to heavy vehicles and the poor toilet facilities along many of the transport routes. They talked about the number of female drivers coming now to work in the industry and the lack of facilities that are available to them. They also mentioned that WorkCover for the freight industry had jumped by 82 per cent – really, what a jump. It is extraordinary, the costs that they are carrying, and of course that all flows on to people, as produce needs to travel. It adds to the cost of living at the end of the day.

We have 165,000 heavy vehicle drivers licensed in Australia, but Victoria is 3000 to 5000 short, so there is certainly a need for more people to become truck drivers. They talked about the need to recognise it as a qualification, a recognised skill, because anyone who sees these large vehicles knows they are not easy to drive, and it is certainly a very important industry that deserves recognition and attention to the issues that I have raised here today.

We hear from locals time and time again. They are frustrated at the poor condition of roads right across regional Victoria in particular. I remember before the election handing out a brochure and mentioning that with the Nationals it has always been a priority to have roads right at the top, and a lady said, ‘If you’re going to fix roads, I will certainly be voting for you.’ I think that is just reflective of so many people across this state.

We know that roads are in poor condition, and it is not just because of the floods. We had devastating floods, as you would be aware, back in October 2022, that did cause a lot of damage. I have been involved with the flood inquiry and heard from councils right across the region of northern Victoria that talked about the frustration particularly with the disaster recovery funding arrangements, and I have raised that in this chamber a number of times. It does not permit betterment funding. Victoria’s agreement under the DRFA with the Commonwealth does not permit betterment funding as part of that. It is only building back to the same standard, not building back better. That is something that local councils have continued to highlight, how important it is that we build our roads back better so that we have more resilient infrastructure, because those connections get cut off very quickly during the floods. That is certainly something that we need this government to address.

I remember visiting the National Transport Research Organisation. It is a state-of-the-art facility in Port Melbourne. They were doing work with a whole lot of soil testing samples for New South Wales, for Queensland, because it is important that when you construct a road you are taking into account the soil conditions, the climate of the area and the local varying conditions. You change the recipe of the road depending on the area where the road is going. They highlighted the important work that they are doing. The lack of Victoria’s interest in doing that extra work is something that needs to be – well, there is a lot of work that needs to be done.

We have seen in Victoria state government roads falling apart very soon after they have been redone. I have seen roads that look like patchwork quilts just after being redone. Just last Friday I was at the Bendigo show, and a gentleman who had taken a recent road trip to see Lake Eyre told me that he could not believe how smooth the roads were in other states compared to ours. I have heard the same from so many other people who have travelled to Queensland, to South Australia and to New South Wales. They wonder why our roads are so bad. The government appeared to be proud to report that they are patching 700 potholes a day, but the fact that maintenance workers are having to patch 700 holes a day just shows how Labor is failing to manage Victoria’s roads.

When you look at just a few of the state government’s key responsibilities, there is certainly a real mess in Victoria now. Our roads, as I have mentioned, have thousands of potholes, but if we also look at our health services, they have thousands of people waiting for treatment. If you look at our housing crisis at the moment, thousands of people are in need of a home. Then if you look at our police services, we have over 1000 vacancies in the police force. It is the same in our education system; in our schools we have over 1000 vacancies for teachers. They are working extremely hard to keep up with the demand.

I have walked on roads, and I am not an engineer, but I will tell you what, I could see my footprint when I walked across, and I thought that is probably not a good sign. I think the National Transport Research Organisation talked about just adding that extra bitumen, that additional cost, to make roads 30 per cent stronger, and they would require less maintenance. They cost more in the short term but less in the long term. This government is not thinking long term. They are desperately trying to tax their way out of debt and cut services. We have seen in the last decade 55 new or increased taxes since they came to office. We have seen tax after tax after tax and cut after cut after cut of services.

The state budget shows that Labor cannot manage money. The Premier’s track record on managing major projects speaks for itself. The Premier said this week that she is a builder. She is certainly busy building the biggest debt in Australia, the biggest debt we have ever seen with no plan to pay for it. Our interest payments just keep going up. There will soon be $26 million every single day. That is just extraordinary. The financial outlook is grim – $188 billion of state net debt and recent warnings from the global rating agencies for a further credit rating downgrade for Victoria. This state government chooses where to spend our money. They do not seem to be spending it on roads, but they do like to spend billions on the Suburban Rail Loop. We have seen 650 employees. This was incredible. This came out today: 102 executives with the Suburban Railway Loop, sharing $33 million in salaries. That is an average of $322,000 for a salary. The Suburban Rail Loop is certainly a gravy train – there is no doubt about that – yet it is a project where we do not really know where the funding is coming from for that. Meanwhile under Labor we have seen a massive decline in road maintenance funding.

It is incredible to see the government’s recent announcement of a road blitz. The so-called blitz is nothing more than a reannouncement of the funding provided in the state budget in May, and Labor has padded out the funding numbers by including flood recovery works. So a nice little bit of spin there – it was not new money or a new program, just the recycling of Labor’s annual maintenance blitz media statements that have done nothing to fix our roads.

I certainly know from the RACV – I will not list them all, but there were a lot of roads from the 7000 people that did that survey – that many of those worst roads in Victoria are of course in Northern Victoria, in the electorate I represent. This region covers 100,000 square kilometres. There are many roads falling apart, and I, along with many other people, am very tired of the 40-kilometre-per-hour zones that are put alongside the road, suggesting that everyone slows down because the roads are that poor. I have had so many people raise the issue of the edges of roads with that significant drop-off that just makes it incredibly dangerous for vehicles travelling on the roads, let alone the potholes that are causing significant damage to vehicles.

I will wrap it up there. I did want to mention, though, that often we hear attacks from those opposite about privatisation, but it is worth noting that Labor recently abolished Regional Roads Victoria and they are planning to sell off the government-owned road repairer SprayLine Road Services. That is certainly worth a mention.

I do want to acknowledge, as Mr Mulholland did, Danny O’Brien, who is the Shadow Minister for Roads and Road Safety. I tell you, if any member of Parliament thinks they have had plenty of photos taken by potholes, Danny has had so many photos taken with potholes because there are many, but he does an incredible job advocating for improved funding for road construction and maintenance right across this state. It is clear Labor cannot manage money, they cannot manage projects and regional Victorians are definitely paying the price.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (18:17): I also rise to speak on the Roads and Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, which will deliver on the government’s commitments to improving road safety, modernising our transport systems and providing safer, more efficient services to the people of Victoria. This bill will amend several acts, those being the Road Safety Act 1986, the Road Safety Camera Commissioner Act 2011, the Melbourne City Link Act 1995, EastLink Project Act 2004, West Gate Tunnel (Truck Bans and Traffic Management) Act 2019, the North East Link Act 2020 and the Marine (Drug, Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act 1988. It also reflects the government’s focus on keeping promises and addressing challenges in innovative ways.

I will briefly mention the four key areas which this bill sets to achieve. Firstly, it will introduce 24-hour truck bans in the inner west to protect the health and safety of residents; secondly, it will roll out digital drivers licences, bringing convenience and security to the digital licencing system; third, it will reform custom plate policies to offer greater flexibility to drivers and vehicle owners who wish to use custom plates; and fourth, it will update administrative processes by adopting inclusive language to ensure fairness and respect.

In addition, I note that my colleague Mr Ettershank has tabled an amendment on behalf of his party, which is to address the very important issue of providing added supports for people who drive whilst taking medicinal cannabis. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Mr Ettershank and Ms Payne for their constructive dialogue and their work on this policy. We know of course that a few months ago those members brought a motion into this place seeking to commission a report, an inquiry, into this very issue and into the way in which the current law requires magistrates to give very strict rulings when it comes to people who face court as a result of having THC levels detected.

I understand there has been a report tabled in the Parliament this week following extensive work by Mr Tony Parsons and indeed Dr Hamish McIntosh. Mr Parsons is a very, very appropriate person to have led this review, as he was the supervising magistrate of the Drug Court division here in Victoria and has probably more experience than perhaps anyone else in this state when it comes to this issue. I note the rigorous work that has gone into this report, and I take this opportunity as well to thank both Mr Parsons and Dr McIntosh, noting just briefly from the report that a number of stakeholders – 18 high-level Victorian stakeholders – were consulted and canvassed over three key areas, including the confidence in the current state of the science whilst driving; confidence in the judiciary in their exercise of discretion, should this proposal be adopted; and confidence in the proposal to contribute to a meaningful reduction in harm for individuals who are prescribed medicinal cannabis and drive. The central recommendation of this report is that it found that the majority of stakeholders generally support the proposed reform to allow a discretion about orders against drivers licences for people prescribed medicinal cannabis should they be prosecuted for driving with cannabis in their oral fluid.

I am pleased to say that the government will be supporting the amendment brought forward today by the Legalise Cannabis Victoria party, acting on the recommendations of Mr Parsons’s and Dr McIntosh’s report, noting as well the ongoing closed-track trial, which Mr Ettershank also made reference to. That is ongoing work, and it is important that that ongoing work continues. But it is quite right and it is quite appropriate that, whatever the outcomes of that trial may be and whatever other discussions that may lead to, we act here to implement what is a very sensible reform which is going to benefit a great many Victorians and hopefully provide some measure of confidence and some measure of security to those Victorians who are prescribed medicinal cannabis and who do, for quite natural and understandable reasons, need to drive. I am very happy to be speaking here today in support of that amendment, along with other colleagues, and by the sounds of the room hopefully with a reasonable surety that we will see that pass as part of this bill today.

In the time I have left, noting that I will be cut off at some point in the next few minutes, I will briefly mention some of the other reforms that this bill achieves. I do wish to take the opportunity to thank Minister Horne and her staff for working extensively and of course the department for bringing together the bill before us today, which does achieve some very good things. The first amongst them, as Mr Ettershank noted, and Minister Stitt is no doubt passionate about too, are some significant reforms about these 24-hour truck bans in the inner west, which will protect the health and safety of residents in that area. This is not an issue that is new to this chamber. It is one that I recall reading about many, many years ago, many years before I was elected.

