Thursday, 24 March 2022

Puffing Billy Railway Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mr PAKULA:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Ms HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (15:18): As I was saying, I think it was yesterday, this legislation that we are debating again today is a direct response to the Ombudsman’s report into the sexual abuse of children by a member of the Puffing Billy Preservation Society. The changes that we are looking at and talking about today are very important changes to strengthen the railway’s governance and in doing so strengthen the protections for children in this organisation.

When I was reading this proposed legislation and the explanatory notes, I recalled that when I was in my first term in this place I was appointed to the Family and Community Development Committee. This was the committee that undertook the inquiry into institutional abuse of children and then produced the Betrayal of Trust report. I was on that committee together with the member for Broadmeadows. It seems such a long time ago that I was on that committee. Hearing the voices of victim-survivors and the families of those that did not survive child abuse was difficult, and some of the stories were just horrendous. How could adults do these sorts of things and how could other adults stand by and allow it to happen? It seems that this is what was going on with that child abuser, whose name I will not speak, at the Puffing Billy Preservation Society. This was enabled by the board that was supposed to be overseeing the historical society and those employed and volunteering in that organisation.

So really the main purpose of this legislation is to ensure that we do not have that situation where in effect the society had members that were sitting on the board and therefore the society was running the board rather than the board overseeing the society. And of course it seemed like it was a bit of a mates club, with people turning a blind eye to the most horrific of crimes and allowing a convicted sex offender to continue to work for the historic society and of course have unsupervised contact with children. It is the case, as I say—and I was on that inquiry a number of years ago in 2012, I think it was—that you see this happen over and over again, people just turning the other way and allowing these things to happen.

So the purpose of this legislation, as I said, is to ensure that there is proper governance overseeing the historical society. For example, you will have to declare a conflict of interest, so members of the society cannot just sort of nominate and also become members of the board. The board itself will be appointed through the Governor in Council and on the recommendation of the minister. That will again ensure further oversight and accountability. There will also be oversight from the minister in terms of the work that it does and how it does it. There will be a requirement to have strategic plan, a financial plan—all the things that a modern organisation requires in order to do the best that it can. These are the sorts of requirements that also assist the volunteers and those that are employed in the organisation, making it more professional and making, you hope, the work environment a better one and in that way attracting more volunteers and doing an even better job than what Puffing Billy is doing now.

Of course I think it is back on track now, after the terrible pandemic. I believe I was reading there are over 1000 volunteers in the organisation. So it really is an icon—from a small sort of operation many years ago to now a really big tourist attraction for the state of Victoria. So it is something that we want to continue to see going from strength to strength, now and continuing into the future, so that we can preserve a little bit of the past but also give children and families a great experience, chugging through the hills and the mountains and the forest on the great Puffing Billy. I think I have only been on it once, and I think of my children sadly only one has actually been on Puffing Billy, but perhaps they will go again with their friends or children in the future.

Now, I suppose when we are talking about this bill there are also some minor changes in terms of the name. In the past it I think it was called the Emerald because that is where it is, in the area of Emerald, rather than Puffing Billy. The legislation will change the name, so we are talking about the Puffing Billy board rather than where it is located. The board will also be required to report to the minister any incident or alleged incident of which the board is aware that occurred or allegedly occurred in the operation of the railway or in public traffic on the railway or caused or allegedly caused death or serious injury to any person or serious damage to property or the environment or may reasonably be expected to cause harm to the reputation of the railway as well as any significant risk of which the board is aware, which includes a risk to the operation of the railway and the board’s financial viability. In reading this you sort of wonder how it was able to operate without this, because these are just normal requirements that any organisation ought to be following.

So again I just commend this bill to the house, and in saying so I hope that we are again that one little step further towards providing better protections for children. I just end with a quote from when I made comments on the report in this house a few years ago:

… institutional abuse and its impact on individuals, families and generations will always be unfinished business. When the camera lights dim and the media gallery is empty, it is up to all of us to remember this and to do whatever we can to make sure that it does not happen again.

Mr BRAYNE (Nepean) (15:25): I also rise today to speak on the Puffing Billy Railway Bill 2022. Of course the Puffing Billy Railway is one of Victoria’s most popular and iconic tourist attractions. It sees visitors from all over the world come to our state to see some of the best scenery that Australia has to offer. I know that most Victorians do have fond memories of boarding Puffing Billy and riding through the forests and hills of the Dandenong Ranges. I was fortunate to visit in year 1 with my classmates, my mum being one of the parent volunteers, and obviously I look forward to taking my own kids when I have them to visit this icon of Victoria.

The Dandenong Ranges have been home to the Puffing Billy Railway for 121 years. The Puffing Billy Railway was built in 1900 to serve the local communities who lived in the hills of the Dandenong Ranges. The train would carry a range of goods to and from these communities—timber, livestock, perishables, newspapers and parcels being among the many goods that the Puffing Billy would bring each day, and of course in that sense the railway really was a lifeline to those communities that lived in the hills there. That is why when the line was closed in 1954 the Puffing Billy Preservation Society was formed and this iconic railway was rescued. Since that time Puffing Billy has been servicing our tourism industry here in Victoria. It has provided generations of families with lifelong memories of this much-loved attraction.

The rescue of the line and its present-day success would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of many, many volunteers who are committed to preserving this iconic railway. More than 300 volunteers support the Puffing Billy Railway, and many of them come from the Puffing Billy Preservation Society. The tireless work of these volunteers has sustained the Puffing Billy Railway for many years. It is because of them that Australia’s favourite steam train has been attracting visitors for decades now. It is these volunteers who have been front of mind throughout the drafting of this bill, because this government understands that it is the hard work and dedication of Victorians that underpin the tourism industry right across the state. Obviously tourism is such an important driver of the local economy in my electorate as well. Like the Puffing Billy Railway, the Mornington Peninsula sees people from across the globe visiting our community to enjoy the many attractions that we have on offer. All of this is underpinned by the tireless work of locals who either run their own small businesses or volunteer to keep our attractions running and our coastlines clean. That is why it is so important that the work of people who volunteer to run our state’s premier tourist attractions, wherever they are, are recognised, and I commend the drafters of this bill for making a point of doing so.

This bill was drafted in response to the Victorian Ombudsman’s report that was released in June 2018 titled Investigation into Child Sex Offender Robert Whitehead’s Involvement with Puffing Billy and Other Railway Bodies and all the horrors linked to that. The Ombudsman provided a suite of recommendations to ensure that those events related to the previous governance of the railway would never happen again. The government accepted in full the recommendations that were provided. This included a recommendation to review the structure and composition of the Emerald Tourist Railway Board. As part of this review it was found that the Emerald Tourist Railway Board was guided by provisions in the existing act that were outdated and redundant. As such, these provisions needed updating in order for the Puffing Billy Railway to operate in a contemporary tourism environment. Following these recommendations this bill will support the growth and sustainability of the Puffing Billy Railway Board while addressing previous shortcomings and recognising the heritage of the railway, the significance of its volunteers and its importance to the local community.

