Thursday, 7 April 2022

Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms ALLAN:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Consideration in detail

Clause 1 (16:10)

Ms RYAN: Clause 1(a) refers to evidentiary matters relating to offences detected by road safety cameras. Minister, is someone committing an offence if they use a mobile phone to pay while using the drive-through at a fast-food outlet?

Mr CARROLL: I thank the member for Euroa for her question. First and foremost, the intention is not to be catching people that may be using Apple Pay or a mobile phone while going through a drive-through. In fact I do not want to make any earthshattering announcements, but these cameras are not intended to be at drive-throughs. This is about road safety. It is about our major arterials and driving down the road toll to zero by 2050, halving road deaths by 2030 and halving trauma. It is a very serious subject, and we all know the road toll. As I speak on my feet—70 lives lost. That is 70 individuals that will not be here for this Easter or this Christmas. Every life lost is preventable, and that is what this is about. It is not about people using their mobile phone as they go through a drive-through, whether it be Apple Pay or their Visa card on their phone; it is about people using their mobile phone literally while driving, whether it is in a 40-kilometre zone, a 60-kilometre zone, an 80-kilometre zone or a 100-kilometre zone. You all would have read the second-reading speech. We know this has a 95 per cent chance of really ensuring that every year we can save so many different lives—some 95 lives. So do not take my word for it, take the Monash University Accident Research Centre’s. Member for Euroa, to the nub of your question about it applying to fast-food outlets and drive-throughs, anyone going through a particular outlet like that is not intended to be found guilty of any of these offences, and it is not intended to apply to those individuals.

Ms RYAN: Thank you, Minister. Whilst appreciating your response, the bill does say, ‘while the vehicle was moving or stationary’. It is maybe not within the spirit of the law, but I suppose I renew my question: is that offence feasible under the legislation? And secondly, is it legal for someone to use their mobile phone at traffic lights if they pull on the handbrake and turn off their car, as I understand has previously been the advice of Victoria Police—that it is indeed illegal to use a mobile phone to pay whilst going through a drive-through and that motorists can only do so if they pull on the handbrake and turn off their car? So in light of that advice from Victoria Police, is it legal for someone to use their mobile phone, for example, at a traffic light or a stop sign if they pull on the handbrake and turn off their car?

Mr CARROLL: The intention of this reform—and it is based on Australia-wide evidence and international evidence—is very simple. Mobile phones are a distraction, and distractions lead to loss of life. You should not be on your mobile phone at any stage while your car is on. And indeed if you are at traffic lights and stopped and on your mobile phone, there is a very good chance that you will out of this legislation—and rightly so, as no-one should be on their mobile phone at traffic lights; that could easily cause an incident, it could cause all manner of things—be encapsulated by this law. Having said that, though, as you would appreciate we are sending out notices for the first three months when the law comes in, and we are going to ensure that this law does apply to those individuals that it is intended to—those individuals that are being distracted and on their mobile phone when they should not be.

Mr D O’BRIEN: I assume I have to be in my place and I also need to refer to you as Chair on this occasion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have been called worse.

Mr D O’BRIEN: Or Deputy Speaker? Sorry, this is new for us. This is literally I think the third time—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Deputy Speaker.

Mr D O’BRIEN: Deputy Speaker, this is literally the third time this has happened since I have been in Parliament—for nearly seven years now—so it is a little bit exciting for us.

Mr Eren: You’re easily excited.

Mr D O’BRIEN: True. A very bad choice of words, member for Lara.

Members interjecting.

Mr D O’BRIEN: Sorry, Minister, I just want to go back to those couple of questions. You have used the word ‘intention’ a couple of times. I would like to know whether it is still legally possible for someone to be charged when using a mobile to pay for something. It is not just the question perhaps of fast-food outlets. For example, we see people collecting money at traffic lights, and I am sure it is not beyond the realms that in future—in fact it might already be happening—that people do that with a machine, a payWave.