It is one more consequence of this government’s investment in major infrastructure projects. It is the level crossing removals and the Metro Tunnel that are allowing us to provide more turn-up-and-go train services. It is the West Gate Tunnel that is allowing this government to now be at a point where we can be implementing these truck bans, which will make a huge difference obviously to the amenity of residents of the inner west but also, very importantly, to the health and safety of those residents as well, with less trucks, less noise pollution, less actual pollution and less risk of dangerous collisions. Touching upon the important subject which Mrs Broad mentioned, which is road maintenance, we hope to see some improved road maintenance outcomes in those localised areas of the inner west, another benefit of having a transformational project such as the West Gate Tunnel come into fruition.

Another key reform is digital drivers licences, which will considerably assist Victorians in their ease of use and their ease of dealing with VicRoads and Victoria Police when needed and in other situations as well. There was a very successful trial which has now led to the rollout of digital drivers licences, and this bill will ensure that these licences are formally recognised under the Road Safety Act 1986. Drivers can display their digital licences to police or other authorities without having to hand over their phones. Officers can request that drivers refresh the display to confirm that the licence is up to date, but the drivers retain control of those devices. It will also assist people venturing out to pubs and clubs and wherever else you may be required to show ID. I do note that there are a few venues that still do require those physical licences, but I also note that work is being done with those sorts of venues to ensure that they will be able to be compatible with the new forms of identification, with digital drivers licences.

This is a reform that will greatly ease as well as modernise the process and indeed improve the security of the drivers licensing system for Victorians. Now, another thing that I was interested to see in this bill was custom licence plates. I do not have custom licence plates myself. I am not sure if any members of this chamber maybe have custom licence plates. Mrs McArthur, perhaps you have some good ones?

Bev McArthur: No, I’m lucky to have a plate at all.

Michael GALEA: I am disappointed to hear that. I thought you of all people might. But we can discuss some suggestions over the dinner break, which we are certainly having tonight, Mrs McArthur. We can discuss some suggestions of what you might like to take up. Currently those require up-front payments. In future, though, this will be able to be operated –

Bev McArthur: I can see MG though.

Michael GALEA: MG would be a terrific one. You might love to drive a licence plate that says MG, Mrs McArthur.

Bev McArthur: That would be good for you, Mr Galea.

Michael GALEA: Oh, and me. I think you would like it more. By allowing people to subscribe rather than pay those one-off payments this will, again, ease those cost-of-living pressures on people who do choose to take up custom plates, making it more accessible to people as well, which as I am sure you will agree, Mrs McArthur, can only be a good thing.

The bill will also implement a number of administrative changes in terms of the language, improving the fairness and making it more accessible to people as well. Outdated terms such as ‘an injured or disabled person’ will be replaced, for example, with ‘a person with an injury or disability’ and various other minor reforms along with that.

Very, very briefly, taking up from Mrs Broad’s comments, whilst this bill is not particularly about road maintenance, and I had the opportunity to speak much more extensively about this in my contribution yesterday on Mrs Tyrrell’s motion, it is certainly true that this year we are investing a record $964 million in a road maintenance blitz right across Victoria. Indeed it comes on top of the fact that over the past 10 years we have averaged $736 million a year in road maintenance funding, much of which recently has been required, yes, to repair those flood-affected roads.

Bev McArthur interjected.

Michael GALEA: But indeed in the previous four years of Liberal government that average figure was $493 million, which given how much, Mrs McArthur, you talk about road maintenance, I am sure you join me in being most aggrieved with your former colleagues here in this place who were happy to support what was almost half as much spending on road maintenance as the Allan Labor government is delivering. God forfend that if your colleagues, Mrs McArthur, were to get in again, we might see that number slashed again and even less road maintenance taking place across Victoria.

This is an important bill for the four key policy reforms that this delivers, but I am also very pleased, as I said, to be speaking in favour of the amendments put forward today by Mr Ettershank, which will make driving a whole lot more accessible and less discriminatory for people who do use medicinal cannabis, and that is very good thing. I commend the bill to the house.

Sitting suspended 6:28 pm until 7:33 pm.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (19:33): No surprise – I am always happy to talk about roads, because in this state they are a disgrace. Looking through the bill, part 2, division 1 is enforcing no-truck roads in parts of Melbourne’s inner west. This seems fairly uncontroversial, but I would like to hear from the minister how they will manage emergency events where unplanned road closures elsewhere mean that trucks will be forced to use these routes. Also, for those firms located within the area or for others requiring exemptions, how will this work? The legislation says that this is possible in prescribed circumstances, but I very much hope this will not create an onerous regime where fines will be issued and operators will have to apply for individual waivers for each occasion.

But my main problem with this is the rhetoric which surrounds it. It is all about taking trucks off our streets. The first thing to point out is that just means moving them to other streets. It is hard not to draw a comparison with Geelong here. It is all very well that massive infrastructure spending in Melbourne allows trucks to be taken off the streets, but what about Geelong? Bellarine link is an essential infrastructure project connecting Portarlington highway and the Bellarine Highway to the Geelong Ring Road. It would remove heavy traffic from the city, ease congestion in the CBD, add resilience and capacity to the local road network and bring substantial economic and quality-of-life benefits to Geelong. It really would take trucks off our streets, but it seems when those streets are not in Melbourne it is not quite the same priority.

This government is very focused on fixing roads and expensive road infrastructure inside the tram tracks of Melbourne, but outside the tram tracks it is a whole other matter, despite the fact this is practically the definition of sound public spending – investment in enabling infrastructure which would improve the lives and permanently enhance the economic productivity of Geelong. Four million dollars was allocated for planning in the 2016–17 budget, but since then things have seriously ground to a halt. It is not just drivers and the Geelong economy which suffer. For seven years residents and property owners have been left in limbo. They cannot develop or sell their properties, and businesses and road users do not know whether this important infrastructure will ever get built. The decision and the funding have not arrived, unlike the $26 billion blowout of Melbourne’s North East Link. Incredibly, my constituent was recently told by the Department of Transport and Planning staff that there is no project team working on the Bellarine link at the moment, and there are no timelines confirmed for when further works will be completed. Perhaps Labor are banking on the fact that their destructive efforts with manufacturing and the economy will put all the businesses needing trucks out of business, and that would definitely be a saving on road building.

The rest of this division of the bill is related to raising money. That is of real interest to this government, second only to spending it. It is good to see they are embracing joint venture partnerships when it suits them – that is, when they can sell off an asset to get a much-needed lump sum. I do not object to the details relating to numberplate registration. Perhaps there is somebody somewhere roundabout that needs to look at new plates or should have looked at new plates. Looking further through the bill, part 2, division 5, deals with digital licensing. We know about this in Western Victoria Region. In May last year the government announced the pilot for the statewide rollout would be conducted in Ballarat. However, a month later, when they decided to get in touch with Ballarat motorists, they managed to send 57,000 emails with the wrong surnames and addresses – another government IT success! It reminds me of the same department’s IT failures relating to wire rope barriers. The fact that this billion-dollar project was over budget and over time hardly surprised anyone, but what I wanted to know was how effective the barriers were at preventing crashes and injuries and how much they cost to maintain, both periodically and in response to crashes. This is surprisingly difficult to ascertain. The Victorian Auditor-General’s Office explained why: the Auditor-General’s report showed VicRoads had no proper asset records and could not show key information about the location, installation date, state of repair and maintenance schedule of their own barriers. This should have been the most basic information. How could VicRoads and then the Department of Transport and Planning begin to quantify the success or otherwise of the program if records were not maintained on the number of accidents at each site and on the frequency and cost of accident repair and routine maintenance? VAGO certainly agreed. Recommendation 6 of their report required a fix to this shocking failure. It took three years for it to happen – three years from the date of the report and many more years since the installation of the barriers. I will certainly be interested to ask soon what the asset register says about the kilometres of barriers currently lying broken in regional Victoria, unrepaired and now useless.

We also suffer from speed restrictions out in the country continually, because you cannot fix the roads or even repair them for a couple of months before they are back in a shocking state of disrepair. We have got 400 kilometres of speed restrictions across Victoria. That might be fine in a suburban street, but on a long journey it is very different. Some of the roads in my electorate have had speed restrictions on them ever since I have been in this place. A resident in Vite Vite driving to Skipton would add an extra 30 hours in their car per year if the speed restrictions remained in place.

The roads are in such a bad state in my electorate that the other day I was told by a constituent that the RACV had to tow away four cars in one afternoon because of the damage incurred due to poor roads, potholes especially. It is a shocking situation, it is a dangerous situation, in country Victoria. We have got school buses driving on poor roads. We have got milk transports driving on shocking roads. The damage incurred by the transports is also considerable, and that just adds to the cost of doing business in Victoria. That is to say nothing of the issue of roadside vegetation, where it seems the boffins in the transport department think that roadsides should be conservation zones or biodiversity zones or wildlife corridors. Actually, they should be safe places for motorists. Breeding animals on roadsides is actually not a very productive outcome, because, funnily enough, they do not know how to look right, left and right again. If they do not get caught by a vehicle, they will get caught by a wire rope barrier. We need to actually have a situation where we see it as very important that roadsides are safe places, not wildlife corridors, conservation zones or biodiversity zones. That is ridiculous.

In any case, we are here to speak about this Roads and Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. All I can plead for from this government is: get a better system where you actually build roads that last; have a guarantee on the construction so that they last longer than my toaster guarantee; and where the repairer does some work, make that also subject to some sort of guarantee or contract, because that is not what is happening now. Councils actually repair and build roads way better than the government. In the meantime you have sold off or you have scrapped Regional Roads Victoria – what is that all about? – and you are doing away with the surfacing business, and yet we are here with this Roads and Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill. I understand that the coalition are supporting the amendment of the cannabis party to allow medicinal cannabis to be incorporated into the rural road situation. I will leave it there.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (19:44): I also would like to speak on the Roads and Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. With no offence to the advisers and writers of the bill, I will confine my comments to the amendment by Mr Ettershank. Suffice to say that the Libertarian Party will be supporting this bill and the amendment.

When medical cannabis was legalised in Victoria – and to my mind this was undoubtedly a good thing and credit is due to the government for taking this bold move in a previous term of government before I was here – there was an oversight, and the road rules were not changed and inadvertently a grave injustice was created. This amendment today will go a small way to correcting that injustice. To give a stark example of this injustice, I will outline a case. I met a man; his name was Paul. This was back in 2022, and we ended up doing some media with him about his story. Paul is a 40-year-old man, and he is a veteran. He served his country and like many veterans he suffered physically and mentally during his service, and he was injured. He suffered PTSD and many other conditions, and as with many veterans he was prescribed many different pharmaceuticals to try and help his condition. These of course had bad side effects, and he thought, as he lived in Victoria and medical cannabis was available to him, that he might try it as an alternative to help with his symptoms. Luckily enough, he was able to obtain great benefit from taking medical cannabis daily and this was a life-changing thing for him, it is my understanding. It provided a great benefit for him.