I will now turn to the specifics of this legislation. The Puffing Billy Railway Bill repeals and replaces the Emerald Tourist Railway Act 1977 to provide a modern framework that will futureproof the operations and governance of the attraction for many years to come. This will help the Puffing Billy Railway to operate more effectively and continue to draw visitors to the Dandenong Ranges, where they can see some of the best of our state’s scenery while creating memories that will last them a lifetime. The bill changes the name of the Emerald Tourist Railway Board to the Puffing Billy Railway Board to prevent confusion and to reflect the name of the railway that we are all familiar with. The bill also modernises the provisions relating to good governance and the operation of the railway. These modernisations include a requirement that the board develop strategic plans and empowering the minister to make written directions and request information. Alongside this requirement, the bill provides a range of objectives for the Puffing Billy Railway Board, including ensuring the economic sustainability and viability of the railway; maintaining the heritage significance of the railway; managing and promoting the safe operation of the railway; promoting the tourism offering and enhancing the visitor experience provided by the railway and the surrounding Dandenong Ranges region; promoting an understanding of and education relating to rail heritage; developing and maintaining partnerships with community organisations and businesses; developing and maintaining harmonious relations between the board and the community; providing safe, inclusive and diverse working environments for employees and volunteers; and perhaps most importantly, as has been noted throughout this contribution, recognising the importance of volunteer participation in the operation of the railway.

These requirements will modernise the operation of the board and will ensure the good governance of the railway for many years to come. This will in turn enhance the experience of every person who comes to visit the Puffing Billy Railway, allowing all of them to better enjoy one of Victoria’s premier tourist attractions. As I mentioned earlier, the hard work and dedication of volunteers underpins the Puffing Billy Railway, and I commend the fact that this bill includes an objective of the board to recognise the importance of these volunteers and their invaluable contribution to the running and preservation of this historic railway. The more than 300 volunteers who assist with the running of the railway make vital contributions, such as driving locomotives, preserving trains and preserving and maintaining tracks. I know that expressly recognising the important work that these volunteers do for the railway will have a positive impact on volunteer engagement going forward. Acknowledging the tireless work of those who underpin our tourism industry is so important, particularly as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic that saw obviously all tourist attractions affected. Hopefully we will see an increase in the number of international arrivals coming to Victoria so that they too can enjoy our world-class tourist attractions, whether that be the Puffing Billy Railway or the Mornington Peninsula.

The Andrews Labor government understands that, and that is why this government has committed to supporting our tourism industry. The proof lies in this government’s strong support of the Puffing Billy Railway, with $11.2 million being provided in the 2021–22 budget to protect local jobs and to support its operations as it recovers from the pandemic and once again attracts tourists. Further investment has been made for the establishment of the Lakeside visitor centre, which was backed by a $12.7 million commitment from this government and which, like so many of our tourist attractions in Victoria, has world-class facilities that tourists, daytrippers and school groups can enjoy.

Of course the benefits of the Puffing Billy Railway are not only felt by tourists but by other sectors of our state’s economy, with two-thirds of the railway’s suppliers being Victorian companies. The railway and the tourists it attracts go a long way to supporting other Dandenong Ranges and Yarra Valley businesses, with visitors being exposed to the wineries and gourmet producers that operate in that region. Around 500 000 tourists visited Puffing Billy Railway each year prior to the pandemic, and while it may take some time to once again reach those numbers, it is heartening to see Victoria’s and Australia’s favourite steam train back up and running. The return of this iconic experience will deliver benefits to local businesses as people return to doing the things they love with family and friends. Families from all over the world can once again enjoy the magic of a steam train ride through the forests and hills of the Dandenong Ranges, which is truly one of the most beautiful regions in Australia. The Puffing Billy Railway Bill will ensure that this iconic experience can continue to attract visitors and benefit the region for many years to come.

As I said, the Andrews Labor government is committed to supporting our tourism industry and recognising the work of the volunteers who underpin it, and this bill does exactly that. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (15:35): I too am pleased to make a contribution on the Puffing Billy Railway Bill 2022—it is a Billy bill. Notwithstanding the challenges of getting the words out, the bill itself is not particularly complicated, but it does address a few very, very important matters. Before I go to those matters, though, I do want to just step back a moment and talk a bit about the importance a century ago of coal-fired transport and the transition we are undergoing at the moment to electric transport. Of course there is no point at all in seeing a transition to electric vehicles if you have got a coal-fired grid, because essentially at that point an electric car is like Puffing Billy—it is fired by coal. The only way you make that transition to electric cars and other electric vehicles count, the only way you make sure it is sustainable and the only way you make sure it is environmentally prudent is by having heaps of renewable energy in the grid.

I note that the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change is at the table, and I want to thank her and her team for having done so much work over the life of this government to improve Victoria’s energy grid by bringing in stacks and stacks of renewables. Indeed we have increased the Victorian renewable energy target, the VRET, to 50 per cent by 2030. It is worth just pausing and reflecting on that: 50 per cent by 2030. It was not that long ago that Victoria was just very much the brown coal state. I think I saw a statement many years ago that said we had enough brown coal to get us through to the year 3100. That is the size of the resource in East Gippsland. It is absolutely phenomenally big. What we did not know then and what we know now is that if we were to burn all that coal, that would be an environmentally disastrous outcome. So the only way you get away from having coal-fired cars in effect is by making sure you have got renewables in the grid, and boy, have we done some work to that end.

The Renewable Energy Action Plan outlines a whole bunch of things to assist in transitioning Victoria to a clean and modern energy future, supporting the sector’s growth, empowering communities and consumers and modernising the energy system. One of the things I really like is the $48 million for renewable energy certificate purchasing to power Victoria’s tram fleet.

Mr Hodgett interjected.

Mr FOWLES: Getting there. Victoria’s trams were effectively coal-fired trams up until we started putting all the renewables in the grid. Just like Puffing Billy, all the trams were coal fired, and we of course are moving away from that. We in fact now have renewable energy powering the totality of Victoria’s tram fleet.

But with the encouragement of the member for Croydon—and I do thank him for it—I will talk about the original bit of coal-fired transport, which is Puffing Billy. Puffing Billy is a very special part of Victoria’s cultural history. I think we can all hark back. Many of us will recall our first ride on Puffing Billy. Many of us will recall the first time we took our kids on Puffing Billy. It approaches a rite of passage for Victorian kids, having that all-important ride on Puffing Billy, particularly as it exposes kids to the majestic beauty of the magnificent rainforest we have surrounding Melbourne. We are extraordinarily lucky to have a resource as magnificent as that right on the doorstep of the city. It is a terrific thing, but it is a facility that has had a difficult past, particularly when it comes to governance matters. What this bill does is make sure that ongoing management and good governance are put in place to ensure that this is a facility that not just my children but their children and beyond can continue to use. Hopefully they will enjoy it at a time when the notion of any coal-fired transport is completely foreign and when they will have a transport system that is wholly electric and that electricity is wholly sourced from renewables.