I take your assurance that it is not the intention of the legislation. But as you know, as local members we all get the strange cases that come forward where someone is aggrieved that they have been charged with an offence and do not believe it is clear in the act. I just seek whether you can clarify (a) whether or not someone could in fact be charged for using a mobile phone or a device to pay out the window, whether at a fast-food outlet or perhaps at traffic lights, and (b) whether it is absolutely clear in the legislation that you cannot be touching a mobile phone even when stationary on the road.

Mr CARROLL: It is new to me too, member for Gippsland South. So I am happy for you to ask that question and indeed I will provide the response. I take your point that people may use payWave with their mobile phone—Good Friday Appeal and things like that. Again, there is every chance that if you are using that device illegally—even today, if a police officer is there and you have your mobile phone in your hand with your car on, you technically are within the realms of using a mobile phone while driving your car and your car is on. We know a mobile phone in the palm of your hand is a big distraction. So when it comes to using a mobile phone, it is why there is lots of case law. And it is why cars have now been designed to literally have the mobile phone in its socket; there is no opportunity for your phone to be even on your lap. Your mobile phone is there as a distraction.

I am a little concerned about some of the questioning. You are almost trying to find some loopholes and how to potentially get away with using a mobile phone in your car, which I thought was a little bit of a silly way to begin this debate—starting with fast-food outlets and now using payWave. The intention of this is: the mobile phone is the biggest distraction individuals have in their vehicle at the moment, and we are now bringing about a law and bringing about legislation and requirements to put essentially cameras around our network that will help stop people, prevent people and fine people for using a mobile phone.

Now, in your case, member for Gippsland South, this will go through a normal process. So if you get caught on one of these devices, and say you are on your mobile phone going through an outlet of some sort or indeed going through to make a payment and your car is stationary, whether it be on or off, you will be triggered. The way the cameras are set up, they will get everyone going through the intersection. Then everyone gets, essentially, photographed. It takes three images, and then it will go through a process of vetting. If the mobile phone looks like it is being held, indeed if it looks like it is in the lap, the software basically goes through an algorithm, and it will delete 99 per cent of people. And then those 1 per cent of people, perhaps one of the examples that you raised, will then get issued in the mail the fine. Then they will have the opportunity indeed to, if they believe that they were doing the right thing by the community and they should not have been fined, at least say (a) ‘It wasn’t me that was the driver’ or (b) ‘These were the circumstances’. Like every other time you get a fine, you have got the options of taking it to court and pleading your case or indeed, through Fines Victoria, seeking an internal review.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (16:20)

Ms RYAN: Clause 2 deals with the commencement of the act. How much revenue does the government expect these new evidentiary cameras will raise within the first 12 months of commencement?

Mr CARROLL: The idea of this is not to raise revenue. Whatever revenue is raised will certainly then go into our Better Roads trust. I have got three regional members here, and a third of that roads trust funding goes to regional Victoria—on your roads, on your maintenance, on your engineering and, what we are talking about today, on your safety. So let us get that matter clear first and foremost. But also, I actually almost get offended when people try to encapsulate road safety as revenue raising. Every year the TAC spends $1.5 billion on clients with horrific injuries, and it supports many of them for the rest of their lives. Indeed I met a client yesterday. So this is about actually trying to save the taxpayer money and trying to make investments back into road safety. It is far from revenue raising. Indeed the Monash University Accident Research Centre says we are likely to have a $21 million saving per annum. Indeed how do you quantify saving a life? If we are going to save some 95 lives every year through some of this technology it is an innovation, it is what we need to do and it is what we need to invest in. It is certainly not revenue raising.

Ms RYAN: How much money will these new cameras raise according to the government’s modelling?

