Wednesday, 14 May 2025

Roads and Ports Legislation Amendment (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill 2025

Statement of compatibility

Melissa HORNE (Williamstown – Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Roads and Road Safety, Minister for Health Infrastructure) (10:40): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Roads and Ports Legislation Amendment (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill 2025:

Opening paragraphs

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Roads and Ports Legislation Amendment (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill 2025 (the Bill).

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights protected by the Charter. I have this opinion for the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of the Bill

The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Road Safety Act 1986 (Road Safety Act), the Road Management Act 2004, the Port Management Act 1995 (Port Management Act), the Marine Safety Act 2010 (Marine Safety Act), the Marine (Drug, Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act 1988 (Marine (Drug Control) Act), the Transport (Safety Schemes Compliance and Enforcement) Act 2014 (TSSCE Act), the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983, the Transport Integration Act 2010, the North East Link Act 2020, the Fines Reform Act 2014 and other Acts, including to make minor and technical amendments.

Relevant to Charter rights, the Bill introduces a licencing scheme for people providing mooring services in Victoria’s commercial ports, streamlines processes for disposing of abandoned things from ports and waterways, expands the powers to compel the production of documents for the purpose of an investigation into a transport safety or marine safety matter, expands the ability to share information with port and waterway managers for law enforcement purposes and excludes particular documents from being accessed under the freedom of information regime.

Human rights issues

The human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill are:

• the right to privacy (s 13(a));

• the right to freedom of expression (s 15(2));

• the right to property (s 20);

• the right to a fair hearing (s 24(1));

• the right to be presumed innocent (s 25(1));

• the right against self-incrimination (s 25(2)(k)); and

• the right not to be tried or punished more than once (s 26).

Right to privacy

Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. An interference will be lawful if it is permitted by a law which is precise and appropriately circumscribed, and will be arbitrary only if it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable, in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought.

Expansion of the class of person who is authorised to collect urine and blood samples

Clauses 3, 59 and 101 expand the class of persons authorised to collect blood and urine samples under the Road Safety Act, Marine (Drug Control) Act and Rail Safety National Law Application Act 2013 to include a person prescribed by regulation. The purpose of collecting these samples, includes, for example, the collection of samples in relation to offences involving alcohol or other drugs under Part 5 of the Road Safety Act, Part 4 of the Marine (Drug Control) Act and alcohol and drug controls for rail safety works under Part 4A of the Rail Safety National Law Application Act 2013.

While the relevant assessment of compatibility with the Charter of prescribing a class of person will be conducted through the requirement for the Minister to certify a Human Rights Certificate with respect to the appropriateness of the specific class of persons proposed to be prescribed, at a general level, I consider that this Bill does not impose any additional interference with the right to privacy. This is because the Bill does not expand the circumstances in which samples can be taken [and any person prescribed will be appropriately qualified to collect pathology specimens].

Collection and disclosure of information

New s 73ZX and s 73ZZC inserted into the Port Management Act by this Bill require a person to provide certain personal information as part of their original or renewal application for a mooring service licence.

Clause 58 amends s 298A of the Marine Safety Act to clarify that the sharing of information held by the Safe Transport Victoria that can identify an individual, for example, vessel registration information, with Ports Victoria, a local port manager or waterway manager is permissible for particular purposes. This includes for the prevention, detection and the investigation of offences, and for various enforcement purposes.

New s 49R inserted into the TSSCE Act expands the power of the Chief Investigator to require production of documents to include where the Chief Investigator believes on reasonable grounds that the document may contain information that is relevant for the purposes of carrying out an investigation into a transport safety or marine safety matter.

New s 49ZY inserted into the TSSCE Act provides for the publishing of investigation-related materials, being reports of an investigation into a public transport or marine safety matter, safety advisory statements and recommendations, if the Chief Investigator considers it is necessary or desirable for the purposes of transport safety. Published materials may only include personal information in circumstances allowed for under the regulations.