However, one day, in Carrum I think it was, there was a car accident. He stopped on the side of the road behind the cars in front of him that had had the accident – he did not have the accident – and he was waiting on the side of a high-speed road, and up behind him a ute was travelling very fast and rammed into the back of his car while he was stationary. It was a very serious accident, but luckily no-one was seriously injured, although the cars were all very badly written off, I think. No-one was seriously injured, but of course as with most serious accidents the police and emergency services arrived, and the police asked him if he had been drinking and he said no, he was stone-cold sober. But being a very honest man, he said to the police officer that last night he had had some medical cannabis.

His honesty was punished. The police officer came back – he was just doing his job; I am not necessarily criticising the police officer. He tested him using an oral swab test, and that was positive, because the unfortunate thing about cannabis is that it is quite different to some other drugs, like alcohol, for example, in that it stays in the body for a very long time. And unlike alcohol testing, where blood alcohol concentration is very highly correlated to impairment – which is the real thing that we want to stop on the roads; we want to stop people being impaired, so that they do not cause harm to other people – we have a technological problem with cannabis testing, or THC testing, which is the active drug within cannabis. We have a technological problem in that our drug tests do not test for impairment, they only test for the presence of the drug in your system.

So we have the situation where we have an injustice, where we have someone who has served our country and who is stone-cold sober being punished and losing his licence simply because he took medicine that was prescribed by a doctor, and this is wrong. What this amendment does is effectively provides a defence for people like Paul. If they are charged with the offence of drug driving, then it gives discretion to the magistrate to effectively take into consideration the fact that they were taking prescribed medicine. That is a defence that is available to them, and the judge can decide to let them off. I still feel that this does not solve all the problems, and I know that the government and Mr Ettershank would agree with me on this. That is why the government is doing these trials. But this does provide somewhat of a comfort to people who want to take this medicine and be able to drive.

I have spoken to I do not know how many – dozens, probably hundreds actually – people who are medical cannabis patients, and they are terrified of driving. They are terrified of being pulled over. They are terrified of losing their licence. Most people seem to take their medical cannabis at night. They do not drive while they are impaired, but they are scared of losing their licence. Even worse, some people who are prescribed very powerful drugs – like opioids, like benzodiazepines, which are very addictive and also impair driving significantly – are able to get off these drugs and use cannabis, but people are reluctant to do that, because they know that if they get pulled over by a policeman and are tested, they will lose their licence. I feel that it is an awful situation where you have people that are taking very harmful drugs to help their condition and they are scared of an opportunity to take a far less harmful drug, like cannabis, to attempt to treat their condition. And they are too scared to do that because they do not want to lose their licence, especially people that live in regional Victoria, where losing your licence can be catastrophic to your lifestyle and your employment. It is very difficult to travel in many places in regional Victoria and people depend on their cars.

The Libertarian Party is very supportive of this. It is something that we have been pushing for as well for many years now. I do think that there are gaps here, and I know that the government and Mr Ettershank would acknowledge that those gaps exist. Some of those gaps I will point out now. One of them is it is only valid if you have a current prescription. I think that that is a bit harsh. I think that if you have a drug that has been prescribed by a doctor and your prescription happens to have run out, I do not think that that should be a reason to lose your licence if you were still taking the drug in accordance with directions. Also – I do not want to speak for him, but I am sure Mr Ettershank would agree with me here – I do not believe that cannabis should be illegal at all. People who take it recreationally and are not impaired should not be punished either, because after all the whole point of punishing people for drug driving or for driving while they are under the influence of alcohol is to prevent harm to others.

As I spoke about yesterday, Libertarians do believe that when people pose harm to other people, that is a valid intervention of the state. However, when someone is sober yet has drugs in their system, they do not pose a risk to other people, and therefore it is an unjust intervention of the state and there is a problem with the law – there is an unjust part of the law. We have had this injustice for long time now, and I am glad that we are going some way to alleviating that, to fixing that, and I hope that we can totally fix it eventually. Ultimately I hope that we will get a technological solution that will solve this once and for all. I know that there are lots of technologies being tested at the moment, such as eye tracking and that sort of thing, but these technologies are not ready for the market just yet. I hope that eventually there will be a technological solution that will solve this problem and be able to test properly for impairment.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (19:54): I am very happy to stand and speak to the Roads and Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, following on from my colleagues Mr Berger and Mr Galea. I want to acknowledge the minister and her staff for the work they have done to bring this forward and congratulate them on that. There are two items in this bill which I would just like to note that I think the Liberals are allergic to: new infrastructure and new technologies.

The West Gate Tunnel Project will deliver a vital second crossing in our state. It is going to unlock productivity for generations of Victorians to come. It is going to slash travel times and give a dedicated route to the port, which is incredibly important. Importantly for local families around Frances Street, Somerville Road, Buckley Street, Moore Street, Blackshaws Road and Hudsons Road, it means we will be able to ensure that trucks will not be on those roads, making life quieter and safer for local families. This legislation enables that new technology, those smart cameras, to identify trucks that are there when they should not be.

Of course, we are going to be mindful of trucks that need to be there. I think I overheard Mrs McArthur saying that this was going to hurt manufacturing, and while I was in my office and heard that on the TV I did not recall Mrs McArthur making a big noise when they tore apart the auto-making industry and manufacturing there. Anyway, I am glad she is thinking about it now, but this legislation is one step ahead of that. The other great thing it does is around digital drivers licences, which are an incredible thing. I love my digital drivers license, as do 1 million Victorians. It is a great thing to have your identification, proof of age and drivers licence on your mobile phone, and the fact that over a million Victorians are using and loving it is fantastic. This bill will make minor changes to the Road Safety Act 1986 to formally recognise digital drivers licences as documents for the purpose of the act.

Again, I want to congratulate the Minister. This is fantastic on many levels for our state, as is the second crossing, as are new and emerging technologies, as is the productivity that flows when we make these investments, and I thank you for the opportunity to make my contribution.

Trung LUU (Western Metropolitan) (19:56): I rise to speak on this Roads and Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. While on this side of the chamber we do not oppose this bill, I must emphasise that the Allan Labor government has a poor track record when it comes to maintaining our suburban roads and railways. This bill addresses an amendment in relation to no-truck zones, pollution, safety infringements, road safety cameras and the various truck bans among other amendments in this bill. Although this bill is not about road maintenance, as Mr Galea pointed out earlier during this evening, I do want to emphasise that with those amendments that I have read out – well, roughly some of those – there is a strong connection between the road condition, the road infrastructure, how these amendments are implemented, how these amendments are enforced and how these amendments are connected to the road itself. So while I am going to touch base on those amendments, I will have some words in relation to the road conditions in my electorate and across the state.

Poor road conditions pose a significant risk to drivers, as dangerous roads can lead to tragic outcomes, so it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that every Victorian can commute to work and return home safely. Unfortunately, the number of fatalities on the road has increased rather than decreased in recent times. One of the most effective ways to improve road safety is by investing in better road infrastructure. Better roads mean less truck bans, time zone restrictions, accidents, infringements and fines and better road management. So in relation to that, my constituents in my electorate are frustrated by the delay of our government in planning to maintain the poor condition of suburban roads in my region. In addition to poor road maintenance and the poor condition of roads, the budget for road asset maintenance has seen a 16 per cent reduction since 2020, allowing the roads to continue to deteriorate. This will affect, in relation to all these amendments, how it has been carried out, how it will be implemented and how it will be enforced. The budget paper obviously reveals significant neglect by the Labor government regarding our roads, and the road resurfacing and reconditioning projects in 2023 and 2024 declined by exactly 90 per cent across the state.

In relation to the roads themselves being in this poor condition, bridges requiring urgent repairs and buses and trains which are overcrowded, our public transport is struggling due to underinvestment to meet growing demand. This bill does not provide the solutions that people in the west need. It fails to tackle the inequality of funding for roads in my constituents’ experience. While we support the development of the no-truck zone cameras in Melbourne’s inner west in this bill, this measure alone is insufficient with such poor road infrastructure in the west. That is why there was a need for this enforcement to take place in the first place.

Truck traffic in the west has been steadily increasing over the years. When the western interstate freight terminal was cancelled in recent months because of the government’s poor management of funds, spending $400 million with no results, this meant there were more trucks on suburban streets in my inner-city electorate every day. Residents in Footscray and Yarraville report up to 2000 trucks travelling on a two-lane local road daily. This will affect the condition of the pollution in the inner suburbs, as mentioned across the chamber earlier this evening. This bill’s focus is on heavy trucks, enforcing regulation through cameras; however, it fails to address the root problem: the lack of viable alternatives for freight transportation across our great state.

Those opposite would like to believe that putting up a few cameras will solve the problem, but without viable alternatives to freight transport, such as rail, truck numbers will continue to grow in the inner suburbs. The government is focusing on enforcement instead of investment in better road infrastructure. My constituents in the west are wondering: what is the government’s real intention? Is it to reduce the massive debt because of their Suburban Rail Loop?

When we discuss traffic management and road safety it is essential to prioritise prevention over enforcement. This bill fails to address the deeper issue at hand. We must address the root cause of why a no-truck zone is a good idea. Penalising operators is only a temporary solution to a much bigger problem. Freight transportation should be moving volume from our roads to the rail network. This transition is essential to reducing urban air and noise pollution, which has a significant impact on the health of residents. In recent times the City of Maribyrnong has raised the issue of air quality for its residents. Residents living along truck hotspots such as Somerville Road, Francis Street, Moore Street, Hyde Street, Whitehall Street, Williamstown Road and Napier Street in my electorate are expressing their frustration and demanding action on this issue. While these amendments are a temporary fix, we need to look at alternative solutions.

In closing, the western suburbs still lag behind the rest of the state regarding road infrastructure and the poor road conditions it has sustained over the years. Residents of the west deserve better than slow zones and potholes. Residents of the west will no longer tolerate being treated as second-class citizens. The west demands this Allan government allocate a fair share of the road funding for our residents. This chamber should allocate resources towards helping to improve roads, buses and trains and enhance connectivity for the west. We are not opposing this bill. I hope this temporary fix will be only temporary and there will be a better long-term solution moving forward.