Mr CARROLL: We have never focused on revenue with this legislation or indeed with this reform. This has all been about putting the sanctity of human life and life-changing circumstances front and centre. Member for Euroa, I have not asked nor have I sought what sort of revenue this will raise. My goal has been to, as every road safety minister’s goal is, have zero lives lost. To be standing here with 70 lives lost already this year is too many, so it is not about revenue raising. It is not about modelling on what revenue raising will occur. We have been very clear in the second-reading speech and very clear I think in our opposition briefing on the amount of lives that it can save in addition to the significant funds that it can save by not having to spend more money on disability, impairment, trauma and counselling by ensuring that we use technology to help drive down the road toll and road trauma and not only eliminate road deaths by 2050 but indeed halve the road toll and road trauma by 2030.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (16:23)

Ms RYAN: Minister, clause 3 makes reference to the circumstances in which an offence applies with respect to a driver who is touching a portable device or has a portable device resting on their body. Noting that new sections 80B to 80D have a delayed commencement in order to ensure amendments are made to the Road Safety Rules 2017, can the minister explain the definition of ‘portable device’?

Mr CARROLL: A portable device is essentially—and it goes into the definitions—a mobile phone. This is about handheld mobile phone devices that we know come in all different shapes and sizes, and that is what the definition of a portable device is. Essentially it is targeted, and in the definitions a mobile phone is a portable device.

Ms RYAN: Are smart watches such as an Apple Watch classified as a portable device?

Mr CARROLL: A smart watch—an Apple Watch or indeed a Garmin watch—is not classified or intended to be encapsulated in this legislation. It is purely targeting mobile phones, and whether the mobile phone is in your lap and not in your hands or if it is in your hands you will be encapsulated in the definitions. Indeed if one of these cameras does catch you with that mobile device either in your lap or in your hands, such as a mobile phone, you will be caught. It is very much targeted at mobile phones, certainly not smart watches, Garmin watches or Apple watches that are on your wrist. The way this software and the technology essentially is written—it is a lot more technical than I am aware of—it is targeted at basically getting mobile phones. It will not target an Apple Watch or any other sort of device that you may have around your wrist or indeed in your console. It is purely set up to target mobile phone use.

Mr RIORDAN: Clause 3 inserts new sections 80B through to 80D. Can you tell us what the locations are of these cameras?

Mr CARROLL: I cannot tell you what the locations of the cameras are; they have not been rolled out yet. But your point is a valid one, member for Polwarth, in the sense that we will as part of our road safety action plan and strategy certainly look at some sort of communications campaign to advise the community. And we would be happy, when the time comes around in a year or two or in 18 months, to work with the opposition and ensure that they are briefed on the campaign that goes around this new technology that is indeed out on the roads. We will obviously work with our road safety partners and we will work with the Transport Accident Commission to inform the community that these cameras are out there. But when it comes to specific locations, that information has not been determined, and indeed we are very much at the beginning of the process with this legislation going through the chamber.

Mr RIORDAN: Do you expect these cameras to be rolled out in regional Victoria as well, or is it for metro roads only?

Mr CARROLL: Member for Polwarth, to be very honest, I hope they are rolled out all over the state where we see potential lives lost. You would be fully aware as a member for regional Victoria of the over-representation of regional Victorians in the road toll. It is actually quite a mistake that people think that it is people coming to the regions that lose their lives on our roads; it is often your local community members that lose their lives. The intention is that these will be rolled out at different locations, and obviously we will work with a range of our road safety partners, principally Victoria Police. But yes, they will be capable of being rolled out essentially to any community across the state or indeed any location.

Mr WAKELING: Minister, can I bring you back to clause 3, subclause (3), the definition of ‘portable device’. I thank you for your answer with respect to watches, but with respect to iPads, laptops or any other devices that people may well be utilising whilst driving, could you provide some clarity as to whether they fall within the definition of a portable device?

Mr CARROLL: Thanks, member for Ferntree Gully. I will seek some clarification. If you are using an iPad and you are speaking on the iPad and you are literally having a conversation or indeed using your iPad to text, I understand that would fall within the definition, because you are using a portable device, essentially an iPad/phone, for a telecommunications purpose. Do you mind if I just ask—sure, yes.