While not all information required under these clauses will be of a private nature, or be information concerning a natural person, as opposed to information concerning a corporation to which the Charter does not apply, the power afforded to an entity to collect, use and share information or documents may engage the right to privacy. However, to the extent that these

provisions do require disclosure of personal information, this will occur in lawful and not arbitrary circumstances.

The requirement for a prospective or current mooring service licence holder to provide certain personal information is clearly linked to the legitimate aim of properly assessing the application for a new or renewal of a licence to ensure the person meets the relevant legislative requirements and standards and so should properly be afforded the licence. The aim is important as matters of licence holder suitability are critical to safeguarding the health and safety of personnel, property and efficient port operations. The requirements will apply to individuals who are voluntarily seeking to work in a regulated industry where special duties and responsibilities attach.

The amendment of s 298A the Marine Safety Act is circumscribed in its scope and allows for the further sharing of information with port and waterway managers in accordance with the requirements of Part 8.8A of the Marine Safety Act and for the legitimate law enforcement purposes outlined in s 298C(1)(k) of the Act, including in relation to criminal offences and for legal proceedings. As such, the circumstances in which information may be used and disclosed will only be as allowed under legislation and for specified non-arbitrary purposes.

The expansion of the powers of the Chief Investigator under new s 49R inserted into the TSSCE Act are similarly circumscribed, including a limitation on the power that it can only be exercised where there are ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe the document contains relevant information, and sits within a regime designed to improve public transport and marine safety by providing for the independent investigation of public transport safety matters and marine safety matters by the Chief Investigator (new Part 2A of the TSSCE Act). For these reasons, I consider that the expansion of the power to compel the production of documents is clear and precise and proportionate to the legitimate aim of ensuring the Chief Investigator is able to effectively investigate public transport safety and marine safety matters.

The prescribing of circumstances in which personal information can be published under s 49ZY will be assessed for compatibility with the Charter through the requirement for the Minister to certify a Human Rights Certificate for any associated regulations.

I therefore consider that any interference with the right to privacy resulting from these provisions will be neither unlawful nor arbitrary.

Right to freedom of expression

Section 15(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds. However, s 15(3) provides that special duties and responsibilities attach to this right, which may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputations of others, or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality. The right to receive and impart information and ideas under s 15(2) has been held to create a positive obligation on government to give access to government-held documents.

The Bill inserts new s 197AA into the Transport Integration Act to provide for an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act 1982 for documents that are in the possession of the Chief Investigator, or their agents, delegates or particular employees, where those documents are obtained, received or created as part of an investigation into a public transport safety matter or a marine safety matter or where the documents are incident reports or complaints made in relation to a public transport safety matter or a marine safety matter.

By providing for this exemption, the Bill restricts access to documents which may otherwise be accessible to the public through the freedom of information scheme and so may limit rights under s 15(2). However, I consider that this is a lawful restriction which is reasonably necessary to both protect public order and the rights of others within the meaning of the internal limitation in s 15(3). The expression ‘protection of … public order’ is a wide and flexible concept and includes measures for ‘peace and good order, public safety and prevention of disorder and crime’ (Magee v Delaney (2012) 39 VR 50). The meaning of protecting the rights of others is similarly broad and would include restrictions reasonably necessary to protect the right to life of the general public who may be at risk during a transport safety incident.

The object of the Chief Investigator is primarily to seek to improve transport and marine safety by providing for the independent, no-blame, investigation of transport safety matters. The purpose of excluding these documents from possible disclosure under the Freedom of Information regime is to ensure that individuals are not discouraged from candidly providing information and disclosing all possible relevant documents. This may hamper the investigation of transport safety matters and impair the ability of the Chief Investigator to make meaningful findings and recommendations for improvements. Reports and safety advice and recommendations are still able to be published publicly where it is considered necessary or desirable for the purposes of transport safety (new s 49ZY inserted into the TSSCE Act by this Bill). I consider that the restriction on s 15(2) is tailored to this purpose and reasonably necessary to encourage frank disclosure, ultimately protecting public safety and the right to life of the general public by improving transport and marine safety.