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (20:04): I rise to speak on the Roads and Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. The Greens will be supporting this bill. First, a major section of the bill implements a 24/7 camera enforcement and enforcement process for truck bans in the inner west. As we know, there have been truck curfews and bans in place for years, but various attempts at enforcement have failed so far. The communities in the inner west have suffered for decades from thousands of trucks thundering through their neighbourhoods, resulting in excessive truck noise, pollution from petrol and diesel emissions, local streets that are unsafe to walk, cycle or drive and the adverse health impacts from all of those. I want to commend the minister and the team for tackling this issue more substantively than previous efforts. The bill provides new powers to use camera technology and enforcement mechanisms to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. If the new system works in the way it has been explained to me and my team, we hope this will substantially improve the quality of life for communities in the inner west.

I want to take a moment to recognise the more than 20 years of advocacy by community groups to get to this point, especially the Maribyrnong Truck Action Group, MTAG. My Greens predecessors in this place Colleen Hartland and Huong Truong also spent years raising this issue. I also recognise the years of hard work done by Janet Rice and by Maribyrnong council’s Bernadette Thomas and Simon Crawford in the local community for so many years.

As another part of the solution to get trucks off residential roads in the inner west, I do note and commend the government’s purchase of the 29-hectare old Melbourne Market site on Footscray Road to be used as empty container storage, a practical measure that will reduce the need for many empty containers to travel back and forth through the inner west.

The Greens have two simple amendments for this bill. I ask that those amendments be circulated now.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): We might get you to continue, Ms Copsey. There will be a slight delay in the circulation of the amendments

Katherine COPSEY: Not a worry; we can come back to that. These amendments will be asking for public reporting. Given that there is a sad 20-year history of multiple failed attempts to enforce the longstanding truck bans, communities want to be assured that this time the Department of Transport and Planning and the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator will start doing the enforcement work that is required to get trucks off inner-west roads. Amendment 1 in my name will require annual reporting of the camera enforcement scheme – namely, the number of heavy vehicles detected in the no-truck zone and the number of offences for which an official warning was served, an infringement notice was served, a court proceeding was commenced or exemptions were given. Public reporting of these numbers will be welcomed by the community.

There remains a missing middle of data, which amendment 2 seeks to address. This is the number of fines actually paid and the number of fines that the regulator withdraws. Without these figures the public reports will be incomplete, and in our opinion it will leave the government open to more criticism from the local community about how effective this solution actually is. We suspect there will be a substantial number of fines that the regulator withdraws.

The second change that the substantive bill allows is the rollout of digital licences. This builds on a recent trial and marks an advancement in how we interact with our licensing systems. For those who prefer electronic options, it will make it easier for Victorians to manage their licences, and it is good to know that the option to have a physical licence will still be available to those who prefer an actual card to keep in their wallet. The bill also allows an increase in the cost of custom numberplates. I will make the point that if Labor had not followed the neoliberal path of privatising this service some years ago, those additional fees would be generating revenue for the state. The modernisation of the language for accessible parking permits is very welcome. Using more inclusive language not only reflects our commitment to accessibility but also fosters a greater sense of belonging within our community.

Lastly, the bill amends the fines process for the EastLink Project Act 2004, the Melbourne City Link Act 1995, the North East Link Act 2020 and the West Gate Tunnel (Truck Bans and Traffic Management) Act 2019 to allow that all fines and associated costs are to be refunded if a person has been granted an extension of time to deal with an infringement. I note that this is a welcome reform, but it falls short of what the Victorian fines reform advisory board recommended in 2019, which was:

… that the Melbourne City Link Act 1985 and the EastLink Project Act 2004 and other relevant or new Acts, should be amended to provide toll operators with own motion powers to withdraw tolling-related infringement fines.

This removes the necessity of Victoria Police having final arbitration of that decision and would allow a higher degree of discretion with regard to people who are experiencing financial hardship.

I will take this opportunity to say that Victoria is sadly lagging behind other states in fines reform. Four years ago New South Wales enacted a number of equity reforms across the infringement system. In that state anyone can now choose to pay fines in instalments, have more time for a fine to be reviewed and, for those on benefits, have fines automatically reduced.

As I stated earlier, the Greens will be supporting this bill, and I will speak further to our amendments during the committee stage.

Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (20:11): I also rise to speak on the Roads and Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. I understand, for starters, that this bill is going to be addressing the issue of having our licences more accessible – electronically, through our phones et cetera. It is just a shame that it has taken this government such a long time to explore some of the more modern options, given that South Australia has been doing this since 2017 and New South Wales since 2019. As has been mentioned already in this chamber, some of the reforms with infringements are also lagging behind in Victoria. But that is not what really draws my attention – it is actually what this bill does not do. If we are going to be talking about roads and road safety legislation, one has to wonder why our roads are actually not safe and why this legislation is not addressing some of the issues that are actually being caused because our roads are not being properly maintained by the Allan Labor government.

Recently the RACV invited Victorian motorists to take part in the 2024 My Country Road survey asking about the safety of our roads in regional Victoria. The survey was conducted because of the numerous complaints about potholes and poor road conditions, arguing that safe roads prevent and minimise road accidents. They are interesting, the road accident statistics, and I would like to just clarify what some of these are and how these relate to the bill potentially. A total of 289 people have lost their lives on Victorian roads. This is an 8.6 per cent increase. Twenty-three more lives were lost from July 2023 to the end of June 2024 than in the previous 12-month period. Of the lives lost, 117 – that is just over 40 per cent – were drivers, 67 were motorcyclists, 56 were pedestrians, 41 were passengers and eight were bicyclists. There were 267 fatal crashes on Victorian roads. This is 20 more than the 247 fatal crashes that took place in the previous 12 months. For every 100,000 people, 4.18 lives were lost in road accidents, and there were more than three fatal crashes for every 100,000 people. Areas with the highest number of lives lost were Casey, Greater Dandenong, Kingston and Monash. They are all up there with some of the country areas. These are areas that I represent in the south-east. More than 7000 people responded to this survey.

What I notice is that this legislation that is going through, this amendment bill, does not tackle any of the concerns that motorists and the local Victorian people are addressing on a day-to-day basis, which are potholes and poor road conditions. These are the things that are at the top of the list for Victorians. These are things that are causing blowouts to cars and tyres. These are the things that are causing some of our road accidents. Yet there is nothing in here that actually adequately addresses this. This is going to be about how we reroute trucks in western areas to serve local Labor MPs. This is about having no-truck zones. I am sure some of the residents in those areas will be very happy for that, but I must say it is interesting that there is a little bit of self-interest in this particular amendment bill. It also makes a number of minor amendments, and as I said, the new digital drivers licence is going to be clarified under these. Again I come back to the fact that our roads are in disarray. In fact just outside my office is a massive pothole that somebody made some attempt to cover over recently, and it has sunk again, within less than a week, to be at least an inch deep. There is nothing in here that addresses these road issues for local Victorian people. I think it is particularly bad in regional Victoria, and all Victorians at different times have to travel to regional Victoria. Something like this is just not enough, and there is a lot of self-interest in this without actually looking at what is impacting local Victorian people. What is more, we have large amounts of money being spent or being said to be spent, and nobody knows exactly when that is going to take place. I think with regional Victoria it is $675 million that is going to be going on a road maintenance blitz. With our 55 new or increased taxes that means that taxpayers are going to be paying even more to be able to fund these things. In fact we now have a debt of about $190 billion. The last time I looked it was $26 million a day that we are paying just in interest.

Whilst I am very happy to speak on the legislation, I cannot help but notice what this amendment bill omits, and that is any future regulation of how money will be spent on delivering roads for people so they can actually drive on them and so that maintenance is done in such a way that will allow Victorians to drive safely. There is nothing about that. There is nothing about the fact that when those cracks develop and those roads are not fixed they actually become more expensive to maintain. There is nothing in here that addresses issues that Victorians deeply care about.

Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (20:17): I rise to speak on the Roads and Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, and I will keep my remarks rather short. I could go on and on and on forever about roads in this state. We spoke about roads yesterday, so I have made quite a contribution on a number of roads in my electorate already this week in Parliament. This bill particularly looks at things like introducing no-truck zones in the inner west of Melbourne. I am actually very happy for the people in the areas where these no-truck zones will be because I grew up in Williamstown. I know the traffic in and around the west of Melbourne, and I know how dreadful it has been, particularly for those people who live in Francis Street. I have friends who live in Francis Street, and it has been horrible for them over a number of years. But now we are going to have the West Gate Tunnel, and there are going to be additional no-truck zones in those Western suburbs areas to keep trucks out of residential areas. That is great for the people of the west, but we need some of those no-truck zones in country Victoria as well.

The West Gate Tunnel is the reason for these no-truck zones being implemented. The West Gate Tunnel is a 4-kilometre toll road that links the West Gate Freeway at Yarraville with the Port of Melbourne and Docklands. The West Gate Tunnel started as a project called the West Gate distributor. Does everybody remember that? Labor committed to that project in 2013 as an alternative to the east–west link, which they had decided to cancel. They said the West Gate distributor would allow 5000 trucks a day to bypass the West Gate Bridge and go straight to Port Melbourne, and they estimated the cost to be $680 million – just $680 million. Labor said they would fast-track that project after winning government. In 2014 Daniel Andrews promised:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

It will be built within the first term of a Labor government.

Well, here we are, almost in the second half of the third term. That was 10 years ago that he said that. Ten years later the bridge bypass project is still not finished, and of course we know why – because the Westgate distributor was changed to be the West Gate Tunnel, and the budget was multiplied to be eight times more expensive. It was to be $5.5 billion. Since then the tunnel project has been riddled with notorious cost blowouts and massive delays and was massively mishandled by the then Minister for Transport Infrastructure Jacinta Allan. The original construction cost of the West Gate Tunnel was calculated to be $5.5 billion, by 2019 it had blown out to $6.2 billion and by 2022 it had blown out to $10.2 billion. The tunnel is now $5 billion over budget and scheduled to be completed three years after the original date. I do not know that anyone actually does believe that it will be finished next year, but that is what the government keeps saying. There is no light at the end of this tunnel; it is just a black hole, a black hole of debt that Victorian taxpayers will be paying off for decades.