We know that there have been some difficulties in the past, and I do not propose to canvass any of those. I think others over the course of this debate have canvassed those matters; there are some very, very distressing matters. But what is absolutely critical here is that we focus on what is the right governance model, and this bill does exactly that. It moves it away from the way in which it was structured back in the 1970s and onto a modern footing. Part of that change is changing the name of the board to the Puffing Billy Railway Board because, as much as those inside the Beltway or here on Spring Street might know what the Emerald tourist railway is, this is a tourist attraction that is known universally by a colloquialism or a nickname, Puffing Billy—which I guess in a technical sense refers merely to the locomotive and not to the whole train and indeed not to the entire track and the entire thing. Everyone knows what Puffing Billy means.

The corporate governance reporting mechanisms being introduced will require the development of strategic plans and business plans, improve the reporting from the Puffing Billy Railway Board to the minister and empower the minister to make written directions and request particular information. This brings this attraction into line with a whole bunch of other attractions in Victoria and makes sure that it can continue to offer its services with greatly reduced risk of the sorts of practices that we have sadly seen in the relatively distant past. The board framework is an important part of that. Moving to a skills-based directorship will make sure that the needs of the board are reflected in a contemporary way and with the right people available to support the work and to support the organisation.

I take the opportunity to note, particularly with the Minister for Women in the chamber, that this government has done outstanding work to improve the proportion of women on all government boards. It has done absolutely outstanding work in this space, and it is terrific that we are now seeing so many boards being half or more women. That is absolutely appropriate, it is absolutely as it should be, and it is terrific to be able to make sure that we are drawing on all the expertise, life experience and skills that those women bring and make sure that these boards are more representative of the communities they serve.

Those things do not happen by accident, Acting Speaker Richards, as I know you know. If you allow the organic run of things, you do not actually get those sorts of results. You have to intervene. It requires more than mere lip-service to improve the percentage of women, say, hypothetically, in one’s political party. We have seen plenty of lip-service around this issue from other political parties, but only Labor has put in place the quotas needed to improve the percentage of women in the caucus. It is absolutely fantastic that we have a cabinet that is majority women, something that hopefully will cease to be noteworthy very, very soon but is noteworthy at the moment, not least because of the composition of other cabinets around the nation and in particular the cabinet of the federal Morrison government. I am very hopeful, of course, that the composition of the federal government cabinet will change at some point in the next few months—and you can bet London to a brick that there would be more women in an Albanese cabinet than there are currently in the Morrison cabinet.

Elsewhere in the bill there is a more comprehensive listing of functions and objectives, making sure that we are clear about what it is that the Puffing Billy Railway Board is responsible for, what it needs to do, and making sure that it continues to reflect its contemporary usage, it remains a much-loved tourist attraction in Victoria and it remains a much-loved part of the experience of growing up in Victoria. It is part of our wonderful Yarra Ranges, which as I have noted, are just a terrific asset to have so very close to the city.

We are fortunate in this state to have any number of brilliant attractions, many of which rely on our natural environment. On Victoria’s natural environment, Michael Leunig put it so eloquently in his cartoon of a eucalyptus leaf, speaking about ‘Her beauty and her terror’. Whilst these treed hills around Melbourne have at times been the source of angst, terror and sadly in some bushfire seasons deaths as well, we know that they are a magnificent natural asset. They warrant protection, they warrant preservation, and part of that is introducing more people to them through the Puffing Billy experience. I am absolutely delighted to commend this bill to the house.

Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (15:45): I too am pleased to rise today to speak on the Puffing Billy Railway Bill 2022. The member for Burwood is always a difficult act to follow in any environment, particularly in debating a bill. I think he has left me with an indelible image of trams chugging up Bourke Street with kids hanging out, their legs dangling out of the windows and the coal-fired smoke pouring out of the boiler at the front. I do not think I am going to be able to get that image out of my head particularly quickly.

I do want to pay a particular tribute to the member for Lara, the former Minister for Tourism and Major Events, who spoke very passionately on this bill on Tuesday, I believe, and of course had carriage of the initial Ombudsman’s report when that came through back in 2018. He was really the instigator of where we are today and where this bill sits today. I have had the opportunity over the last couple of weeks, since this bill was introduced, just to review the Ombudsman’s report and also speak to a few people who had been involved in some of the court cases that pursued claims against the various institutions. Their description was that these were amongst the worst crimes that they had ever seen of this nature. It is not appropriate to go into detail, but it was a shameful period of that organisation’s history.

For me, I only have good memories of Puffing Billy. I do remember as a child we would drive down to Canterbury station and then catch the train down to Belgrave and just walk across to the Puffing Billy station at Belgrave. We would catch the train out to Lakeside, where it then ended, and go to Emerald Lake. If memory serves me correctly, they had some water slides there at that stage, and I think that was the first time that I had ever been on a water slide. They certainly were good memories for me. My kids were just of the age in March 2020. We were planning to go down there, and they were having their special Thomas the Tank Engine run, but unfortunately that got cancelled because of COVID, so we have still not brought the kids down to experience Puffing Billy. No doubt that will come about soon.

As I mentioned, obviously for some people and particularly some of the volunteers that were working through the 1970s and 80s it was not such a pleasant experience—in fact it was a terrible experience. As the Ombudsman’s report found, some of this could have been improved or potentially prevented through a much stronger governance arrangement. As was reported in the Ombudsman’s report, they found significant governance failings at the former Emerald Tourist Railway Board, a poor legislative framework with respect to conflicts of interest and an inappropriate board and management composition that had enabled the Puffing Billy Preservation Society to control the board. The report concluded that the governance failings of the board, which included the society’s position of control, had facilitated the offending. In response to that investigation the government did commission PricewaterhouseCoopers to undertake a review into the governance arrangements of the board, and that is what has really led to the process that has been finalised in this bill today.

Just having a look at some of the key provisions of the bill and the provisions for how the board will act, the minister will be empowered to request that the board provide information relating to the operation and management of the railway and the performance of its functions under the act. The board will be required to report to the minister on a range of incidents and risks rather than just accidents, which is the position in the current act. It will be required to prepare a rolling four-year strategic plan annually and develop a rail corridor plan every 10 years. It will be subject to the general direction and control of the minister, and the minister will be permitted to give written directions to the board in relation to the performance of its functions.

There is an updated conflict-of-interest provision, including a requirement for a director to disclose to the board if they currently hold or have held within the previous 12 months a membership at the rail preservation society. All appointments of the directors will be made by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the minister, which replaces the power in the current act for the society to in fact nominate up to four members to the board. As I was reading through the Ombudsman’s report, this was a key issue in terms of the way that the board was functioning in that even though the minister had the power to nominate a majority of members, that power was rarely exercised, so in reality the society often had a numerical advantage, which created an obvious conflict of interest.