For these reasons, I consider s 197AA falls within s 15(3) of the Charter and so imposes no limitation on the freedom of expression.

Property rights

Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. This right requires that powers conferred by legislation which authorise the deprivation of property are confined and structured rather than unclear, are accessible to the public, and are formulated precisely.

Clauses 30 to 38 and 49 to 56 amend the provisions under the Port Management Act and Marine Safety Act dealing with the management, including sale and disposal, of abandoned things from ports and waterways.

The Bill expands the circumstances in which an item can be classified as abandoned, such that in addition to the current criteria, it shall also be sufficient for an item to be unattended for 1 month and for the owner to have failed to move the property after being asked in writing by the port manager within the time specified in the written request (clauses 31 and 50). Once classified as abandoned, the item is liable to be moved, stored or disposed of, including being

sold by the port or waterway manager pursuant to the requirements of Division 4 of Part 5B of the Port Management Act and Division 2 of Part 5.5 of the Marine Safety Act as amended by this Bill. Clauses 35 and 54 also insert new provisions to clarify that a person who is given or sold a thing under s 88T of the Port Management Act or 219D of the Marine Safety Act acquires that thing free from all encumbrances. A person may also be liable for costs associated with the movement, storage and disposal of the item and entitled to compensation for the sale of the item in particular circumstances (s 88U and 88V of the Port Management Act and s 219E and 219F of the Marine Safety Act as amended by clauses 36, 37, 55 and 56).

The ability of a port or waterway manager to deal with a person’s property in this manner will engage their property rights under s 20. However, in my view the right is not limited, as the circumstances in which property can be treated as abandoned and how it can then be dealt with by port or waterway managers will be under a clearly formulated, publicly accessible law and confined to specific circumstances necessary, for example only after reasonable enquiries as to the owner of the item are made or notice has been given, to meet the legitimate purposes of ensuring ports and waterways are kept clear of abandoned property that may be detrimental to the operation of ports, the use of waterways or be environmentally or otherwise harmful. For these reasons, I consider that these provisions are compatible with the right to freedom of property in the Charter.

Right to a fair hearing

Taking disciplinary action against mooring service licence holders

Clause 44 inserts new Part 4C into the Port Management Act introducing a licencing scheme of mooring services in Victoria. Under Division 8 of new Part 4C, licence holders may be subject to disciplinary action and have their licence cancelled or suspended where Ports Victoria has reason to believe that the licence holder has contravened a condition imposed on their licence, has contravened new Part 4C or that the licence was obtained because of false or misleading information given as part of the application. The introduction of a disciplinary regime for mooring licences may be relevant to the right to fair hearing.

Section 24(1) of the Charter relevantly provides that a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing. The concept of a ‘civil proceeding’ is not limited to judicial decision makers but may encompass the decision-making procedures of many types of tribunals, boards and other administrative decision-makers with the power to determine private rights and interests. While recognising the broad scope of s 24(1), the term ‘proceeding’ and ‘party’ suggest that s 24(1) was intended to apply only to decision-makers who conduct proceedings with parties. As the administrative decisions at issue here do not involve the conduct of proceedings with parties, there is a question as to whether the right to a fair hearing is engaged.

In any event, if a broad reading of s 24(1) is adopted and it is understood that the fair hearing right is engaged by this Bill, this right would nonetheless not be limited. The right to a fair hearing is concerned with the procedural fairness of a decision and the right may be limited if a person faces a procedural barrier to bringing their case before a court, or where procedural fairness is not provided. The entire decision-making process, including reviews and appeals, must be examined in order to determine whether the right is limited.

Having the ability to take disciplinary action provides an important mechanism by which Ports Victoria can ensure licence holders are complying with the terms of their licence and obtained their licence on the basis of truthful information. Compliance with the licencing regime will work to improve mooring operations, reducing the significant risks of serious injury or death to personnel, damage to property and disruption to port operations which can result from poor mooring practices. For example, where a vessel breaks away from its moorings, it can injure personnel, damage itself and other vessels in the vicinity and disrupt operations at the port. In this regard, I note that there have been many examples of near misses occurring at the Port of Melbourne and, in addition, mooring services have been observed contributing to delays at the Port.