The West Gate distributor and then the West Gate Tunnel were conceived as projects to get trucks off the West Gate Bridge, which is perpetually congested. Labor decided that taking those 5000 trucks off the road and bypassing the bridge to get straight to the port was worth spending $10 billion. Now they are spending $10 billion on a 4-kilometre tunnel to take 5000 trucks off the road.

Compare that to the value they would have got if they had invested in a bypass of Shepparton. What an idea that would be. We have only been talking about that for 30 years – bypassing Shepparton and getting trucks out of the CBD of Shepparton. In fact, last millennium we decided on the route for that, and there was to be land acquired and there was to be 10 years of habitat re-establishment for some wildlife, but we still have not seen any commitment to building the bypass of Shepparton. The bypass of Shepparton, for the full 36 kilometres of that four-lane bypass, was estimated in 2016 to cost $1.3 billion. What a bargain compared to the West Gate Tunnel.

There are very large truck movements in and around Shepparton. In fact 25 per cent of all of the state’s trucks are registered in the Greater Shepparton district, and they proudly carry our agricultural produce and manufactured goods from the Goulburn Valley out to the rest of Victoria and to the port to go around Australia and overseas. By 2031, 2300 heavy vehicles a day will travel up the Goulburn Valley Highway and through Shepparton. Over 30,000 vehicles a day use the east–west Midland Highway to travel across the causeway between Shepparton and Mooroopna. And again, we need those trucks out of the CBD. The north–south trucks are going via an alternate route, but there are problems with that alternate route that I will talk about later.

But the east–west trucks are still going right through the middle of High Street, Shepparton – 30,000 vehicles a day across the causeway. They need to be taken out of the Shepparton CBD. With those numbers it is clear that Shepparton should be at the top of the list for regional cities that need a bypass to take heavy vehicles around its town centre. The bypass would reduce fuel use and carbon emissions, cut the time and cost of product transportation and make the town centre safer for the residents of Shepparton.

The estimated cost for stage 1 of the Shepparton bypass – the Shepparton people broke it down into stages because we did not think we were ever going to get that full $1.3 billion for the 36 kilometres to be done at once – which would have provided us with a second river crossing and the opportunity to also have an east–west bypass of Shepparton, taking the trucks out of the CBD on the Midland Highway, was just $260 million in 2016. The federal government actually committed $208 million to deliver stage 1 of the bypass, but the project never got off the ground because state Labor were not interested in funding that bypass or in providing a safer environment for the people of Shepparton.

During the 2022 floods the single existing river crossing was flooded. The causeway was cut off by floods, and the towns of Shepparton and Mooroopna and all the towns on the Mooroopna side of the river, on the western side of the river – Tatura, Ardmona et cetera – were cut off from Greater Shepparton. They were cut off from the hospital and from services. People were unable to get into town for medical treatment or other vital supplies. Some even had to be airlifted to the hospital. So it is vital that we get a second river crossing in Shepparton, and it is vital that our bypass is funded. Is there a better picture to illustrate Labor’s neglect of the region than having to airlift people to hospital because the Labor government was too stingy to build the first stage of the Shepparton bypass?

While it was spending over $10 billion on a tunnel in metropolitan Melbourne – and that is only one of several Melbourne tunnels that Labor is building – a second river crossing in Shepparton would have been incredibly useful for a rapid and efficient emergency response during the floods and also for the vital east–west connections across Victoria. The whole of Victoria was cut off because the Midland Highway could not be accessed between Shepparton and Mooroopna. The crossing that would have been provided by stage 1 of the bypass would have enabled those connections to be open and freight to continue to move throughout our state.

The Goulburn Valley Highway, which is the north–south portion that needs to be bypassed out of Shepparton, actually runs right past the Kialla West Primary School. We know that there was a dreadful accident at the Kialla West Primary School in which a family was injured, and one of those children – that was over five years ago – still has treatment today for some of the injuries that were incurred in that accident. But just past the Kialla West Primary School you turn right onto the Shepparton alternate route. There are another two schools on there already: the Orrvale Primary School, which is only a few metres off to the side on Channel Road, off Doyles Road; and on the northern section of that alternate route on Grahamvale Road, the Grahamvale Primary School. I spoke about that in Parliament this week and about the need for the government to acquire additional land at Grahamvale Primary School, which is landlocked, so that they can actually have a safer drop-off and pick-up point for parents and students.

Tom McIntosh: On a point of order, Acting President, I was a little bit distracted, but I am just trying to get the relevance to the bill here?

Wendy LOVELL: I was talking about having no-truck zones and the truck zones in Shepparton where we could use no-truck zones as well.

Tom McIntosh: So you are looking to have cameras?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Thanks, Mr McIntosh. That was not a point of order, particularly that last bit. But we were talking about roads – that is close enough.

Wendy LOVELL: As I said, the government needs to acquire additional land for the Grahamvale Primary School so that they can move their teachers parking out to the back of the school and they can free up the space at the front of the school to have a much safer drop-off and pick-up point for students and for parents during those busy times, so that cars are not parked on the side of a truck route and we do not have students mixing with trucks.

We are about to have a fourth school established on that truck route as well with the Shepparton south precinct plan allowing for an additional school, so there will be four schools on the alternate route through Shepparton. This is the reason we need to get going on the Shepparton bypass immediately – so that we can move those trucks away from the eastern side of Shepparton where those four schools are located across to the western side where the new bypass will go and get the trucks out of High Street as well so that we have much safer shopping centre. During the state election we had our pre-poll just near a pedestrian crossing on High Street, and the amount of trucks that locked up their wheels as they came up to that pedestrian crossing, because they did not realise they were going to have to stop in the middle of town, was frightening.

We need the bypass funded, and we need the government to look at that now. Rutherglen is another town that could do with some no-truck zones through the middle of their town. The Murray Valley Highway runs right through Main Street in Rutherglen, and Rutherglen have also been advocating for a bypass of their town. Their town is a historic town. It was built in the days of the gold rush. It was built in the days of the horse and cart. We had one death there, a tragic death of a local, this year, and we have also had three other major accidents in Main Street. There are some safety improvements that are going to be made with pedestrian crossings et cetera, but longer term the people of Rutherglen desperately need this government to start planning and to get on with providing a bypass of Rutherglen.

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (20:31): It has been a very wideranging debate here this evening which has traversed areas of Victoria that have not actually come anywhere close to the inner west. It has really been the uniting factor of roads and of trucks. But that notwithstanding, this is an important bill, particularly as it relates to the use of video analytics and the identification of heavy vehicles and potential offences that are appropriately flagged in order to ensure that we are removing trucks from the inner west. Making sure that we have better public health, better amenity and reduced vehicle movement throughout those growing communities is really important. It is also important to note that there are specific carve-outs and exemptions for, for example, trucks that are using the local area, and that there is capacity for that to be considered as part of the assessment and removal of any fines or infringement notices that might otherwise be issued.

We want to make sure also that the technology that we are using is able to distinguish trucks from other vehicles. This is not dissimilar to the sort of human interface that requires us to identify every picture in a grid that might have a motorcycle on it. This technology will enable us to distinguish between vehicles of one size and another to the extent that they fall within the definition of trucks for the purposes of this ban. It goes well beyond the signs, and it will ensure that we do have that 24-hour truck ban delivered across Francis Street, Somerville Road, Buckley Street, Moore Street, Blackshaws Road and Hudsons Road – again, places where communities live, areas where people want to be able to move around and to do so safely. We do know that the intersection between heavy vehicles and people, cyclists and other road users is often an area of significant risk to safety.

Custom plates were another area that was covered in the debate here today. I have been racking my brains trying to think of something creative with seven letters in it, and the only thing I can think of is OLVOLVO, which would not attract any of the sort of, well, prestige that something like FERRARI would. In any event there are specific approaches to addressing the value of numberplates and the way in which those custom plates can be addressed in being facilitated through the introduction of periodical charges and transfer fees for registration number rights.

Digital drivers licences – they are something which has been exceptionally popular for a range of reasons, and good reasons. They enable people to move around and show a digital ID which is data protected. We do have integrity of that information to guard against cybersecurity risk. And we have recently ticked over 1 million digital drivers licences, so that is about 20 per cent of eligible drivers. We want to make sure also that we do have an opportunity to make minor changes to the Road Safety Act 1986 to formally recognise those digital licences as licence documents for the purpose of this act. Essentially, this makes a clarification or puts to bed any issues around ambiguity as it relates to the standing of the digital drivers licence itself.

We have some miscellaneous amendments around inclusive language updates and infringement fees and what that looks like as far as the delivery of better access to information under the fines review and reform acts and legislation. So it is fair to say that there is a lot of work in this bill that goes to the detail of a better interface between the regulatory framework and the operation and use of our licence system and the road network itself. We also want to make sure that we are in a position to talk about other matters canvassed by this bill, namely the distinguishing features between presence and impairment as they relate to prescription cannabis.

I am looking forward to the committee stage of this bill. There are some elements of it which really do warrant recognition as the culmination of many, many years of work, a lot of careful discussion in the areas of policy and public health and safety, a careful balancing of rights under the law and the addressing of some longstanding inequities that have been identified as areas that can be improved, where done so, in a measured and evidence-based fashion. On that basis I commend the bill to the house for the purposes of the second-reading debate.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Instruction to committee

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman) (20:36): I have considered the amendments on sheet DE03C, circulated by Mr Ettershank. In my view these amendments are not within the scope of the bill and require an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 14.11 to be considered.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (20:36): I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee that they have power to consider amendments and new clauses to amend the Road Safety Act 1986 to provide for discretion for a court in cancelling or disqualifying the licence or learner permit of a person who commits an offence against section 49(1)(bb), (h) or (i) of the Road Safety Act 1986 if it relates to the use of a prescription drug which is a legal medicinal cannabis product.

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (20:37): It is not the government’s usual position to support an instruction motion unless there is an urgency or a compelling justification to do so. I do want to put on the record that Mr Ettershank and Ms Payne, along with their staff, have engaged with the government in good faith on their proposed amendments. We do thank them for the work that they have undertaken and their efforts in producing a report on their proposal, which Mr Ettershank tabled in this place yesterday. Because of these efforts and again a very careful and positive engagement, government offered to find a legislative pathway that allows the reform to be proposed to the Parliament in a timely manner. It is the view of government that the proposed reform did not warrant a separate piece of legislation, given the discrete and niche changes proposed. So the advice therefore is that the proposed amendment is out of the scope of the bill, hence the instruction motion, which the government supports.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (20:38): The opposition’s standing practice is to support instruction motions, so we will be supporting it.

