Tuesday, 10 September 2024

Bills

Roads and Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Melissa Horne:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (13:30): I am pleased to rise and be welcomed to speak on the Roads and Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. I am happy to go to some of the detail of the bill throughout my contribution and also talk more broadly about some of the challenges we are facing on roads issues at the moment. This bill is something of an omnibus bill, with a number of different road and road safety aspects to it, notably the introduction of no-truck zone cameras and the legal framework for those cameras to operate in the inner west. I am informed that there is no truth to the rumour that internally this bill is known as the save Katie bill, but I am pleased that it will support both the minister at the table, as the member for Williamstown, and the member for Footscray, who will make an excellent shadow minister one day, I am very pleased to indicate. I do know this legislation is very important to the member for Footscray and probably to the member for Williamstown and I think maybe even to the member for Tarneit – no, not quite. The member for Laverton does not need any help. She is already in the safest seat in the state, so we know that she does not need any assistance. This aspect of the bill has been coming for a long time as there has been a long-time concern about trucks in the inner west, and this legislation provides the framework, as I said, for new no-truck zone cameras.

The legislation also clarifies the arrangements around the digital driver licence, which I know has been embraced by Victorians. It has been somewhat belated. I think South Australia introduced digital driver licences in 2019, and – here we are – they were introduced in Victoria in May this year. I understand from the government announcements that there have been over 1 million Victorians taking up the opportunity – including this little black duck; I have added the digital drivers licence to my phone in recent months. I am sure people are enjoying the freedom and the security that it gives them when driving just to have that. This legislation gives some clarity around that. I must say when I first read that this is to ensure that digital drivers licences are effectively a legal document, it was a little bit concerning that they had been operating since May and yet this bill was just coming through. However, it is clear the digital licences are simply a function of your hard copy, your plastic licence, and are actually linked directly to it in real time. So if those licences are cancelled, suspended or otherwise dealt with, that will appear on the digital drivers licence too.

There are other parts to this legislation. There are some amendments to custom numberplate legislation which will allow for the operator of the VicRoads joint venture to either charge an up-front fee or a periodic fee for custom plates, and what this legislation does is allow them to do one or to do both if they choose to. Also there is the introduction of a framework to allow the charging of fees for transfer of custom plates, which to be honest I could have taken issue with in that it is potentially another slug on Victorians. We do not know, though, what the transfer fees will be. The government has not given any indication, certainly not in this bill, as to what the transfer fees might be. I was a little bit surprised to get some information from the minister’s office that there are something like 14,000 transfers of custom plates every year and I think about 250,000 registrations of custom plates in Victoria every year. So there is a considerable number, and I am sure the joint venture partners will be looking to see what they can monetise out of this bill.

Finally, there are a couple of other minor changes, some with respect to the wording of disability access permits and also some changes to the way fines are dealt with, in particular that fines and associated costs are refunded if a person has been granted an extension of time to deal with an infringement notice. So not just the fine itself; if you have been given an extension of time, you will actually also be refunded any additional charges that you might have incurred on that. That applies to a number of different pieces of legislation, which again, we have no issue with.

As I said, the introduction of no-truck zones itself was facilitated by legislation a number of years ago. This is particularly for the inner west and the issue of trucks, particularly container trucks, running to and from the Port of Melbourne, and historically they have run through some of those seats – sorry, streets; Freudian slip there – in the inner west. They also run through seats, notably the member for Footscray’s and the member for Williamstown’s. Those no-truck zones have been introduced, and what this legislation does is actually provide the framework for the introduction of no-truck zone cameras. There are a number of things that are still to be cleared with that. I understand these cameras will be placed on existing road infrastructure where possible, whether that is traffic lights or other signage, and they will be able to show things instantly to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, which will be the police, if you like, in respect of these no-truck zones. They have been that for some time, but one of the challenges has been that they have literally physically had to be there to catch trucks in the act of going through these no-truck zones. These cameras will make that a far more efficient process.

As a result, this aspect of the bill is supported by the Maribyrnong Truck Action Group (MTAG), who I reached out to about this. They do have some other concerns, though, as do some of the freight operators with respect to how this will actually operate in practice. I understand from the minister’s office we will have business rules implemented as to how these cameras will actually work, but there are questions that need to be clarified on those rules. That is exactly how it will work. There are exemptions for those operating in prescribed circumstances. That of course will allow trucks to go through those streets that are designated no-truck zones if they have a legitimate reason for being in those streets. Whether they operate from a premises in those areas, whether it is for supermarket deliveries or whether it is a truck delivering equipment or materials to a building site, for example, they will be able to do so. The question I guess, though, is: how will that actually operate? One of the issues from the freight sector of course is that they do not want a situation where they have to be constantly proving why a truck was in a certain location. I would hope that that would be done automatically and that through whatever means possible the regulator will know ‘Okay, this truck is there because it’s a supermarket truck delivering,’ or ‘This truck is there because its depot is in this location and it has to go through that zone.’ What we do not want to see is the transport operators having to be constantly responding to infringement notices, for example, and saying, ‘No, this is the reason why that truck was there.’