In the time remaining I do want to just focus a little bit on the volunteers. A lot of these railways, including Puffing Billy—and we do have a number of other heritage railways across the state—could not operate without the hard work of the volunteers. I assume it is probably because of the nature of the industry that I worked in before coming to this place, being in transport infrastructure projects, that I did work with a lot of people who had been involved in railways, and a lot of those people actually on their weekends or holidays would volunteer for Puffing Billy or the Yarra Valley Tourist Railway or a number of other tourist railways across the state. That is a really important role that they serve. They do it out of their interest in and their love and their passion for the railways, and they keep a lot of that heritage alive for all of the tourist railways that are across the state. It does provide a particular tourist function: not only does it introduce kids and families and bring local people from Melbourne out to the Dandenongs or out to the Yarra Valley but it also then gets them to stay and enjoy some of the local retailers and local small businesses.

I know even in my own area in Box Hill we have a heritage steam railway. It is only a small one, not the size of Puffing Billy, but the Box Hill Miniature Steam Railway has been going for many, many years. It is a great place to have a birthday party. Again, it is run by a terrific group of volunteers that service the track and service the vehicles and engines and go around a small mini track in Elgar Park. They run a terrific partnership with a local Rotary club, the Rotary Club of Balwyn, and not only raise money for a lot of charities on their regular days that they run the operation—on the Sundays when they raise money just for Rotary’s general causes—but also always organise a special Good Friday run to raise money for the children’s hospital appeal. Back in early 2020 they organised a special run to raise money for bushfire relief from the 2019–20 fires. They are a terrific local organisation, and it shows how passionate volunteers are who work on these heritage railways, and for those reasons I commend the bill to the house.

Ms RICHARDS (Cranbourne) (15:55): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Puffing Billy Railway Bill 2022 and to follow on from some terrific and important contributions that recognised both the complexity of this bill and also the reasons that it has come to be before us now. This bill, as has been canvassed, is a response to the findings of the Victorian Ombudsman’s June 2018 report that looked at the governance arrangements of the Emerald Tourist Railway Act 1977. It looked to improve the legislative framework that was in place and to make those changes that mean the modern governance arrangements are fit for purpose, especially in the context of the tragedy that people experienced as result of the behaviour and the horrendous acts that have been discovered.

This bill will be established as the Puffing Billy Railway Act 2022, a new principal act that addresses the findings and recommendations from the reviews. This bill aligns with the government’s commitment to victim-survivors of abuse, and we recognise that this can never happen again. If the structural and framework-level issues with the current principal act were not amended, then they needed to be replaced and improved upon. This bill will become a new principal act that introduces disclosure and reporting obligations and aligns with modern standards of practice and improved ministerial oversight.

Now, I am only going to speak for a short time. I am not going to take up my allocation of time on this, because I understand the house has other matters to explore more deeply on these issues. But I do recognise—and I have enjoyed the reflections of people in the chamber—the importance that Puffing Billy has to so many Victorians. I am not able to stand here without adding the importance that this iconic tourist attraction has had to the people that I serve, to my own childhood, to my time with my own children travelling to Belgrave to catch Puffing Billy to Emerald and the joy that this facility has brought to so many people.

From Cranbourne it is not a very long drive. It is actually a beautiful and scenic drive to get to the starting point—to either Emerald or Belgrave—to enjoy the opportunities that come with coming together as a family or in whatever way, often intergenerationally, and also with tourists. I know it is something that most of my family if they have visitors from overseas do travel to, because it does travel through an extraordinary setting. This is an opportunity to make sure that it is a well-run resource and that it is a safe resource, and it does not matter whether you are coming from Belgrave, Emerald, Cranbourne or the other side of the world. That is actually a really important element to this. Of course getting to the other side there is the new Lakeside visitor centre. There is a $12 million commitment from the Victorian government to improve this amazing visitor centre.

We are at a time now where we are looking to our economic recovery, and we really are so fortunate to be able to welcome visitors back. In my own family we have been able to welcome some visitors back just in the last couple of weeks from overseas. To have the Yarra Valley, to have the Dandenong Ranges, to have all of those opportunities that come with having this very well run, very well maintained and well governed resource, we are particularly grateful—and for our extraordinary volunteers as well. With those brief words, I commend the bill and look forward to its speedy passage.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Consideration in detail

Clause 1 (16:00)

Ms McLEISH: Firstly, I just want to acknowledge my appreciation to the minister for going into a consideration-in-detail stage for this bill. He will understand that there are lots of issues that I would like to canvass, and this provides that opportunity. He will also know that the Puffing Billy Preservation Society has been in contact with me. In fact I have almost been overwhelmed by the number of emails that I have received that have all been very personalised and customised, certainly not pro forma.

I also just want to start by mentioning that Anne MacLeish, who is the president of the Puffing Billy Preservation Society, is no relation of mine. Her name has a different spelling and her lot arrived here some 110 years after my lot. I wanted to get that out first of all.

Prior to digging into the purposes, I am trying to get an understanding of the extent of the consultation and the role of the board in the drafting of the legislation. What was the extent of that consultation? With whom did the minister or the department engage, including local residents, people whose land adjoins the corridor or the track, the preservation society, and of course what role did the current Emerald Tourist Railway Board (ETRB) play in shaping this legislation?

Mr PAKULA: First of all, I would like to thank the member for Eildon for the constructive way in which she has approached this consideration in detail and to indicate that my mob clearly arrived here much later than her mob if she is talking about 110 years before the MacLeishs.

I should just indicate at the outset that I recognise that there are elements of this bill that are of difficulty for the Puffing Billy Preservation Society, but as I think is well understood by members on both sides of the house, the bill emanates from a very difficult set of circumstances. Some of the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s report into the activities of Mr Whitehead and others are recommendations which are, by their definition, somewhat difficult for the preservation society.

I would finally, in moving into this consideration-in-detail stage, indicate that I will try and keep my answers brief so that the member for Eildon and other members of the opposition who may wish to ask questions can get through as many of them as possible in the time allotted.

My department, the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Resources, has met with representatives of the preservation society on numerous occasions over the last four years to discuss all manner of matters relating to the railway, certainly in advance of the bill at cabinet stage so that a summary of the bill which outlined the impact of the society’s future representation on the board could be made available. I will just take the member very briefly through some of the key meetings of relevance.

Back in May 2019 the governance review, which was undertaken by PwC, involved them meeting with a number of members of the executive committee of the society on 16 May that year. In December of that year I wrote to the society to advise that that review had been completed and to indicate that I had asked my department to meet with the society to discuss the recommendations of that review. That happened in January of 2020. There was an overview of the key findings and recommendations of the review. The department informed the society of the recommendations regarding limiting the representation of the society on the board, and we did indicate to them that there would be legislative amendments to implement those recommendations brought forward.