Motion agreed to.

Committed.

Committee

Katherine COPSEY: I would like the amendments in my name to be circulated now.

Clause 1 (20:40)

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, I have spoken to the purpose of my amendments, and the amendments that I have circulated in two parts this evening. We have had some constructive conversation with your office in formulating these amendments, so thank you very much to you and your team for engaging with my office on these. I have a question in relation to the second of my amendments, which relates to public reporting of the number of fines actually paid and the number of the fines that the regulator withdraws. I wonder, Minister, if you would mind speaking now to what the government’s position is in relation to reporting that, and if it is not supported, why?

Harriet SHING: Indeed it has been a very productive and collaborative engagement with your office and your team, and this is indeed the purpose of these discussions, particularly as they relate to multiple amendments. I will address the second component of your amendments. Perhaps we can move to the first and the government’s position on that, which is I think clearly understood by you.

We support really strong reporting for the enforcement of truck bans in the inner west, and we have worked with you, as you know, to arrive at the first amendment. That provides a suite of metrics that give some real transparency to the community. That will help government to assess the effectiveness of those truck bans, but good reporting actually means reporting on figures that are relevant and that are reliably produced. The number of fines paid within, for example, a one-year period is not in and of itself a good indication of how the truck ban enforcement is actually operating. Fines can in a practical sense often be deferred or delayed, sometimes up to months or years at a time. This can occur for a number of reasons, so information cannot necessarily be consistently sourced in a meaningful way across a reporting period.

However, we will be reporting on the total number of infringements issued, which will measure the total instances of trucks breaching in the no-truck zones, and we will be providing data on the number of infringement notices taken to the Magistrates Court and the outcomes of such proceedings. That enables us to have a really clear picture of how those infringements are being issued and what happens when they are contested.

We also need – and this is something which I know you and your team appreciate – to protect the discretionary powers of the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator to make those really expert decisions as to whether an infringement is withdrawn, for example, for extenuating circumstances. That is again where that discretion has a role to play in all of the circumstances of a particular application for withdrawal. In most of the cases where we do see the discretion being deployed the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator will issue a written warning, and we will be reporting on the number of written warnings that are issued by the regulator.

We do support the really strong rollout of those truck bans in the inner west, and we believe in fact that the first amendment that you have proposed is the most appropriate way to do that. I am happy to provide you with some further detail on fines paid and fines withdrawn if you would like for the sake of the record and this committee stage. Please do stop me if I am going over ground that has been well traversed with you already, but the management of fines and infringement notices is generally the responsibility of Fines Victoria, as many people would know. As such, the Department of Transport and Planning and the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator do not actually hold information about the status of infringement notices once they are registered with Fines Victoria. In most cases those fines are paid in full when they are due, but there can be a range of possible outcomes that flow from that. If the infringement is not contested, recipients can enter into a payment plan, which is available in a range of different configurations, subject to approval of the director of fines reform, or they can refuse to pay. If those fines are not paid, further fees might be added or an enforcement warrant might be issued. The enforcement of the non-payment of infringement fines is within the scope of Fines Victoria and the Sheriff’s Office in Victoria. I suspect that there are a number of people around this chamber or who are following along at home who may have had experience firsthand with the way in which this system operates.

However, the status of an infringement notice, such as whether or not it has been paid or contested, is not a relevant factor to assess the efficacy of the use of those cameras and that enforcement in the no-truck zone areas. We will be reporting on the total number of infringements issued, which will measure up the total number of instances of trucks which have been breaching those no-truck zones, and we will also provide data on the number of infringement notices taken to the Magistrates’ Court and the outcome of those proceedings, so in an instance where, for example, a fine is contested, additional fees are added, the Sheriff’s Office becomes involved or a warrant is issued.

On the matter of fines withdrawn, the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator really does need to be able to have those discretionary powers to decide whether there are extenuating circumstances in place such that an infringement notice should be withdrawn. Reporting on these numbers might give rise to industry flouting the system; for example, where the exercise of discretion forms the basis for a reading into the number of infringements withdrawn as essentially a guide on statistical likelihood of what it might mean to get out of a fine. In most cases where that discretion is invoked the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, as I said, will issue a written warning, and we will be reporting on the issuing of written warnings issued by that body. That may provide you with a little context in relation to your second amendment, Ms Copsey. Just for avoidance of doubt, the first amendment that you have proposed for reporting, we do support that amendment. As the second amendment stands, on those fines paid and fines withdrawn, we will not, for the reasons I have just outlined, be supporting that amendment.

Katherine COPSEY: Thank you, Minister, for that comprehensive answer; it is much appreciated. You mentioned the discretionary power of the national regulator to withdraw fines, and you have mentioned extenuating circumstances. Are there any other grounds on which the national regulator can withdraw fines?

Harriet SHING: The types of exemptions are still being decided in partnership between the Department of Transport and Planning and the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, so this is intended to be done by way of prescribed regulation, and we do want to make sure that we can continue that work to understand the best way in which that process can be pursued. The work that we will do around exempting specific vehicles – it is like garbage trucks and Coles and Woolworths trucks, trucks which are very clearly in an operational function when in those areas where the truck bans are in operation.

We are looking at those big A-doubles and those big B-doubles for the purpose of understanding what truck movements look like through those no-truck zones and making sure that we can identify those vehicles. If you have got a large container vehicle that is coming from the port, for example – a Coles truck, a Woolies truck or a garbage truck that is stopping, for example, to collect household waste – that would then be a relevant part of understanding how they do belong and do have a place on local roads, as distinct from an A-double, a B-double or a container carrying heavy vehicles. That is the sort of thing that is intended to be addressed by this bill, because the fundamental starting point for removing heavy vehicles from the roads is that vehicle – that type of vehicle – which has been compromising safety and amenity and air quality, impacting on the environmental experience of people who call that part of the world home.

Katherine COPSEY: Yes, just to confirm the government’s intent here: by and large, unless there are extenuating circumstances, the government intends for the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator to regularly apply fines to heavy trucks that are not performing an operational function in local streets and are flouting the truck ban.

Harriet SHING: The short answer is yes, but I also just want to say that there will be really extensive engagement, as has already occurred with the Maribyrnong Truck Action Group in the lead-up to those cameras coming online. This is also about what that community and social licence looks like for the purpose of operationalising this bill. Again, it is about extenuating circumstances relating to the primary purpose for that truck being on a local road as distinct from taking a path which will not have it go through those streets where it will in fact amplify problems that have been identified by residents in the community.

Katherine COPSEY: I will ask all my questions at clause 1 – I only have two more. With regard to the increased fees for custom plates, how much additional revenue do you expect to be raised through this, and will the state benefit from any of that additional revenue or will 100 per cent of that go to the private contractor?

Harriet SHING: I know that I was a bit lighthearted about it when I did the sum-up – about personalised plates and the fact that I can really only think of OLVOLVO as being an example of a seven-digit custom numberplate. This is about payment for a periodic fee for new custom plates, and this is also something which in the bill provides for the imposition of a new fee for transfer of those registration number rights. The fee is essentially to recover the costs associated with recording the transfer of the rights to the new owner. This is about making sure that we do have an opportunity to not only spread fees across a longer period but also make sure that we have an opportunity for those high-value plates to have, for example, a fee that reflects their value if it is to be sold at auction. If, for example, you have a less prestigious plate than FERRARI – if you do have an OLVOLVO, for example – a periodical fee might then likely be more appropriate. That is kind of like a Netflix subscription, if that helps to make any sense of it.

Katherine COPSEY: Finally, with regard to fines reform, which I touched on in my contribution to the second reading, why hasn’t the government implemented the Victorian Fines Reform Advisory Board recommendation from 2019? I referred to this recommendation earlier. It is that:

… the Melbourne City Link Act 1995 and the EastLink Project Act 2004 and other relevant or new Acts, should be amended to provide toll operators with own motion powers to withdraw tolling-related infringement fines …

removing the necessity of Victoria Police having final arbitration on that decision and allowing a higher degree of discretion with regard to people in financial hardship. Why hasn’t that been addressed in this bill?

Harriet SHING: Ms Copsey, this is something which is way beyond my wheelhouse in the context of this particular bill. That might be something that you can most usefully direct to the Attorney-General, as it falls within the scope of her work there. I am very happy to perhaps have a conversation with her and indicate that you have raised this, for the purpose of a response that she might be to provide. But what I would say is that this is not within the scope or the contemplation of this bill, I am afraid.

David ETTERSHANK: I am happy to move:

1. Clause 1, page 2, after line 14 insert –

“(va) to provide for discretion for a court in cancelling or disqualifying the licence or learner permit of a person who commits an offence against section 49(1)(bb), (h) or (i) of the Road Safety Act 1986 if it relates to the use of a prescription drug which is a legal medicinal cannabis product;”.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I have just got a couple of quick, friendly questions for Mr Ettershank. Could you explain to me how your amendment will work in practice?

David ETTERSHANK: The nature of the amendment is by its essence very modest and very simple. Basically, as the law currently stands, a person who is found to have THC in their blood, for example, at a roadside blood test, is automatically found guilty, and upon appearing in court the magistrate must impose a suspension of six months for a first offence and 12 months for a subsequent offence. All that this does is that where a driver who is picked up can demonstrate that they have a current script for medicinal cannabis, they have the right to appear before a magistrate and use a new clause, which provides those magistrates with discretion. In that situation if the court is satisfied that the person was unimpaired and that they did have that current script, then the magistrate is free to exercise that discretion.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Does your amendment change the way that police operate in the field when someone tests positive for THC?

David ETTERSHANK: No, other than if the police themselves choose to change their operating procedures.

Evan MULHOLLAND: How will an impairment be interpreted? Is there a definition in law?

David ETTERSHANK: No.

Evan MULHOLLAND: When will the trials be concluded and the results publicly available?

Harriet SHING: The road minister announced the trial some time ago. This would be a trial involving 70 drivers, I think. It is not yet confirmed in terms of exact timeframes, but it is looking like around the middle of next year, 2025.

Evan MULHOLLAND: No other questions from me. I just state that we will not be opposing this amendment.