The disciplinary regime inserted by the Bill affords the licence holder procedural fairness. Any decision by Ports Victoria to take disciplinary action is made pursuant to a show cause process (new s 73ZZJ) in which the licence holder is provided with the opportunity to provide written submissions on why the proposed action should not be taken (s 73ZZJ(2)(d)) and is subject to internal review (new s 73ZZN and s 73ZZO). Finally, the decision on taking disciplinary action is subject to external review by VCAT (new s 73ZZR). This affords licence holders a hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal and satisfies the requirements in s 24(1) of the Charter.

As such, I conclude that the fair hearing rights in s 24(1) of the Charter are not limited by the provisions referred to above.

Right to be presumed innocent

Section 25(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law. The right is relevant where a statutory provision allows for the imposition of criminal liability without the need for the prosecution to prove fault. The right is also relevant where a statutory provision shifts the burden of proof onto an accused in a criminal proceeding, so that the accused is required to prove matters to establish, or raise evidence to suggest, that they are not guilty of an offence.

Strict liability offences

The Bill introduces two new offences into the Port Management Act that do not require proof of fault, for example, being that the relevant party acted ‘knowingly or recklessly’. The inclusion of these strict liability offences in the Bill may limit right to be presumed innocent under s 25(1) of the Charter. These strict liability offences are:

• New s 73ZW which provides that a person must not provide mooring services in particular commercial ports without a licence; and

• New s 73ZZA which provides that a mooring service licence holder must comply with the conditions to which the licence is subject.

It is noted that new Part 2A inserted into the TSSCE Act by clause 67 of the Bill includes a number of strict liability offences. However, these offences are already in force and are only being re-enacted subject to minor and technical amendments under this Bill, none of which result in an altered impact on Charter rights and so will not be discussed further in this Statement.

Strict liability offences will generally be compatible with the presumption of innocence where they are reasonable, necessary and proportionate in pursuit of a legitimate objective. It is generally considered justified to impose strict liability to protect public safety, and in the context of regulatory offences where a person is placed on notice to guard against the possibility of inadvertent contravention.

These strict liability offences are directed to the legitimate objective of ensuring that people undertaking mooring services in commercial ports have the requisite expertise and are subject to requirements necessary to encourage the provision of mooring services in a safe and effective manner. As identified above, this ultimately reduces the significant risks to personnel, property and port operations that can arise as a result of poor mooring practices.

It is reasonable and necessary that the offences do not require proof of fault given significant consequences and loss that can arise regardless of whether a licence holder acts knowingly or recklessly. The penalties provide a sufficient and proportionate deterrent of non-compliance with the licencing regime in response to identified risks of poor mooring practices. Further, the offences are reasonable in that they do not exclude the common law defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact, and they do not attract penalties of imprisonment.

For these reasons, the limitation to s 25(1) of the Charter imposed by the strict liability offences is reasonable and justifiable within the meaning of s 7(2) of the Charter.

Reverse onus provisions

New Part 2A inserted into the TSSCE Act by clause 67 of the Bill also includes a number of offences which contain an exception in the form of an excuse. As above, these offences are being re-enacted, subject to generally minor and technical amendments under this Bill, most of which does not result in an altered impact on Charter rights.

However, new s 49R expands the scope of the existing offence such that a person must not, without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with a direction to provide any document the Chief Investigator believes on reasonable grounds may contain information that is relevant for the purposes of the investigation into

This offence contains an excuse (also known as an exception) which places an evidential burden on the accused. In other words, the accused is required to present or point to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility of the existence of facts that would establish the exception or excuse. The Supreme Court has held that evidential onus provisions on an accused to establish an exception do not transfer the legal burden of proof and do not limit the right to the presumption of innocence. Once the accused has pointed to evidence of a reasonable excuse, the burden shifts back to the prosecution who must prove the essential elements of the offence to a legal standard. Further, the exception relates to matters which are peculiarly within an accused’s knowledge, being why particular documents cannot or should not be provided, and would be unduly onerous for a prosecution to disprove at first instance.