In February of this year my department met with the preservation society before bill at cabinet to provide a summary of the bill, and at that meeting those recommendations from the review were reiterated and the future changes to the society’s representation on the board were outlined. The society was given an opportunity to provide feedback. It is fair to say that the society indicated then its disappointment with the imposition of measures to limit its future representation on the board.

I should also indicate that only a week or so ago, after the bill was introduced in the Parliament, Eastern Bridge lawyers under the signature of Mr Simon Nunan wrote to me on behalf of the society to outline various concerns with the bill, a copy of which I am quite confident the member might have with her. That was responded to by my relevant deputy secretary, Chris Miller, two days ago, responding to many of the issues raised in that correspondence from Mr Nunan.

In regard to volunteers, the PwC review also provided an opportunity for volunteers to undertake a survey regarding the governance arrangements and legal structure of the Emerald Tourist Railway Board. We have not directly dealt with volunteers as part of the development of the bill. The department engaged with the board and the CEO of the railway, and indeed there have been representations with the society, which I have referenced. Opportunities to provide input were also provided to Cardinia Shire Council, Yarra Ranges Shire Council, Parks Victoria and VicTrack, given their connection to the railway. There was a lot of consultation across government. I would say to the member we did not consult directly with residents adjoining the track, because the bill is principally focused on the operations and governance arrangements of the board.

I would just make one final reference in that the member may have also seen some correspondence in the last couple of days from the Emerald Village Association, which was very reasonable correspondence, from Mr Budge on behalf of Mr Bartley and other members of the Emerald Village Association, which was responded to yesterday by Peter Abbott, the CEO of the railway. There has been some back and forth, and those correspondences have been extremely civilised. I do not want to verbal the Emerald Village Association, but they appeared to be quite satisfied with the response they have been provided.

Ms McLEISH: Just continuing on with the purposes, just touching again on heritage and volunteering, clauses 6(e) and 6(f) are about recognising the heritage significance of Puffing Billy and the importance of volunteers. The minister has talked a little bit about that, but what directions or guidance will you be providing to the board to make sure that those purposes are crystal clear and met?

Mr PAKULA: I thank the member for her question. I will deal with it sequentially. I will deal with the member for Rowville as well if he would like. In terms of heritage, the member for Eildon is correct. The purpose of the act is to recognise the heritage significance of the railway. There are various mechanisms in the bill to protect the heritage significance of the railway. Just to go through a couple of those, one of the requirements is that directors collectively possess skills, knowledge and experience that includes heritage preservation. Clause 6(b) of the bill provides that the objective of the board is to maintain the heritage significance of the railway, which it must have regard to in performing its functions, clause 6(f) provides for the board to promote understanding of and education relating to rail heritage, and clause 6(g) provides for the board to promote the preservation of narrow-gauge railway heritage, all of which I would say to the member it does.

I was at Puffing Billy only a few weeks ago with the Deputy Premier, and every element of everything that is done—and this is a tribute not just to the board but indeed to the volunteers and others—all of that heritage element of Puffing Billy and the fact that it has been something beloved by generations, is beautifully preserved. But of course it is important that the act, as we hope this bill will become, does that as well. I think that it does.

In regard to volunteers, the bill does recognise the significance of volunteers, including in clause 6(e), because there is an objective of the board to recognise the importance of volunteer participation, and the board must have regard to the benefits of volunteerism and the expectations of the community in relation to the board’s use of volunteer time. That specific provision is in clause 7(2)(c)(iv).

The member asked about my own expectations. The board is expected to operate in accordance with functions and objectives, and that includes the recognition of the importance of volunteers to the operation of the railway. The bill does empower the minister, whether that is me or a future minister, to request that the board provide information relating to the performance of its functions under the act. That means that the minister of the day can request information on whether the board is performing its functions in regard to the benefits of volunteerism, and the Emerald Tourist Railway Board is responsible for the ongoing support, attraction and engagement of all volunteers, including those who might also be members of the Puffing Billy Preservation Society.

I would say to the member that the board already undertakes many activities to support and recognise volunteers, and that will continue in this act in a new guise. At the moment there is a volunteer engagement subcommittee of the board. I would expect that that will continue. There is a volunteer representative group that includes volunteers from all branches of the railway to regularly meet and discuss volunteer matters, and the minutes of those meetings are published on the volunteer resource page of the ETRB volunteer section of the website. There is a weekly notice and monthly newsletter that goes to all volunteers.

In February of this year, so just a month ago, the board hosted a Puffing Billy Railway volunteer recognition evening at the magnificent new Lakeside visitor centre to recognise volunteers’ length of service. We had about 100 volunteers there, and I am sure the member would be pleased to know those 100 volunteers represented about 2100 years of service to the railway, and that was I think appropriately recognised. And of course the ETRB awards gold passes to honour outstanding service to the society. They were previously awarded by the society.

I should just finally add that as a core part of the board’s operations it has to outline its plans regarding volunteerism in its strategic plan. I have asked the board to prioritise regular communication and collaborative engagement with volunteers and the society through the 2021–22 statement of expectations, and I can assure the member that as long as I am the minister that will continue to be requested through future statements of expectations.

Mr WELLS: Thank you, Minister. And thank you for allowing this to go into the consideration-in-detail stage. Obviously the effectiveness of our Manager of Opposition Business was very successful. In regard to an answer to a question earlier, you mentioned a letter by Mr Nunan. Is it possible for the opposition to receive a copy of that response to allow us to be able to deal with some of our concerns between the houses? Or do we have that?

Mr PAKULA: You might appreciate that I just needed to check whether there would be any legal reason not to provide it. I can see no reason not to provide it. It is a letter that is now in the hands of the lawyers for the preservation society. So in those circumstances I would just want to check with the lawyers for the preservation society whether they have any issues with privilege—legal privilege, not parliamentary privilege—that would prevent that correspondence from being circulated. But if neither the preservation society nor their lawyers have any issue with that correspondence being provided, then it will be.

Mr WELLS: Thanks, Minister. Obviously one of the big issues has been the relationship between the board and the volunteers, and that has obviously been a theme through some of the concerns that have been raised by the opposition, and you have made some commitments. I am wondering if you would commit to a ministerial review of the relationship between the board and the volunteers after maybe 12 months of the legislation being enacted.

Mr PAKULA: Look, I would say to the honourable member for Rowville that I am not prepared to give a commitment on the run. I think it is well documented that there has been significant to and fro between the board and the preservation society probably over the last four years, since the handing down of the Ombudsman’s report. There have been a number of attempts at mediation and intervention by my department, and I and my department have indicated very clearly to the board, through its chair, Mr North, and indeed to the society as well that we would like to see some of those issues resolved. And they are genuine issues. But we are also—and this legislation is a manifestation of that—obligated to implement the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s report, and some of those recommendations do create some difficulty for the preservation society. That is something that we recognise. There are also issues in regard to the ownership of assets, and they have been well ventilated between the board and the preservation society.