Mr D O’BRIEN: To assist the house, I have a related question that you may seek clarification on too, Minister, and I would like to just respond to some of your comments earlier too. I do not think we are in any way trying to create loopholes; we are simply just trying to have clarity on some of these issues. But in addition to the member for Ferntree Gully’s questions, I am interested in—and this would relate to the current rules as well—devices such as AirPods. So you could be on the phone with AirPods in your ears. Likewise, there are in development—and they have been trialled—smart glasses, which potentially could be used. I get that that is not a case of having a mobile phone in your hand or on your lap, but it is potentially equally distracting. I am just wanting to clarify whether that is okay—say, for example, with AirPods—as it is okay, I assume, under current laws to use bluetooth in the car. Could you clarify that for me as well?

Mr CARROLL: Thanks, member for Ferntree Gully and member for Gippsland South. AirPods, I think they are, that go in your ears, or some of that sort of glassware, are not encapsulated at present, but iPads would be. The reason laptops would be is you may be using them to talk to some individual. The reason that we have gone with the definition of ‘portable device’ is to try as much as possible to stay ahead of the curve in terms of some of the things that the member for Gippsland South has raised: what is the next iteration of technology? The intention is that we know the mobile phone will be incorporated into some sort of other device at some stage—it will be probably smaller and more powerful—and then rather than always having to come back to update the definitions, it will be a portable device. But at the moment AirPods in your ears and things of that nature—as opposed to mobile phones, iPads and laptops, which are encapsulated—and the other things that the member for Gippsland South raised would not be.

Mr WAKELING: Minister, if I may just as an addition to that seek some clarity. With respect to an iPad, it would be covered with respect to someone who is either texting or having a conversation over an iPad, but what about someone who is either holding or touching an iPad if they are using it to live stream or to watch YouTube or to send an email?

Mr CARROLL: Member for Ferntree Gully, you would certainly be caught—as you should be. If you are live streaming on your iPad and watching something or if you are using it to text, you would certainly be caught, and I think, yes, you would be made an example of. So yes.

Mr McCURDY: Minister, you spoke about infringements earlier. Should a motorist decide to challenge an infringement, will the images that were taken by the camera be provided to them?

Mr CARROLL: The short answer is yes. They will be provided, as you can now request, member for Ovens Valley, images of your registration plates when you go through a red light and the like. The short answer is yes, and all the available natural justice processes that apply now for either speeding or red-light camera offences will be applicable. You may not have even been the driver of that car although you are the registered owner; you may very well believe that you were in the right and want to seek an internal review. So all of those processes will continue to apply, including requesting a copy of the image.

Mr McCURDY: Further to images, Minister, in terms of storage of those images and use of those images, is it a third party or a government organisation that will be reviewing those images? In terms of privacy—I suppose that is where I am coming from—how are those images protected by privacy? Is it outsourced, or is it government?

Mr CARROLL: It is a very valid point that the member for Ovens Valley raises around privacy, and it is something that I take seriously. It has obviously been front of mind for me as the minister overseeing this reform. I can confirm that we have been working and continue to work with the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner, and all of those protections that come under the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 will continue to apply. With this reform we have to do a privacy impact statement. I think the nub of the member’s question was essentially: who has access to the images? Are they outside government, third parties? The intention is that it is always just within government. The intention is that 99 per cent of the images will be destroyed, hopefully within hours. It is that 1 per cent where a person has been caught by the camera and then issued a fine that will be held for that sort of period where they can challenge it, and if they pay the fine fairly quickly, the intention is for the image to be destroyed.

Ms RYAN: (By leave) Minister, just with respect to the nature of the cameras, are they going to be fixed? I understand that in the trial that was undertaken they were mounted on mobile trailers. Will the installation of permanent cameras be fixed, or will they be mobile around the state? Will any warning be provided to motorists as to the site of these cameras?