Should the right to the presumption of innocence in fact be limited by these provisions, I am of the view that any limitation is reasonable and demonstrably justified, in that it is a proportionate measure to the legitimate purpose of the offences, which is to facilitate the effective investigation of transport or marine safety matters with the aim of making improvements to reduce the risk of future accidents or safety incidents. Courts in other jurisdictions have held that the presumption of innocence may be subject to reasonable limits in the context of regulatory compliance, particularly where the commission of regulatory offences may cause harm to the public. Finally, the offences are not punishable by a term of imprisonment.

Accordingly, I am of the view that these offence provisions are compatible with the Charter.

Right against self-incrimination

Section 25(2)(k) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence is entitled not to be compelled to testify against themselves or to confess guilt. This right is at least as broad as the common law privilege against self-incrimination. It applies to protect a charged person against the admission in subsequent criminal proceedings of incriminatory material obtained under compulsion, regardless of whether the information was obtained prior to or subsequent to the charge being laid.

As outlined above, new s 49R of the TSSCE Act expands the power of the Chief Investigator to require production of documents. This has the consequence of also expanding the class of documents to which the existing abrogation of privilege against self-incrimination (as re-enacted in new s 49T) will apply. New s 49T provides that a person is not excused from answering a question or providing information or a document on the ground that to do so would incriminate the person. However, the privilege against self-incrimination is protected by providing both a direct and indirect use immunity in clause 49T(2), which ensures that neither the person’s answer nor evidence obtained as a consequence of that answer can be used against that person in a criminal proceeding, other than a proceeding arising out of the answer being false or misleading or out of a failure to attend before the Chief Investigator, a refusal to take an oath or affirmation as required by the Investigator or refusing or failing to answer a question lawfully asked by the Investigator.

To the extent that the protection against self-incrimination is abrogated in circumstances where the person has provided false or misleading information or documents, or refused to co-operate with the Chief Investigator, I consider that any limitation to the right under s 25(2)(k) is justified having regard to the need of the Chief Investigator to ensure compliance with the transport and marine safety schemes in Victoria and the broader safety purposes of those schemes. To permit the provision of false information or the refusal to co-operate with lawful requests of the Chief Investigator, and to allow a person to escape sanction for doing so, would fundamentally undermine the enforcement of the scheme.

For these reasons, I consider the Bill is compatible with s 25(2)(k) of the Charter.

Right not to be punished more than once

Section 26 of the Charter provides that a person must not be tried or punished more than once for an offence in respect of which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with law. This right reflects the principle of double jeopardy. However, the principle only applies in respect of criminal offences - it will not prevent civil proceedings being brought in respect of a person’s conduct which has previously been the subject of criminal proceedings, or vice versa.

Penalties and sanctions imposed by professional disciplinary bodies generally do not usually constitute a form of ‘punishment’ for the purposes of this right as they are protective in nature and not punitive.

As outlined above, new s 73ZZA of the Port Management Act introduces a new offence for failure to comply with the conditions imposed on a mooring service licence. Ports Victoria can also take disciplinary action to cancel or suspend mooring service licences for the same reason. However, this does not mean that taking disciplinary action where an offence has been committed would engage this right. This is because the purpose of taking disciplinary action against licence holders is to protect personnel and property in ports from potential future harm and to minimise risks of disrupting port operations, as discussed above. As these sanctions are for protective rather than punitive purposes, they do not engage the right against double punishment set out in s 26 of the Charter.

Conclusion

I am therefore of the view that the Bill is compatible with the Charter.