I do not think it would be appropriate—and I answer this in the good spirit in which I take the question to have been asked—to just make a blind commitment to a review as part of this consideration-in-detail stage. But what I would say to the honourable member is that if a good deal of additional time elapses and matters that are unresolved remain unresolved, then I think it would stand to reason that other interventions and other approaches might become necessary. I would be very hopeful that those matters can be resolved amicably, and certainly it would be the government’s hope that relationships between the board and the preservation society—which I would not characterise as bad; these are just difficult issues—can be such that those matters can be resolved. I would not want to rule out what the member requests, but I also would not want to provide him with a blank cheque.

Clause agreed to; clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (16:18)

Ms McLEISH: I just note in the definitions that we have been provided there is not a definition of the rail corridor. When I asked during the briefing about the rail corridor—what that extended to, where that was—the department had a lot of difficulty, and I thank Sarah Wilson from your office for actually going and getting that to me. I did wonder whether in this section it would not be wise to include a definition of the rail corridor. I also want to note that under the definitions we have got the preservation society. We note that that is their own company limited by guarantee. And I guess the land is owned by them—and we have touched on this—and the assets are owned by them, and we will probably explore that a little bit later. But I want to note that definition. But also ‘Puffing Billy Railway’ does include ‘any land vested in or owned, leased or managed by the board’ and ‘rail infrastructure’, so other assets. So my concern is, and I guess the main concern of the society is, how that definition actually impacts on their ownership and their ownership of freehold land and ownership of assets.

Mr PAKULA: I am about to make a bald statement, but let me just check before I do.

It is always nice to confirm that you are right. It does not impact on their ownership. It does not transfer assets or anything of that nature. The bill does define the railway as:

any land vested in or owned, leased or managed by the Board; and

any rail infrastructure, facilities or rolling stock owned, leased or managed by the Board …

There is a broad definition because we have to ensure that all of the land and infrastructure of the railway is captured, and that is a reflection of the fact that the railway is broader than just the track and the rolling stock itself—for example, it includes the Lakeside visitor centre. It reflects the broad responsibility of the board for all of the actions taking place on that land and the infrastructure that is managed by the board, and that includes maintaining safety. I understand that the society believes that the definition of ‘Puffing Billy Railway’ is problematic because it does not specifically define the narrow-gauge railway and the rolling stock and it does include infrastructure outside of the railway corridor, but if we provided a very narrow definition of ‘Puffing Billy Railway’, I would suggest the unintended consequence of that might be to constrain the scope of the board’s activities to not include things like the visitor centre, which I do not think anybody would suggest is sensible.

I understand that the member is going to ask some questions maybe in later clauses regarding the Puffing Billy Preservation Society’s land, and I will be happy to deal with them then.

Clause agreed to; clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (16:21)

Ms McLEISH: I notice the first objective of the board is to ensure the economic sustainability and viability of the railway—some of the issues that I will canvass actually relate to the skills required of the board members—and I am after the minister’s confidence, I suppose, in the board being able to do that. I have got before me documents obtained through FOI from 2018–19 to date, and it appears that the government has provided $35 million to the Emerald Tourist Railway Board and there was an additional $5.5 million from the commonwealth. Now, some of that was for infrastructure funding. But I was concerned that in the 2019–20 budget there were a lot of ongoing solvency things, and I do not believe that was just related to COVID, because the budget prior to that had a $4.89 million commitment as well. I am just concerned that they have had so many handouts from the government through different means, whether that be through the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning or Visit Victoria or the Department of Transport, and the importance of being sustainable is something that the volunteers are particularly worried about, as I guess are most people.

Mr PAKULA: I thank the member for Eildon for her question. I would say to her, and I will say this very clearly: prior to the pandemic Emerald Tourist Railway Board—Puffing Billy—was financially sustainable. What I just checked with my department was whether any of the support provided pre pandemic was for ongoings to keep them solvent—it was not; it was for projects. We did of course provide support to the Emerald Tourist Railway Board throughout the pandemic. I made some comments early on in the pandemic which referred to a number of tourism assets that I thought all Victorians would imagine are critical to support and maintain throughout any downtime, and Puffing Billy clearly is one of them. It is something that everybody expected to see come through the other side of the pandemic, and we provided support to enable it to do so. It has been very gratifying that Puffing Billy has been able to maintain its operations throughout this very, very difficult period. We do believe and expect that, as we come out of COVID and as domestic, interstate and international visitors return, it will return to its position of financial sustainability that it had before the pandemic, and that is reflected in the legislation. It should not be taken by anyone, whether it be the opposition, the volunteers or indeed the society, to suggest that this government, or indeed any government, would allow Puffing Billy—and the extraordinary history that it represents—to be left to its own devices should it require the support of government sometime in the future.

Ms McLEISH: Thank you, Minister, for your response. Just continuing on with the objectives, there have been a number of suggestions put to me that I want to put to the minister with regard to potential rewording. We are having a look at objectives, and clause 6(b) is about ‘maintaining the heritage significance’; I am wondering whether or not the minister would be open to ‘maintaining and developing the heritage significance’. Equally clause 6(i) could be ‘to develop and maintain harmonious relations between the board, volunteers and the community’. Would those suggestions be something that the minister would be willing to consider?

Mr PAKULA: Well, as I understand what is being put to me by the honourable member, she references 6(i)—and what was the other one, sorry?

Ms McLeish: 6(b).

Mr PAKULA: 6(b). I think the honourable member would understand that it would not be good or common practice for any minister at the dispatch box during consideration in detail to commit to changes to legislation before the house. What I would say to the honourable member is that I believe the legislation as it is currently drafted would have the same effect as the effect that she would seek or that those who have been in contact with her would seek as part of any change to the legislation. I believe that the practice of the board has been to do those things in any case, and the government is satisfied with the legislation in its current form.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 (16:27)

Ms McLEISH: Minister, you previously said when the member for Rowville was on his feet, after he sat down, that you would not describe the relationship as bad, but ‘just having some difficult issues’. I think that is probably understating it because the atmosphere I am told out there is really quite toxic, and clause 7(1)(a) and (b) really lead to part of that relationship. I appreciate that you have already spoken considerably about your expectations and some of the systems and processes that are already in place to deal with this, but at the heart of the issue very clearly is the operation, management and maintenance of the assets, particularly those that are integral to the day-to-day running but are owned by the society. Their main concerns, certainly as you can see, are that they may be stripped of those assets, whether or not there will be any compulsory acquisition of those assets and whether or not they will be required to go to court, because the worst thing that can happen in this instance and what could drive a wedge even further between the board and the society is an ugly court case. The preservation society are very keen to understand that they will not be stripped of all that they have worked for from 1955 and what they have owned—and they own a significant asset portfolio, as you will be aware—that this will not be stripped from them. I think you would agree that would be for them the most devastating thing that could happen.