Mr CARROLL: You are correct, Shadow Minister, that they were on mobile big pole devices for the trial, and that is what we intend to roll out certainly at the beginning. They will be mobile, can be moved around and things like that. To your point about communications and advertising, we are still to work through that, but from my point of view it is something that I would want to see advocated for—not pinpointing exactly the location, but like we do now: ‘Please be aware. Please be mindful. You are in the vicinity of a mobile camera’. That is probably where we will head to, and certainly as I said earlier, we will work with our road safety partners, TAC, to see what other communications and advertising we need to do around this reform.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (16:38)

Ms RYAN: Minister, with respect to the general evidentiary provisions in the bill, I specifically want to ask about seatbelts. How will infringements be issued to passengers who are detected not wearing seatbelts, in light of the fact that generally you would have the details of the owner of the car or the driver but not necessarily a passenger who might be in that vehicle?

Mr CARROLL: Often the onus is on the driver to ensure that their passengers are wearing seatbelts. If it is a passenger from another household—I will just seek clarification on that—I understand that initially the communication goes to the registered owner of the vehicle. I will just double-check where it goes if there is someone that does not live in that premises.

Member for Euroa, I think I was right the first time. The onus is on the driver, so the infringement will be issued to the driver, because they have the obligation to essentially operate a safe vehicle with all passengers buckled up. With the technology, if you were sitting in the back seat without your seatbelt and the driver had their seatbelt on, you would not be picked up. The only way you would be picked up as a passenger without a seatbelt, whether you were in the front seat or the back seat, is if there was essentially a police officer on the side of the road there and then who saw it.

Ms RYAN: Further to that, Minister, just to clarify I guess: in the event of a rideshare or a commercial passenger vehicle, if a passenger is not wearing a seatbelt, just to clarify that fine, that infringement would go to the operator—the Uber driver or the taxidriver in that case. Is there any provision for the driver of the vehicle to nominate the passenger as the person who has actually committed the offence? For someone who is operating a rideshare or a commercial passenger vehicle, I suppose, what is the advice to them if they have a passenger who is not wearing a seatbelt?

Mr CARROLL: Thank you, member for Euroa. Yes, the advice to them is to make sure their passengers are seatbelted up—but I understand from the advice I have just been given from the Department of Transport that the cameras are literally focused on the front, the driver’s seat, because that is where the responsibility is held. If you are in the back seat of an Uber or a taxi and not buckled up, you are being stupid, but you will not be caught unless literally you are seen by a police officer on the side of the road, and they will issue the fine and the offence then.

Mr D O’BRIEN: Could I just clarify on that, then: so the cameras will not be focused at all on the passenger in the front—is that correct? Only on the driver?

Mr CARROLL: I will get that clarification.

Member for Gippsland South, the camera will pick up a passenger not wearing a seatbelt only in the front seat. However, the fine will not go to the passenger, it will go to the registered driver, and there is no capacity for the registered driver to pass the fine on or try and nominate someone else because under the law you as the driver are responsible for the safety of your passengers and ensuring everyone is buckled up. Indeed in the case of an Uber driver or indeed a taxidriver, they should really hopefully refuse the fare unless the person is buckled up and doing the right thing.

Mr McCURDY: Just to take that one step further, Minister, in the case of a left-hand drive situation, obviously—well, I assume—the driver is then deemed to be on the left-hand side rather than the right-hand side, so the rules would then apply?

Mr CARROLL: The short answer is yes.

Mr RIORDAN: Just to clarify on reallocating to the responsible driver, you said there was no provision to allocate it to the passenger, but presumably if you are driving someone else’s car you can nominate them, as you can with speeding fines.

Mr CARROLL: Yes. I think if someone else was driving your car and they were caught and you were the registered owner of the car, you certainly, as in the provisions, could nominate them.

Mr WAKELING: Minister, just further to that situation, if a passenger wanted to nominate themselves as the offender as opposed to the driver, is there capacity in that context for the passenger to accept the fine, given the fact that they had initiated it, or does it have to be borne—and obviously with any loss of points—by the driver?

Mr CARROLL: No, it does have to be borne by the driver because the obligation is not on the passenger to provide the safety of the motor vehicle. You as the driver have that responsibility to ensure your passengers are belted up, whether they are your kids or they are your friends or they are your parents in the back seat. The onus does come on you as the registered owner and driver.