Container Transport Alliance Australia is also keen to ensure that there is a strong communications campaign for this legislation – not just for the industry and truck drivers but for the wider community and residents in the inner west as well. The government does like to say that there is a truck ban and that there are going to be no trucks, but in fact there will be trucks. There will still be trucks in parts of the inner west.

Melissa Horne interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: They will still be going in different parts. You are not actually getting rid of trucks altogether; they are just going to different locations.

The intention of this legislation is that they will be going through the West Gate Tunnel, and that is an important point because of course this legislation does not take effect until the West Gate Tunnel is open. But a communications campaign is needed there because, as I understand it, the cameras indeed will specifically be on a set number of streets, being Francis Street, Buckley Street, Moore Street, Hudsons Road, Somerville Road and Blackshaws Road, in various different suburbs in the inner west.

And there will be some areas that will not; I think Williamstown Road is one that MTAG has raised concern about. There are also concerns about the location of tolling points on the West Gate Freeway and what that will mean with respect to Millers Road and others in the area. But it is not something that we oppose, that these cameras will come in and enforce the no-truck zones; indeed I do not believe we opposed the introduction of the no-truck zones, or at least the legislation that allowed them, back in in 2019, I think it was.

As I said, MTAG, the Maribyrnong Truck Action Group, are anxious that the proposed tolling points for the West Gate Tunnel Project will funnel more traffic onto Williamstown Road and also have raised a concern with me that although this will take trucks off the road, their concern remains about filtration on West Gate Tunnel vent stacks. They remain concerned that diesel pollution will continue in the inner west. In their opinion, even though the trucks might be off those roads, they will still be running through the West Gate Tunnel and the fumes will come up those stacks.

I said there are issues from other agencies. The Victorian Transport Association wants to see some flexibility to allow tracks to still go through these roads in the event of an emergency or significant traffic disruption. Congestion in itself I do not think is something about which we can say, ‘Okay, it’s congested, so you can go back through the no-truck zones.’ I am sure the member for Footscray would not support that. But there does need to be a commonsense response to when there is an emergency, and I understand that that will be undertaken through powers for police to be able to take a commonsense approach. If there is an emergency, if the tunnel is blocked, then there will be an opportunity for trucks to divert back where they have historically gone. That might be something that government members might give some confirmation of, that discretion that emergency services have in the event of an emergency, because we certainly do not want to see our transport operators unnecessarily fined in the event that they do not have an alternative to taking the West Gate Tunnel.

I did hear some ‘Hear, hears’ when I mentioned the West Gate Tunnel before from those opposite, because of course they are very proud of it.

Mathew Hilakari: Hear, hear!

Danny O’BRIEN: There are some ‘Hear, hears’ there now. Thank you very much, member for Point Cook. But some of us have been around long enough to remember the genesis of this. I am sure it will be a beautiful, wonderful project, but I do recall as a newly elected MP hearing the then opposition leader Mr Andrews saying that the West Gate distributor, which was a Labor policy at the time before the 2014 election, was shovel-ready. Of course they came to government with this shovel-ready project that was going to cost $500 million and was going to get the trucks off the roads in the inner west. Then they came across a group called Transurban, who said, ‘Have we got a deal for you.’ Probably those of us on this side could say that, no, we think Transurban came to the government and said, ‘We’ve got a deal for us.’ And yet the government still bought it and did the deal on what is now the West Gate Tunnel Project, whacking additional tolls on CityLink as part of the compensation for it. So – and indeed this was a part of the debate in 2019 – motorists on CityLink in the south-eastern suburbs have been paying for the West Gate Tunnel for some time now through the increased tolls in that area in compensation for the West Gate Tunnel, the shovel-ready project, which is still not open 10 years later. We know the history of this project – the cost blowouts, the issues with toxic soil and the delays – so I am sure that government members will be very anxious not only to get this legislation through but to see this tunnel actually delivered.