The Hon Melissa Horne MP

Minister for Roads and Road Safety

Second reading

Melissa HORNE (Williamstown – Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Roads and Road Safety, Minister for Health Infrastructure) (10:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Incorporated speech as follows:

Overview

The Bill will deliver a range of legislative amendments to improve safety, achieve operational and administrative efficiencies, and improve the effectiveness of transport laws. The Bill achieves this by improving enforcement practices and requirements to improve road safety outcomes, addressing known safety risks to workers and reliability at commercial ports by regulating the providers of mooring services, improving the management of certain road infrastructure and making processes for the consent of works on roads more effective, making improvements to legislation that governs the operation of local ports, and a range of other legislative amendments to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of transport legislation.

Improved enforcement of road safety offences

The Government remains committed to improving road safety outcomes across Victoria. The road safety reforms in this Bill represent a continued focus on identifying areas where our road safety regulatory framework can be adjusted to improve enforcement and supporting processes to better detect those drivers that are doing the wrong thing and to provide a general deterrence.

The Bill amends various provisions and offences in the Road Safety Act 1986, to support their investigation and enforcement. Under the Road Safety Act 1986, it is an offence for a driver to fail to stop and render assistance after a traffic accident where someone is injured or property is damaged. These offences are commonly known as ‘hit and run’ offences. There are two categories of penalties for these offences. If a person is killed or seriously injured, the act of failing to stop and render assistance is an indictable offence with significant penalties including up to 10 years imprisonment. The second category of offences cover incidents that have resulted in minor injuries. These are summary offences and have lesser penalties. Summary offences also come with a 12-month period (after the incident) in which Victoria Police can commence proceedings. This limitation has been proven to be insufficient in some cases, because it takes time to investigate and identify who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. This Bill will extend the time that Victoria Police have to bring a proceeding for this summary offence from 12 up to 24 months to increase the likelihood that the alleged offender can be identified, located and prosecuted.

We know that driving while impaired by alcohol or drugs is a major contributing factor to the road toll and to serious injuries in Victoria. Part 5 of the Road Safety Act 1986 contains alcohol and drug-related offences to reduce this risk. When detecting these offences in a range of circumstances a blood sample must be obtained, which can only be done by a registered medical practitioner, or an ‘approved health professional’ which includes nurses and other persons approved by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine. This blood sample must be obtained within three hours of the person driving the vehicle. In practice, Victoria Police can in some circumstances find it difficult to conduct the necessary impairment assessment and find a registered medical practitioner or approved health professional to take the blood sample. The amendment in this Bill will allow for additional professionals to be prescribed as approved health professionals for the purposes of obtaining these blood samples, improving Victoria Police’s ability to detect drink and drug driving offences.

A range of other offences in the Road Safety Act 1986 also seek to reduce injuries and fatalities on Victoria’s roads. Some of these offences are detected by way of prescribed road safety cameras, and include speeding, red light, seatbelt and distracted driving offences. The range of offences detected via these cameras has expanded in recent years and sworn police officers

are required to issue infringements for these offences. This Bill will amend the Road Safety Act 1986 to allow for specifically authorised Victoria Police employees to be able to issue infringements for these offences, freeing up sworn police officers for other duties. Victoria Police employees would need to be authorised in writing by the Chief Commissioner of Police before they can issue these types of infringements.

Addressing safety and reliability risks for mooring in commercial ports

The Government is committed to addressing safety and improving reliability in Victoria’s commercial ports. Recently, port stakeholders have raised concerns about the safety of mooring services provided at Victoria’s commercial ports. Mooring, and unmooring, of vessels is an inherently high-risk activity where a vessel’s mooring lines come under high tension as a vessel is secured to berth and is performed at ports in an industrial-like environment and is subject to sudden and unpredictable changes in mooring line tension. These activities are currently unregulated under the Port Management Act 1995.

Mooring operations are vital to a port’s operations. Poor mooring practices have the potential to injure or kill personnel operating in the port and the potential to damage wharf infrastructure or vessels. Poor mooring practices can also increase the likelihood of a vessel breaking away and causing considerable damage, both to itself and to other vessels in the vicinity. In addition, inadequate mooring practices can serve as a critical vulnerability in a bustling port environment like the Port of Melbourne, and in the event of the mooring service being significantly compromised, shipping movements could stop, potentially closing the port. For these reasons, the Government is taking action to regulate mooring services to ensure that the providers of such services adhere to minimum standards and conduct their operations in a safe manner.