Mr WAKELING: Just as a follow-up, if I may, to that, in some circumstances if a photo is taken of the whole front of the car, somebody who is sitting in the middle seat in the back will be certainly visible in the photograph, and in those circumstances the driver may be unaware of the offence occurring. If someone wished to nominate themselves as the offender, given the fact that the driver was unaware of the fact that they were committing a penalty in their car, can consideration be given for individuals to accept the fine?

Mr CARROLL: Look, there are always different considerations given, but you also open up a big can of worms if any individual can accept the fine, because not only is it about the fine, it is about the demerit points for the driver. So if you are a passenger in a vehicle, the way the road rules work is as a passenger you cannot say, ‘Well, I did the wrong thing, take the demerit points off me’. The responsibility is on the person behind the wheel—and indeed the responsibility for not only the motor vehicle but the individuals in it. So the onus and the law apply to you as the registered owner and driver.

Mr RIORDAN: We are very obsessed with this particular point, Minister. I just am seeking further clarification. At the moment—you made the comment a couple of times—the passenger in the back seat or the other passengers would only get fined if they were caught by a policeman. So what you are saying is that if a policeman is there, the onus and responsibility for safe driving does not exist for a driver, but under the camera situation it does. So you have sort of got two points of law going on there. You are saying that the existing law treats the driver differently to how the camera law does.

Mr Carroll: No, we’re not saying that.

Mr RIORDAN: You said that a passenger in the back seat and a passenger in the front seat would get fined if a policeman caught them.

Mr Fowles: Officer.

Mr RIORDAN: Officer—if a police officer caught them. But under this the driver is totally responsible for the other passenger. So a person in the back, a kid in the back seat now or an adult in the back seat now, will get the fine, but under this only the driver will get the fine.

Mr CARROLL: Yes, essentially you are correct that it is the driver that will be caught and fined under this camera technology. The passenger in the back will not. The passenger is doing the wrong thing by not wearing a seatbelt, but they are also not driving the vehicle. There is also a lot more responsibility on the driver to ensure their passengers wear their seatbelts. One of the things we are doing here—it is incredible after 50 years—I think it was 21 lives lost or thereabouts last year by people not wearing a seatbelt.

Ms Ryan: Thirty-one.

Mr CARROLL: Thirty-one, was it? I am corrected. So it is something we need to address. We do not know what the future is with technology and where it may go. Some of your hypothesis, member for Polwarth, may one day come true, where technology is a lot more advanced to pick up all sorts of things, and the rules may expand. But at the moment the focus is on the driver of the motor vehicle.

Ms RYAN:(By leave) Minister, just with regard to the storing of images taken to detect a portable device offence or a seatbelt offence, what advice has the government received from the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner, and will that advice be made public?

Mr CARROLL: We have been working considerably closely with the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner and parliamentary counsel. The Department of Transport have also been working under the guidance of the camera privacy provisions in both the Road Safety Act 1986 and the Privacy and Data Protection Act. We have to do a privacy impact statement for this reform. I am just going to clarify if that becomes a public document, and I will be back in one second.

If it is okay by you, Shadow Minister, I will come back to you, on a commitment, over the privacy impact statement. It is something the Department of Justice and Community Safety are working on at the moment. We have not committed to publicly releasing it, but I commit to giving you a briefing on it, and we will work to see what sort of information we can provide publicly around it.

Clause agreed to; clauses 5 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (16:51)

Ms RYAN: Minister, even though I will acknowledge that this one is a bit random, clause 9 inserts new section 85IA into the Road Safety Act, which provides that if a person is charged by a police officer with one of a number of offences, a senior police officer, by written notice, may suspend the driver licence or learner permit of that person. This includes an offence against section 61(1) of the Road Safety Act, which states that:

If owing to the presence of a motor vehicle an accident occurs whereby any person is injured or any property (including any animal) is damaged or destroyed, the driver of the motor vehicle—

must immediately stop the motor vehicle; and

… render such assistance as he or she can …

Can you confirm that someone can have their licence suspended if they hit a pet while driving and fail to stop to check on the animal?