I will move on to other parts, because I think I have said enough about the future shadow minister, the member for Footscray and her opportunities there. The other aspect of this legislation is the digital drivers licence, and that is something that, as I said, has been embraced. Division 5 in part 2 of the bill basically gives legal authority to the introduction of the digital drivers licence. There are a number of aspects to that. It introduces definitions for digital drivers licences and learner permits, and I note that P-plates and learner permits are coming. I believe this summer they will be made available in a digital format. This bill does allow that, whilst for the drivers licences themselves this is effectively retrospective.

The bill allows the secretary to approve the software for the purpose of delivering digital licences, and currently this is either the Service Victoria app or the VicRoads app. I might say from my own experience there probably could be some change to the wording on the VicRoads website. It says ‘Download the VicRoads app’ first, but then there is something after that that says ‘or you can do it on the Service Victoria app’. Now, most of us post COVID have already got the Service Victoria app on our phones. You do not need to get the VicRoads app if you choose not to. I must say it was pretty straightforward using the Service Victoria app to get the licence on my phone. This bill gives that approval to the secretary to do that.

It also allows the driver to display the digital drivers licence by showing it to a police officer or other authorised officer and clarifies probably a question that many are asking – that is, you are not required to hand over an electronic device that holds your digital licence to a police officer or other authorised officer. I know probably it is an issue of concern for some people: do I have to give it to them? Are they going to take it away to the police car to check? None of that is required under the bill as long as you show it and it is easily visible to the officer.

The bill does give the government power to confiscate, destroy, copy or check the validity of a digital drivers licence, which does make you wonder how they do that physically, but I am told this is done in practice via the registry database. Effectively, as I said earlier, the digital licence is linked directly to your hard-copy licence, if you like, and as a result the department can make changes to those, which are updated in real time on the digital drivers licence. On that point, though, it is important to note that even if your licence is suspended or cancelled you will still be able to use your digital licence for the purposes of identification – for example, for proving age or identity. In other parts of this bill it allows the digital drivers licence to effectively mirror the rules for physical driver licences as well, so there is no particular issue with that. As I said, Victorians have embraced that.

There is a question that I have asked the government through the preparation of this bill about what this legislation means for people using a digital licence interstate. Now, I note that this legislation recognises interstate and indeed overseas digital licences in Victoria for the purposes of authorised officers or enforcement, but we cannot impose on other states to recognise ours. That is a question that is probably still to be answered for the public, as to if you are interstate and you want to use your digital licence, will it be recognised by interstate authorities? I have had examples of people who have not been able to use it for certain purposes in other parts of the country and have been frustrated by that. I guess the advice is to take your physical licence or other ID with you if you are going interstate until this is sorted out. I understand this is being addressed at a national level, but unfortunately this Parliament cannot legislate for other states. It would probably be good if we could – we might do them a favour – but that is the situation at the moment.

I will just touch on the other changes in the legislation. The custom numberplate fee changes: there are, as I said earlier, around 250,000 custom numberplates sold a year – that has certainly been the case on average over the past five years – but there are around 1.35 million custom numberplates in Victoria, so it is a significant number. As I said, there are 14,000 transfers each year, so this legislation introduces the power for the government to charge a transfer fee for people transferring custom numberplates between different vehicles or different drivers or registered drivers and allows the VicRoads licensing and registration joint venture partnership, otherwise known as the privatisation arrangement, to either charge an up-front free for a custom numberplate, an ongoing periodical fee or indeed both; in fact this legislation is allowing both to occur. That is a bit of a concern, I have got to say, as to what sorts of charges that might mean for Victorians seeking to get custom numberplates. I guess time will tell, because the legislation does not give us any indication of what those charges may be, what the quantum may be, or indeed what the quantum of transfer fees may be, so we will see. There are, as I said, some other minor changes around wording and terminology with respect to accessibility permits and also some changes to fine arrangements, but they are minor in content.

I cannot let the opportunity go, though, to talk about our roads more broadly and our roads and road safety legislation. Those trucks that are going through the inner-west zone, now having to avoid new no-truck zones, are also driving all around the state, and we have seen over a number of years now a massive deterioration in the quality of our roads. This has come about in large part due to the reductions in spending over the last few years, and I can go back to the 2021 budget, where there was a road asset management spend of $807 million. Now, that dropped last year to $441 million on the actual road asset management figure, and it has gone up this year to $680 million. That is still 16 per cent less than it was five years ago. The minister will say, ‘That’s rubbish; read the fine print.’ Well, there is fine print that indicates that there is a total figure – and I heard the Premier use it yesterday, so I am pleased to see the Premier is keeping an eye on the road asset management budget line item – of $964 million in total, including flood-related works.