To manage these risks to personnel and to ensure port operations are run efficiently, the Bill will introduce both a licensing scheme for mooring services and new powers to make a determination setting standards and requirements for mooring services at commercial ports. The new regulatory requirements will be administered by Ports Victoria. The new scheme is substantially similar to the existing scheme that applies to towage services under the Port Management Act 1995.

Ports Victoria will have powers to make a mooring services determination to establish the different standards and requirements that will apply to the provision of mooring services in a prescribed commercial port. The determination is expected to include various requirements, standards and obligations related to the training of staff engaged or employed by the provider, the equipment, vehicles and vessels used by the provider, as well as procedures for the reporting of incidents and damage.

To provide a mooring service at any commercial port where a mooring service determination is in effect, a license will be required. Ports Victoria will be responsible for issuing mooring services licences, which are subject to conditions and are valid for a period of five years, unless suspended, cancelled, or surrendered. The licence will effectively certify that an applicant has sufficient knowledge, skills and expertise in relation to the provision of mooring services and directions by the harbour master, amongst other things, so that they can provide mooring services safely in commercial ports.

Increased flexibility for the management of road assets and improved processes for works on roads

The Road Management Act 2004 provides the statutory framework for the management of Victoria’s roads. This framework establishes a coordinated road management system for public roads, which includes the clear allocation of responsibilities between coordinating road authorities and responsible road authorities. Section 37 of the Road Management Act 2004 specifies which public body is the responsible road authority for road and its road infrastructure (e.g. roadway, pathway, structures forming part of roadway or pathway) and road-related infrastructure (e.g. traffic signs and streetlights). This Bill expands the regulation-making power in that section so that regulations will be able to specify the responsible road authority for particular types of road infrastructure (infrastructure that forms part of the roadway). This increased flexibility will allow for regulations to specify a different responsible road authority (other than the default authority under the Act) to address circumstances such as municipal road over rail bridges which by default are the responsibility of the relevant local council, but where ongoing maintenance responsibilities more appropriately sit with the Head, Transport for Victoria or VicTrack.

The Road Management Act 2004 requires that the approval of the coordinating road authority for a road must be obtained before works on that road can be undertaken, unless an exemption applies. The requirement to obtain consent is there to ensure that the works are conducted in a way that is safe, minimises traffic impacts, and doesn’t negatively impact the integrity of the road. There are recurring issues with applications for approval, including that many are submitted with insufficient information for the coordinating road authority to properly assess them. Further, some applications are receiving deemed consent, that is consent is automatically granted after the expiry of the relevant period which is between three and 20 business days after an application is submitted. Deemed consent, in some cases, is not appropriate particularly when the coordinating road authority doesn’t have enough information about the proposed works or how safety risks are to be managed.

This Bill will reform the consent for works process to limit who can apply for consent for works, so that only those entities with responsibility for the proposed works are able to apply. It will introduce a “stop the clock” mechanism to allow for the coordinating road authority to request additional information and to have sufficient time to assess the additional information once it is received. The Bill will remove the availability of deemed consent for higher risk applications. These include applications for works within freeways, and applications from entities that are not road authorities, providers of public transport, or utilities. The reforms in this Bill will also allow for regulations to specify what information must be included with an application, to ensure that it is clear to applicants what information a coordinating road authority must receive to make a timely and informed decision.

Continued improvements to the operation of local ports

The Bill increases the efficiency of local port operations to ensure these important environments are well maintained for future generations. Local port assets and infrastructure such as piers, jetties, navigation aids, vessel equipment and storage sheds all require regular inspection and maintenance. Under the Port Management Act 1995, local port managers may provide services to maintain and develop these types of assets outside their local port area. The Bill will clarify that they may also provide services within their own local port area to other bodies such as municipal councils. The Bill specifies that the types of services local port managers may provide include technical, advisory, maintenance and related services. These services will enable local port managers to better assist other bodies both within and outside the local port, who have responsibilities for marine assets and other infrastructure.