Mr CARROLL: That is not the intention, member for Euroa—animals. It is about humans: hit-and-run. If I am correct, it is about humans and you will not be caught if it is a hit-and-run on an animal. Yes, I thought so.

Mr D O’BRIEN: Just a clarification on the same section, although onto clause 9(3), which indicates that a senior police officer can effectively only suspend a licence in the case of someone who has died or suffered serious injury or, paragraph (a)(ii):

the accused is an unacceptable risk to road safety until the charge is determined …

Minister, could you clarify what the definition of a senior police officer is and also if there is any appeal mechanism for that? There is a situation potentially where there may be multiple people or vehicles involved in an accident. Someone might be suspended and vehemently protest their innocence, and the charge may take some time to clarify—as to whether there is actually any appeal mechanism for that.

Mr CARROLL: Thank you for the question, and again I am going to seek a nod. I am 99 per cent sure you need to be a sergeant or above as a ranking police officer. Is that correct? Yes. And, yes, there are appeal mechanisms, and essentially the police officer does still have to fill out a charge sheet and do their best to ensure the elements of the offence have been proven and will be proven if it does go to court. So, yes, they are the processes.

Mr D O’BRIEN: Perhaps further clarification: what are the appeal processes? Is it through VCAT, is it through a magistrate? What is the process that someone who is suspended might appeal?

Mr CARROLL: I will go and seek some clarification, but essentially if it is hit-and-run or culpable driving causing death, your licence will be suspended. In relation to which court of law it is through, let me just come back to you.

Member for Gippsland South, you can seek an internal review through Victoria Police. Essentially the sergeant will issue the infringement and the suspension, and if you do believe the sergeant has done that wrongly or you are innocent, you can seek an internal review. Depending on the nature—if it is a hit-and-run, culpable driving—that will obviously also be through a court process, and if through the court process you are found not guilty, then essentially your licence is automatically given back.

Clause agreed to; clauses 10 to 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 (16:57)

Ms RYAN: Minister, clause 18 provides for regulations to be made concerning the manner in which images and messages produced by devices, systems and processes can be disclosed, shared, destroyed or used. Sorry, I am rushing. Given these cameras photograph offenders and non-offenders, will police have access to these images? And, I suppose, under what circumstances will police have access to the images—perhaps for other offending or if they are pursuing other matters? What training will be provided to individuals who are reviewing images taken by these cameras? And what procedures will be in place if another offence is detected in the course of reviewing camera images? For example, if somebody is detected taking drugs or engaging in other criminal activity, can they be prosecuted for that behaviour as a consequence of the images that have been taken?

Mr CARROLL: I thank the member for Euroa for her question. We are working with the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner on all the roles and responsibilities of the different road safety partners, principally within VicPol and the Department of Justice and Community Safety, that may have access to the images. As I said, 99 per cent of the images hopefully are destroyed within literally a matter of hours, and then that 1 per cent of images where a suspension or a fine is being issued will be held for a court of law process. If in that image it looks like there has been another offence committed, that would then be obviously, depending on what the offence is, at the discretion of Victoria Police to look into the matter. The whole idea of these images is evidence, and if there is a serious other breach that has been caught, as we see with other breaches now with CCTV footage, that would be a matter for Victoria Police to look at.

Ms RYAN: Minister, has work on these regulations commenced, and when will the regulations come into effect?

Mr CARROLL: The intention is to pass this bill hopefully through some bipartisan support that I know is there, and then, as you would be aware, we have a regulation-making power under the act, but I understand we have not commenced that process as yet. There have certainly been discussions with the Department of Transport and the Department of Justice and Community Safety concerning future regulations.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time set down for consideration of items on the government business program has arrived. I am required to interrupt business. The house is considering the Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. The question is:

That clause 18 stand part of the bill.

Clause agreed to; clauses 19 to 40 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.