Jeff BOURMAN: I actually will be opposing Mr Ettershank’s amendment but surprisingly not because I necessarily disagree with them. For a long time I have seen a problem. Obviously I have had some practical experience, not in the using part. The problem I see is right at the moment Victoria Police are not trained or equipped to actually determine it without a person having a severe amount of impairment or a machine to determine impairment. What we see is that the field sobriety tests in America are not done widely here. I heard Mr Ettershank on the radio earlier today. I made a call to a serving police officer who knows the traffic laws very well, and they had not heard of it being rolled out. I am not saying it has not, but I think we have put the cart before the horse here. If there was a mechanism to determine impairment before it went to court so that police officers actually had a proper way of determining whether a driver was impaired or not or just had THC in their blood, I would actually support this. But without that I think we are putting the cart before the horse. It ends up just being in front of a magistrate in the end with them making a decision on maybe some observations by the police officer. I just think we are doing this a little early. I think a more appropriate way would be to roll out a proper impairment test so that people are not unfairly targeted for just having THC in their blood.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is that just a statement or did you want an answer?

Jeff BOURMAN: Yes, that is just a statement.

David ETTERSHANK: I thank Mr Bourman for his comment. I do not think it is particularly material to actually what is before the chamber in terms of this amendment. I also think it is factually incorrect, but we can resolve that later on.

Katherine COPSEY: I just want to make a brief statement on Mr Ettershank’s amendment as well. The Greens support this amendment, and we welcome this step forward. The amendment provides for a magistrate to have discretionary powers to allow a driver with a medicinal cannabis prescription to keep their licence if that person is tested and cannabis is shown to be present. This is a very sensible interim step providing discretionary powers for a magistrate. We also support the review clause contained within the amendment. These amendments, compared to the task that lies ahead of us in relation to drug law reform, are modest in scope and ambition. But it is an important step forward, nonetheless. We congratulate Legalise Cannabis and the government for the productive discussions, clearly, that have led to this step.

The Greens look forward to the findings of the Swinburne University of Technology’s closed-track study on cannabis and driver impairment when that is released, and we trust that those findings will likely mirror many other similar studies, demonstrating beyond doubt that prescribed medicinal cannabis does not necessarily impair a person’s ability to drive.

We have got, as I said, a lot more work to do in the drug law reform space. The Greens have been on record for decades in support of drug law reform. Regarding cannabis, our current policies include legalising and regulating the sale and consumption of cannabis in Victoria. Our plan has been costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office, which found that if cannabis was regulated and taxed at a rate of 30 per cent, broadly how we deal with alcohol sales, it would generate $1.21 billion in revenue over 10 years. Our policy is a recognition that decades of prohibition have failed and it is clear that low-level drug offences unnecessarily drive up prison populations at great cost to both the state and the community.

The issue that has been identified through presence testing is having a real impact on individuals and community members at the moment, when in fact there is, in many cases, potentially not a great ill that is being avoided by people having their licences removed and in fact it is contributing to continuing stigma and difficulties for users of medicinal cannabis that are manifestly unwarranted. We congratulate Legalise Cannabis for this important step forward, and we look forward to, as Mr Bourman noted in his contribution, further progress on making sure that it is actually impairment that we are looking to measure. As you said, Mr Ettershank, there is more work to be done on that. We hope it happens soon. The Greens will continue to advocate for an evidence-based public health approach to this policy area.

Harriet SHING: Mr Ettershank, I have got a number of questions for you in relation to the amendment, and once that is concluded I will make a couple of remarks before I sit down. Obviously we have been clear about the amendment being acceptable to government. I put that on the record in the course of the instruction motion contribution I made earlier. I would be keen on understanding who you consulted with in the development of this proposal. Obviously this matter has been carefully considered in the Parsons process, in a range of other reports and inquiries and in a range of other jurisdictions. This is not a subject matter that is being newly traversed; rather it has a very, very extensive history that has, again, formed the basis of much of your advocacy not just since being elected but well prior to it.

There is the consultation in the development of this particular proposal, the work around the distinguishing features between presence and impairment – you and I have spoken about that in a range of different contexts from contractual through to industrial through to public safety as it relates to roads – but then also who has the onus of proof in establishing the presence of THC is as a result of medicinal cannabis. Again, there is an intricacy there, particularly where it may overlap with recreational use or use beyond what the volume of use prescribed has been or the way in which that use has taken place.

David ETTERSHANK: I thank the minister for her question. Could I first of all just acknowledge that we did not undertake the consultations. Following the resolution of the Legislative Council in July the task of consultation was put forward, and I would just like to acknowledge the extraordinary work undertaken by Mr Tony Parsons and his colleague –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Ettershank, sorry, you are not supposed to comment on the gallery.

David ETTERSHANK: My apologies – the extraordinary work that was undertaken in the consultation process. By way of identifying who was consulted, broadly the consultees were drawn from five discrete pools: in terms of the judiciary there were, firstly, the Honourable Justice Lisa Hannan, the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, and secondly, Judge John Cain, the State Coroner of the Coroners Court.

From within the legal fraternity there were Colin Mandy SC, vice-president of the Victorian Bar; Sarah Keating, the honorary Treasurer of the Victorian Bar; Sally Flynn KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association; Sam Andrianakis, a consultative member of the Criminal Bar Association; Adam Awty, the chief executive officer of the Law Institute of Victoria; Donna Cooper, the general manager of policy, advocacy and professional standards of the Law Institute of Victoria; Jarrod Behan, the co-chair of the criminal law section of the LIV; and Amity Mara, the manager of policy, advocacy and projects at the Fitzroy Legal Service.

From the law enforcement community there was Mr Wayne Gatt, the chief executive officer of the Police Association Victoria.

From the medical and social sphere there were Dr Jill Tomlinson, the president of the Australian Medical Association Victoria; Lewis Horton, the policy manager of the Australian Medical Association Victoria; Mr Jarrod McMaugh, the state manager of Victoria for the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia; Ms Juanita Pope, the chief executive officer of the Victorian Council of Social Service; and Chris Christoforou, the chief executive officer of the Victorian Alcohol and Drugs Association.

On the policymakers front, there was consultation with Mr Marcelo Vidales, the head of Road Safety Victoria, Department of Transport and Planning.

I would also note that the Chief Commissioner of Police Mr Shane Patton was invited to consult. He declined, and I believe he stated publicly on ABC radio that change in this area is the responsibility of government and the responsibility of the police is to enforce the law.

Minister, I think there was a second part to your question.

Harriet SHING: Thank you, Mr Ettershank, for that extensive list. Again, this is an area where ongoing discussion has been part of the process to inform the trials of road safety and road use in those areas which are, again, contained for the purpose of understanding what driver behaviour looks like in circumstances where there is medicinal cannabis use. I also note that that has been a longstanding process of discussion and engagement which may well include additional people or organisations beyond the scope of that work. The second question I had was in relation to the onus of proof and who bears that onus to establish the presence of THC as a consequence of medicinal cannabis.

David ETTERSHANK: The proposed amendment does not in any way change the elements of the offences or the standard of proof for proving the offences. It remains an offence to drive while impaired, and it remains an offence to drive with THC in your system. All this amendment does is introduce sentencing discretion for someone found guilty of having THC in their system. It is expected that the driver would have the ability to demonstrate to the police officer or subsequently to a magistrate that they have a current medicinal prescription. This might take the form of a prescription, a letter of authority from the prescribing doctor or the container in which the medicinal cannabis was dispensed, which includes dates for dispensing as well as the expiry date for the prescription, along, obviously, with matching and relevant ID.

Harriet SHING: Further to that point, who will establish, then, in the context of the materials and considerations relevant to use and in the application of principles to the defence that might be applied in the exercise of a discretion by a magistrate, that the medicinal cannabis in question has been taken in accordance with the prescription? Again, how is that link created between prescription use in accordance with the prescription as administered – to the point that you just made earlier – and how will that inform decisions around the validity or the application of a defence, as distinct from other circumstances where cannabis may have been used and may then have also constituted a basis for impairment for consideration by the courts or by police?

David ETTERSHANK: I fear my answer will be significantly shorter than your question. Prima facie proof is that the person has a current script, that any explanation given is consistent with the directions on the script and that there is no evidence to the contrary.

Harriet SHING: Thank you, Mr Ettershank. You do set quite a clip in terms of the pace at which I should be proceeding with this committee stage. I will head straight into the next one. Will the driver be required to drive not only in accordance with the prescription but also in compliance with any additional instructions that may apply? There was an example of this not in relation to medicinal cannabis but another drug being used by a driver on, I think, the interview just after you appeared on radio this morning, Mr Ettershank. So if, for example, the doctor prescribes a period within which someone should not drive, I would be keen to understand the application of those rules and any waiting periods, for example, that may have an impact if they are not followed according to the directions of a treating practitioner.

David ETTERSHANK: This amendment empowers a magistrate to take someone’s licence but also gives them discretion not to. If it is apparent on the facts of the case that the driver has not acted in accordance with, for example, the doctor’s wait period, I would expect that in those circumstances the magistrate may take their drivers licence.

Harriet SHING: I am also after some detail on whether consideration will be given to medicinal cannabis users – patients – being required to maintain, for example, a zero blood alcohol status. Again, a combination of factors can contribute to impairment. It is not simply the use of or the ingestion of or exposure to one substance that may well give rise to impairment. Again, we know that concentration span and capacity to respond to imminent risk is affected by a range of factors on our roads, so it is speed, it is fatigue, it is mobile phone use and distraction, and to that end I would be interested in knowing whether, in this example, consideration is relevant for the purposes of a zero blood alcohol reading.

David ETTERSHANK: It may be that this question of blood alcohol or other extenuating circumstances may arise from the findings of the successful completion of the government’s closed track driving trial. However, in terms of what we have put before the chamber, this is very simple: it is simply an interim measure that purely addresses judicial discretion.

Harriet SHING: Yes, the progress of those trials will be something which no doubt we will all be watching very carefully and for good reason. Finally, Mr Ettershank, which may come as some relief to you, I am keen to understand whether this discretion will undermine the purpose of these offences in the context of road safety, again, where the primary purpose of road safety is to minimise, mitigate or otherwise reduce to zero, where that is possible, risk to safety of road users or to people adjacent to road and related environments.