What we have seen from this government, though – and absolutely we need to have spending on floods ‍– is a misrepresentation of the situation. Constantly when we ask, when Victorians ask and when media ask about the state of our roads we are told that they have deteriorated because we have had some wet years. Well, the reality is we have had many, many wet years over the decades. Indeed if you look at the data available through the Bureau of Meteorology, there is no indication whatsoever that it has been any more wet over the last four or five years than it was, for example, in 2010–11, when we had floods in this state. There is no question that there were bad floods, in the north of the state particularly, in 2022 and that they caused a significant amount of damage to the roads, but to suggest that the potholes, the rutting and the cracking that is occurring right across the state is because of the wet weather is just wrong.

Indeed the government gave some figures to Parliament a few months ago when it comes to road resurfacing contracts. Road resurfacing is not fixing potholes, it is not fixing damaged roads, but it is preventative maintenance. You need to do road resurfacing to seal the road to stop water getting in. What happens when water gets in is it washes away the foundations of the road. As trucks and cars go over it, that pushes those foundations out, and what you end up with are potholes, so it is really crucial that you have an ongoing process. I have had discussions with the secretary of the department for about the last five years on this, and it is generally agreed, including by the secretary of the department, that as a principle you should try and do resurfacing across about 8 per cent of the network every year, which would mean that over a period of 12 or 13 years you will do the entire network. That has not been happening in the last few years, and indeed the information that was given by the government to this Parliament was that in 2022–23 contracts for road resurfacing totalled $201.4 million but in 2023–‍24 that dropped to $37.6 million. That is an 80 per cent drop in the amount of money spent on road resurfacing. The government will say, ‘No, that was a deliberate decision because we’ve been fixing the roads.’ Well, that does not help the future state of the roads.

It also does not help the roads that were not flood affected, which are in an absolutely dire state at the moment. Anyone in Victoria will tell you how bad the roads are, particularly in regional Victoria, but with the greatest respect, we half expect it. We do not accept it, but in regional Victoria we are not surprised when our roads are in poor condition. What I have seen in the last couple of years as the shadow minister is a significant spike in complaints from those in metropolitan areas, particularly even on freeways. We had the incident I think earlier this year where there were something like 19 or 20 ‍cars that burst tyres on the Frankston Freeway due to a pothole that developed very quickly, and we have seen that right across the state.

It is absolutely an issue of concern, and it goes further because I see in the budget papers this year there will be a 96 per cent reduction in the level of maintenance undertaken on regional roads for last financial year, 2023–24. That is how dramatic it was. It was reduced dramatically from about 9 million square metres of road maintenance to just over 300,000 – a massive 96 per cent reduction. The area resurfaced or rehabilitated statewide was reduced by 75 per cent compared to two years ago, and that is the cause of the very, very high number of problems we have had with our roads over the last couple of years. And that comes to other points: nearly 400 kilometres of roads are speed-reduced due to poor pavement condition, and nearly 2000 Victorians have lodged claims for vehicle damage due to the roads in the past three years. This is manifesting in the state of our roads.

There was a survey undertaken by the government last year, and the government was very proud to highlight at the time that it was using the National Transport Research Organisation’s intelligent pavement assessment vehicle technology to get an assessment of the roads. That assessment came out and found that 91 per cent of roads were rated poor or very poor – 91 per cent. There were no roads in good condition. I will mention it here because I know if the secretary of the department is watching he will be saying, ‘No, that’s wrong,’ because I asked for a copy of this survey in the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee back in June. I said, ‘We’ve got this one slide that’s been released, but could I have a copy of the whole survey?’ The secretary said no, but then he tried to tell me, ‘What you’re saying is wrong’ – what I have just given, that 91 per cent of roads were rated poor or very poor. I said, ‘Well, Secretary, there’s a simple solution here: be transparent and give me the full survey.’ Until the government is going to be transparent and actually provide that full data I am going with what is publicly available, which is that 91 per cent of our roads were rated poor or very poor in the government’s own survey. I wish the secretary well. I understand he is leaving, but I wish him well going into the future.

We do not have any particular issue with this legislation, but there is a massive issue with roads and road safety right across our state. On road safety, the government reduced road safety funding by $88 million in 2023–24 –

John Pesutto: How much?

Danny O’BRIEN: $88 million – and there is no funding for tactile line marking or roadside safety barriers in the current budget. But this legislation, as I said, with the no-truck zones and the digital drivers licence, we are not opposing. I wish the member for Footscray well in her campaigns on this and the member for Williamstown as well. It would be good, though, if the government would actually fix our roads.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.