The cost of providing these services is also addressed in the Bill. The Bill will enable the Minister to permit a local port manager to charge a fee for the use of a facility or the provision of a service. The Minister may specify that fees be charged to recover costs, on a commercial basis, or calculated on another basis. While the Minister may permit commercial rates to be charged, this will not be mandated unless the Minister explicitly states fees must be set on a commercial basis. This means there will still be some flexibility for local port managers to exercise discretion to set different charges in different circumstances, for example, in emergency situations.

The Bill will also improve processes to remove abandoned vessels and other things from ports and waterways. Abandoned vessels and other items can cause environmental and safety risks in ports and negatively impact the aesthetic value of the area. The Bill will amend the Port Management Act 1995 to improve the processes related to the removal of abandoned vessels and other things. The Bill will clarify the steps a port manager must follow to determine a vessel or thing as abandoned. The Bill will also outline certain requirements to move an abandoned vessel or thing, and to identify, locate and notify the owner. These amendments will enable port managers to act more efficiently while providing greater consistency and transparency in the management of abandoned vessels and other things in ports. Similar changes will be made to the equivalent provisions in the Marine Safety Act 2010 with respect to the disposal of abandoned things by waterway managers.

The Bill also makes other minor amendments to the Port Management Act 1995 and the Marine Safety Act 2010 to improve the administration and operation of these Acts. The Bill will require the appointment of local port managers to be published in the Government Gazette. The Bill will also clarify liability for the actions of harbour masters when providing services to another port; clarify costs which may be retained and the order of priority of payment of any proceeds of sale of disposed vessels and things; and make other minor and technical amendments.

Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of transport legislation

This Bill also contains a range of amendments to improve the clarity, efficiency and effectiveness of transport legislation and to align Victorian transport legislation with broader objectives.

The Bill will clarify arrangements for responding to marine pollution incidents by amending the Marine (Drug, Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act 1988 to clarify that the Secretary, DTP’s functions in relation to marine pollution incidents is to take action to deal with marine pollution incidents where the pollution is from a maritime source, while supporting other agencies in responding to marine pollution incidents that result from inland sources. The Bill will also ensure that Victoria is not left to bear a higher cost of any pollution response resulting from the escape of oil from an oil tanker, by removing the outdated liability limit for such indents from the Marine (Drug, Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act 1988, and relying instead on the internationally agreed liability limit given effect under Commonwealth legislation.

The Bill reforms the current legislation that establishes the investigative powers of the Chief Investigator Transport Safety by consolidating those powers into the Transport (Safety Schemes Compliance and Enforcement) Act 2014 and repealing Part V of the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983. The Chief Investigator conducts an important public function of ‘no-blame’ investigations of transport incidents. The results and outcomes of investigations are an important input into public policy development relating to the safety of transport services and infrastructure. Accordingly, it is vital the Chief Investigator has clear and appropriate powers to conduct these investigations. The consolidation of the powers will improve clarity for the public and also deliver fixes to known deficiencies in the investigative powers of the Chief Investigator. Additionally, the Bill amends the Transport Integration Act 2010 to provide that the Freedom of Information Act 1982 does not apply to documents obtained by CITS in the course of investigations. Such a restriction is appropriate having regard to the nature of the investigations that the Chief Investigator conducts and the types of confidential information that the Chief Investigator is able to obtain using their powers.

The Bill contains other amendments to the Transport Integration Act 2010 to provide that the CEOs of Safe Transport Victoria, the V/Line Corporation, and the North East Link State Tolling Corporation can be employed on a full time or a part time basis, and to streamline consultation processes for short-term appointments for an acting CEO of the V/Line Corporation.

This Bill also contains a range of other minor and technical amendments, including statute law revisions.

I commend the Bill to the house.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (10:41): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned for 14 days. Debate adjourned until Wednesday 28 May.