David ETTERSHANK: I will keep it fairly narrow. The answer is, simply, absolutely not. It does not affect what is an offence or how the offence is constructed. Just remember that giving a court discretion not to take a licence does not mean that they will not take a drivers licence when it is appropriate to the facts of the case. They absolutely will.

Harriet SHING: That is very, very helpful, and thank you for answering the government’s questions in this regard. Again, it underscores the importance of the work that has been done and the careful nature of the way in which it has been prepared. Again, I reconfirm the government’s support for the amendment as you have put it and gratitude to everybody who has been involved in its preparation.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (21:18)

David ETTERSHANK: I move:

2. Clause 2, line 6, omit “subsection (3)” and insert “subsections (2A) and (3)”.

3. Clause 2, after line 8 insert –

“(2A) If Division 6 of Part 2 does not come into operation before 1 March 2025, it comes into operation on that day.”.

4. Clause 2, line 9, after “this Act” insert “(other than Division 6 of Part 2)”.

Harriet SHING: We are fine with that, Mr Ettershank.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 3 to 9 agreed to.

New clause 9A (21:19)

Katherine COPSEY: I move:

1. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 9 –

‘9A New section 99D inserted

After section 99C of the Road Safety Act 1986 insert –

“99D Reporting incidence of camera detected no-truck zone offences

(1) As soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year elapsing during the reporting period, the Minister must cause to be published on the Department’s Internet site the following information in respect of that year –

(a) the number of heavy vehicles detected in a no-truck zone by a prescribed no-truck zone camera; and

(b) the number of alleged camera detected no-truck zone offences for which an official warning was served; and

(c) the number of alleged camera detected no-truck zone offences for which an infringement notice was served; and

(d) of the alleged camera detected no-truck zone offences for which a proceeding was commenced in a court, the number within each of the following classes –

(i) a penalty was imposed;

(ii) a community correction order was imposed;

(iii) any other sentence was imposed;

(iv) the accused in the proceeding was found not guilty of an offence against section 65BA(1);

(v) the proceeding was withdrawn or dismissed for any reason; and

(e) the number of alleged camera detected no-truck zone offences to which an exception under section 65BA(2) applied; and

(f) the prescribed matters (if any).

(2) In this section –

camera detected no-truck zone offence means an offence against section 65BA(1) detected by a prescribed no-truck zone camera;

community correction order has the same meaning as in section 3(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991;

official warning has the same meaning as in section 3(1) of the Infringements Act 2006;

reporting period means the period of five calendar years commencing on 1 January following the day on which this section comes into operation.

(3) This section is repealed on the seventh anniversary of the day on which it comes into operation.”.’.

The function of this amendment, as I spoke to briefly during my second-reading contribution, is simply to require public reporting of the camera enforcement scheme. Amendment 1 requires public reporting on an annual basis of the number of heavy vehicles detected in the no-truck zone and the number of offences for which an official warning was served, an infringement notice was served, a court proceeding was commenced or exemptions were given.

We have sought to have this public reporting because we know that these truck bans have been campaigned for for many years by the community. We believe it will provide comfort to know that this enforcement is occurring. It will also, we believe, lead to efficacy of the enforcement scheme as it is seeing the number of vehicles that are being fined, and in addition it will enable us to monitor trends over time in a public sense, which we hope will be very welcomed.

Harriet SHING: I apologise – I am about to disappoint you with a little bit of detail here. Thank you, Ms Copsey, for moving this amendment. We do support, as I indicated earlier, this first amendment that you have proposed.

The legislation is essentially about upholding the promise and the commitment that we have made to communities in the inner west. Obviously, we have growing communities. We have density, but we also have issues around heavier vehicular truck movements, which have been the subject of a lot of advocacy, and strident advocacy, over many years, for example, from the Maribyrnong Truck Action Group. We want to make sure that we are taking trucks, those heavy vehicles – again, not your Coles or Woolies trucks, not your garbage trucks but those bigger A- and B-doubles and container trucks – off local residential roads. So trucks will be banned, as I said in my sum up, on key roads – Francis Street, Somerville Road, Buckley Street, Moore Street, Blackshaws Road and Hudsons Road. They are not just names on a map; they are areas that people live in, work in and cross routinely. This is about road safety and about peace and amenity. This is something that we know will improve safety, it will reduce noise and it will improve air quality. As we know, there are many studies around the impact of poor air quality for people in and around those inner west areas where those truck movements are densest.

But we also know that a ban is only as effective as its enforcement, so that is where we do need strong reporting, and you quite rightly pointed that out. It has been, I think, and again to my point earlier, a really productive exercise to work with you to ensure that the first five years will have yearly reporting that details the full picture of trucks in the inner west, and that is a really important part of that change and what it looks like in terms of reporting, to understand what the impact looks like and what the exercise of enforcement looks like. We will report on the total number of trucks travelling in no-truck zones, the number of trucks in breach of those no-truck zones, the number of infringements issued and the number of infringements taken to court.

I went to the detail in amendment 2 that you proposed as to why fines withdrawn or otherwise not pursued within a certain time was not a feasible process, but we know that not all trucks should be banned from local streets. Again, we have talked about that earlier, but we want to make sure those exemptions are carefully worked through, again, deploying really contemporary technology in order to understand the distinction between those larger vehicles and the smaller vehicles that are there for a purpose related directly to that area where they are travelling. We will report on the number of those trucks so that the community has some really robust data that demonstrates how the truck bans are working, and so we do support your amendment 1. Thanks, Ms Copsey.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting this amendment.

New clause agreed to.

New clause 9B (21:24)

Katherine COPSEY: I move:

2. Insert the following New Clause before Division 2 of Part 2 –

‘9B Reporting incidence of camera detected no-truck zone offences

After section 99D(1)(c) of the Road Safety Act 1986 insert –

“(ca) of the alleged camera detected no-truck zone offences for which an infringement notice was served, the number within each of the following classes –

(i) the infringement penalty was paid;

(ii) the infringement notice was withdrawn for any reason;

(iii) a proceeding was commenced; and”.’.

As I stated earlier, we thank the government for their support in relation to the further reporting that we have sought. The Greens will be pursuing this second amendment, which would have the effect of publishing along with that reporting the number of fines actually paid and the number of fines that the regulator withdraws. The purpose that we are seeking to move this amendment for is again for the comfort of the community, so that they know that the enforcement mechanism is working as planned and that trucks that do the wrong thing, essentially, are receiving fines. The reason that the Greens are seeking the information around the number of fines that the regulator withdraws is because if there is a systemic pattern of withdrawal of a significant number of fines, we think that that would point to a gap in the scheme that the government would wish to rectify. I understand the minister’s comments earlier – we may have a different view on the effect of this amendment – but nonetheless the Greens think it would be a useful amendment that would support not only the viability of the enforcement but also the community’s confidence in that enforcement. On that note, I want to thank the Maribyrnong Truck Action Group for their liaison with my office and their support and communication in helping us to develop these amendments.

Harriet SHING: Thanks, Ms Copsey. We have gone through this detail in the course of discussions on the earlier clause. Again, thank you for putting the rationale for this process and what it seeks to achieve. The government will not be supporting this amendment for the reasons that have already been stated. I am happy to go over them again, but you were here in the chamber, so I suspect you do not need to be subjected to that additional detail a second time.

Evan MULHOLLAND: For similar reasons to the government’s, the Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting this amendment.

New clause negatived; clauses 10 to 42 agreed to.

New clauses (21:27)

David ETTERSHANK: I move:

5. Insert the following New Division to follow clause 42 –

‘Division 6 – Use of a prescription drug which is a legal medicinal cannabis product

42A Definitions

In section 3(1) of the Road Safety Act 1986, in the definition of drug-driving infringement, after “(1E)” insert “or (1F)”.

42B Provisions about cancellation and disqualification

(1) In section 50(1E) of the Road Safety Act 1986, for “On convicting” substitute “Subject to subsection (1F), on convicting”.

(2) After section 50(1E) of the Road Safety Act 1986 insert –

“(1F) If an offence under section 49(1)(bb), (h) or (i) is in relation to the use of a prescription drug that is a legal medicinal cannabis product by a person in accordance with a prescription or other authority, on convicting the person, or finding the person guilty of an offence under section 49(1)(bb), (h) or (i) –

(a) subsection (1E) does not apply; and

(b) the court may, if the offender holds a driver licence or learner permit, cancel that licence or permit and, whether or not the offender holds a driver licence or learner permit, disqualify the offender from obtaining one for –

(i) in the case of a first offence, a period not less than 6 months; and

(ii) in the case of a subsequent offence, a period not less than 12 months.”.

42C Previous convictions

In section 50AA of the Road Safety Act 1986 in item 4 of the Table, for “and (1E)” substitute “, (1E) and (1F)”.

42D New section 58BA inserted

After section 58B of the Road Safety Act 1986 insert –

“58BA Review of amendments made by Division 6 of Part 2 of the Roads and Roads Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2024

(1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made to this Act by Division 6 of Part 2 of the Roads and Roads Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2024.

(2) The review must be commenced after the second anniversary of the commencement of Division 6 of Part 2 of the Roads and Roads Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2024.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the review to be laid before each House of the Parliament no later than 3 years after the commencement of Division 6 of Part 2 of the Roads and Roads Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2024.”.’.

Just briefly, this clause simply puts in a statutory review provision for the amendment. I might just use that as emblematic of the extremely productive discussions we have had over an extended period with the government, with a number of ministers, and can I also add to that today with Mr Battin and Mr O’Brien from the other place. Can I just say that in all of these discussions, the candour and the shared spirit to resolve what I think we all recognise is a very thorny problem has resulted in an outstandingly good outcome, and Legalise Cannabis really appreciates the collaboration and the support in addressing that issue.

Harriet SHING: Thank you, Mr Ettershank. I do not want to say that we are trading platitudes tonight, but we do support the work that you have done in relation to the review period, and again, it is an important process that we have just undertaken in order to see those safeguards into the bill as amended and to see that that will interface with the work of the trials and the way in which we can have a process of education as well as introduction and implementation.

Evan MULHOLLAND: You will often see the Liberals and Nationals moving statutory reviews as part of different pieces of legislation. We think it is a good way of making sure we have got something right or we can fix things along the way. Likewise I know our team, Danny O’Brien and Brad Battin both very much appreciated having the opportunity to chat things through. So we will not be opposing this.

New clauses agreed to; clauses 43 to 51 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments.

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (21:31): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (21:31): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill with amendments.