Mr PAKULA: I thank the honourable member for Eildon for her question. In some respects she goes to the heart of some of the issues between the board and the preservation society, and I would ask the honourable member to appreciate that in my position I have an obligation to the state to not put the state or its representatives, in this case the board, in a disadvantageous position in what are very difficult negotiations—and negotiations which are integral to the ongoing management of the railway.

When we are in an environment where there is ongoing communication and engagement between the board and the society, where my department and I have encouraged both the board and the society to continue that engagement and if necessary to engage an independent mediator to help resolve those issues and where we have endeavoured to agree on an MOU to formalise the relationship between the board and the society—and I should say to the honourable member that there is a draft of that MOU which is currently with the society for feedback and review—what I am not going to do is tie the hands of the board by making a commitment in advance.

What I will say is that there is no intention to seize or compulsorily acquire the assets of the Puffing Billy Preservation Society. What I could not do, what it would not be prudent for me to do and what would completely fetter the board in those discussions would be to give an absolute carte blanche forever guarantee about those things, because it would then diminish the negotiating position of the board and, I would respectfully suggest to the honourable member, it would diminish the incentive for the society to engage in good faith in those discussions. So there is no intention. Nobody wants to see it get to that point—not the board, not the government, not the society and I am sure not the opposition. There is no intention for it to get to that point, but if the society wants an absolute commitment that it can never occur, that is not something I am in a position to give.

Mr WELLS: Along the same lines, Minister, is there a possibility where the volunteers have done fundraising to buy a particular asset or maybe a parcel of land that through negotiations that would remain with the society and not come under the control of the board?

Mr PAKULA: I thank the honourable member for Rowville for his question. Look, I would say to him that at this point in the negotiations a number of things are possible. It might be that parcels of land remain within the ownership of the society and there is a lease arrangement. It might be that they agree to sell for an agreed price. There are a number of potential outcomes if people operate in good faith, and if the member’s question is, ‘Is one of the potential outcomes that parcels of land remain in the same ownership structure as they are in at the moment?’, yes, that is one of the potential outcomes provided other arrangements can be arrived at.

Ms STALEY: I would just like to ask the minister in relation to the ownership of the various assets within the rail corridor, including the rolling stock: do you have a table of who owns what?

Mr PAKULA: Not with me.

Ms STALEY: Can you provide it?

Mr PAKULA: Well, I understand that the board has generated that table and it has been provided to the society, so I suspect it might be in the hands of someone opposite.

Ms Staley: So that is a no?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just remind members: if you have spoken twice, it is by leave next time.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (16:35)

Ms McLEISH: I think that we have probably discussed this already in some detail, but it is about the board being able to enter into an agreement, contract or lease et cetera. This comes back to clause 27 as well. I think that there were concerns about the board being able to grant a lease over land that is owned by the society.

Mr PAKULA: I am sorry, I am not sure what the question is.

Ms McLEISH: The question is: the society owns particular parcels of land—rolling stock; can the board enter into a lease or an agreement with somebody else over that?

Mr PAKULA: I thank the member for her question. There is nothing substantive in clause 8 which changes existing powers in regard to leaseholds, but I am advised that the board would not be in a position to grant a lease or a licence or an easement over land that it manages that is owned by the society. There might be a lease with South East Water, but it is unclear. That goes back so long that it is unclear what the pre-existing situation was when that lease was given.

Clause agreed to; clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 (16:38:338)

Ms McLEISH: With regard to the appointment of directors to the board, clause 10(2), and the collective skills, knowledge and experience that they have, one of the things that I have noticed—just being able to have a look at what has been published about the skills of the current board and what has also been brought to my attention—is that it does appear that there is a little bit of a lack around heritage preservation, operation and safety of railways and in particular economic development and also a lack of those who really understand the history of the rail and train heritage. Has the minister committed, within that change of the board’s skills mix, that those sorts of things will now be reviewed with the current skills matrix, which I assume the minister has possibly seen, to identify and ascertain that each of those nine areas listed are currently met by the board and maybe that new people will come on?

Mr PAKULA: Well, the answer is: possibly. The honourable member for Eildon would probably be aware that there was—I will be delicate here—at least a director with particular rail industry experience who was required to depart from the board for reasons that I think members are aware of. That has left a bit of a gap. As I am advised, the board currently has six members. The act provides for a maximum of 10. Scope exists for additional directors to be added to the board to augment the current skills and experiences of the board, and that is something that as minister I will give consideration to.

Ms McLEISH: Further to the appointment of directors, what provisions exist to ensure that no other organisations, such as a tourist heritage railway or other community organisations or a government department, can acquire more than the two board positions? As you know, at the moment the society has board positions. They have to have not been a member for 12 months. I guess the question is: why is that the case in this instance when there are other, say, tourism bodies that are around that might want to have representation or be represented on that—that they are not limited in the same way?

Mr PAKULA: I thank the honourable member for her question and indicate that those other tourism bodies, whilst there might not be a statutory limit, are not currently represented on the board in a way that would be in excess of what might be available to former members of the preservation society. But the simple answer to the member’s question is that that specific provision is a direct consequence of the Ombudsman’s report and a direct consequence of the governance failings under the old legislative framework that was found to exist. It does not, as the member correctly identifies, completely prohibit society representation on the board in that the bill permits up to two current non-elected members or members who have concluded their membership of the society more than 12 months ago, but the Ombudsman did find that there were some substantial governance failings that facilitated offending. I do not want to overstate that or to attribute any of those failings to existing persons, but I think when the government is provided with a report in the form that it was, it has a responsibility to implement that appropriately, and that is what we say this bill does.

Clause agreed to; clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 (16:43)

Ms McLEISH: I am interested with regard to the terms and conditions and the length of appointment. A director can hold office for three years, and they are eligible for reappointment, but I am advised that there are no limitations beyond that, so it would be quite easy for someone to stay 21 or 35 years. I am curious as to why there is no upper limit on how many terms a director can serve.

Mr PAKULA: I am happy to be proven wrong by members opposite, but my appreciation of most of the boards that I have responsibility for is that whilst there is an unstated application of decent corporate governance principles which would normally suggest that board members should not serve more than 10 to 12 years, they do not typically have a legislative prohibition on that or a legislative maximum number of terms. Now, some government boards might, but I think typically they do not, and in that regard this bill is unremarkable. I would simply say to the honourable member that that is really something that is down to ministers and Governor in Council, as advised by ministers, about to what extent a board member who is a long-serving board member ought to have their term extended. In most circumstances ministers from both sides of this chamber have, I think, applied those corporate governance principles responsibly and ensured that in general board members do not serve for decades and decades on end. But at the end of the day, that is a matter for the minister of the day to advise Governor in Council.

Clause agreed to; clauses 13 to 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 (16:46)

Ms McLEISH: I was just actually remembering—and this is possibly where I could bring this up—that with conflicts of interest there is no restriction on the appointments of, as we were discussing just previously about members as directors, employees to be directors. I would think that if an employee is not ruled out of the board—an employee of the Puffing Billy Railway—and if they can also be a director, that would be a conflict of interest. Is that the minister’s understanding?

Mr PAKULA: I would say to the honourable member that in this regard this board would be treated no differently to other boards inasmuch as you expect your boards, whatever they are, to manage their conflicts of interest. Sometimes, whether it is on a government board or on a corporate board, conflicts of interest, given that directors often have a multitude of interests, are difficult to avoid, but they are able to be managed. To give you an example, a director could conceivably also be a director of a food and beverage company to which an organisation might contract, and you expect your board’s governance procedures and practices to be able to deal with and manage those conflicts of interest. Obviously at the base level you expect any conflicts to be declared. You then expect those conflicts to be appropriately managed. Sometimes that requires a director to absent themselves from any room when decisions are made and for that to be properly minuted.

The bill that we have before us actually introduces a stronger conflict-of-interest provision compared to those general practices to further minimise the risk of governance issues as a direct consequence of the Ombudsman’s report, and so to that extent I am satisfied. I understand that the member has sought a specific opinion from me about whether a conflict would be created by an employee becoming a director; that would be a matter that the board would have to manage through their conflict-of-interest provisions, and I am quite confident that, certainly under the chairmanship of Mr North, they will be able to do that quite well.

Ms McLEISH: Thank you, Minister, for your response. Just with regard to clause 21(2), with regard to a director who is or was in the previous 12 months a member of the society having to disclose that to the board, why was it necessary to include that clause?

Mr PAKULA: Well, I would say to the honourable member: simply because of the provision elsewhere in the bill that indicates that membership of the society within the previous 12 months would be sufficient to effectively disbar someone from membership of the board.

Clause agreed to; clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 (16:50)

Ms McLEISH: With regard to the appointment of the CEO—this is clause 23(2)(b)—they:

… must not be—

…

a person who is, or was within the previous 12 months, a member of the Puffing Billy … Society.

Given that the members of the society have all varieties of backgrounds—some have corporate backgrounds and very successful corporate backgrounds, others may be tradies, a huge variety—why would that be specifically there, that they cannot have been a member? Because when a position is advertised and they are a member and they think ‘I could be that CEO’, they will have to resign, and they still cannot do it for 12 months. And they are not necessarily going to know when that position is going to come up.

Mr PAKULA: I thank the honourable member for her question, and I appreciate the complexity that that provision might provide for someone who aspires to be CEO of the board if that person is a current member of the society. I would simply indicate to the honourable member that that prohibition aligns with other provisions in the bill. Those other provisions are specifically designed—again, consequent to the recommendations of the Ombudsman in her report—to provide greater separation between the board and the management of the railway and the society.

I think the member would appreciate I have tried my best to be delicate about this, but the Ombudsman’s report did find quite specifically that the previous close relationship between management, the board and the society was in part responsible for the governance failings of the board and some of the things that occurred as a consequence of that. I understand that it may at some point in the future create a fetter for a member of the society that might see themselves as a potential CEO. It may be an unfortunate by-product of implementing those recommendations, but we would say it is a necessary one.

Clause agreed to; clauses 24 to 32 agreed to.

Clause 33 (16:52)

Ms STALEY: I want to ask about the concept of having a rail corridor plan that is reportable to the minister. I ask the minister this in the context of clauses 29 to 32, which are the usual clauses for requiring a strategic plan to go to the minister for approval, which many boards have, and they have risk management, so that to me seems a very normal structure. But then we get to clause 33, which has this additional requirement not so much for simply the creation of the rail corridor plan but for it to be ticked off by the minister. So I am querying: what was the thinking of government in creating this additional ministerial oversight?

Mr PAKULA: I thank the member for Ripon for her indulgence. My advice is that she is correct in regard to the normalcy of ministers requiring specific information about incidents, risks, strategic plans and the like. This additional obligation—I cannot indicate one way or the other to the honourable member whether that is a change to current practice, but I can provide her with that information while the bill is between the houses—is primarily and simply designed to ensure that the minister of the day is provided with clear information from the board about how they are managing particularly the safety matters that relate to the rail corridor specifically.

Ms STALEY: I thank the minister for his answer. In light of his answer I ask, and it goes to the question I asked earlier around the different ownership of various parts of the rail corridor and the assets: would it be the minister’s intention that this report would divide up its setting out? The bill says:

A rail corridor plan must set out how the rail infrastructure, facilities and rolling stock …

Will that be set out in terms of its ownership so we can see that each of those aspects is being attended to appropriately?

Mr PAKULA: I thank the honourable member for her question. I cannot say to her specifically the form a report would take, but I would say logic and I think the normal expectation of both the board and the minister would be that as a report that describes matters in the rail corridor, as a matter of course if some parts of that corridor are not owned by the board, it should make that clear.

Ms STALEY: Okay. Thank you.

Clause agreed to; clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.

Clause 36 (16:57)

Ms McLEISH: The minister previously referred to correspondence from the Emerald Village Association, which I do not think I have seen. I certainly have had correspondence from individuals but not from the association. Matters that were raised with me were about the notification that is going to be provided to them, whether there will be prior consultation and whether, if there is the need for an objection, there are mechanisms in place that they will be able to use without finding out that the trees have all come down or this has happened or that has happened and they are the last to find out and there may have been an alternative way to do that reduction that could have been required.

Mr PAKULA: I thank the honourable member for her question. I would indicate to her that I think the key element of this is clause 36(1); all the rest of it follows. It only applies if:

… any tree or wood in the vicinity of a railway track forming part of the … Railway poses a risk to the safety of any person on or using the railway track.

Given this is about removal of material that may pose a risk to safety, it is not envisaged that that would necessarily involve prior consultation, because sometimes that is just not an option if safety is involved. The bill does not require the board to notify owners or occupiers, but the board may do so. But I would indicate quite transparently to the honourable member that the bill does not make that a requirement.

Ms McLEISH: Thank you, Minister. I will certainly make sure that those residents understand and know that, and likewise the volunteers. It was something that they were quite concerned about as well.

I think that pretty well wraps everything up. I would like to thank the minister for the opportunity to go into consideration in detail here because I was able to put a lot of questions forward and have them adequately answered. I know members of the society have tuned in to this and will appreciate, I think, how we have gone about this in good faith.

Mr PAKULA: I concur.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time set down for consideration of items on the government business program has arrived, and I am required to interrupt business. The house is considering the Puffing Billy Railway Bill 2022 in detail. The question is:

That clause 36 stand part of the bill.

Clause agreed to; clauses 37 to 47 agreed to.

Bill agreed to without amendment.

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.