Thursday, 19 June 2025

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

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Melissa Horne:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (10:14): I rise to speak on the Roads and Ports Legislation Amendment (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill 2025, and in doing so I want to thank my colleagues the Shadow Minister for Roads and Road Safety and Leader of the Nationals Danny O’Brien and the Shadow Minister for Police and Corrections David Southwick, as aspects of the bill fall under their portfolios. I note at the outset that the opposition, the Liberals and Nationals, will not be opposing this bill. Whilst we support some elements, such as addressing safety risks to workers through regulating the mooring service providers, we do have many areas of concern, which I will detail.

This is actually an omnibus bill covering eight acts in relation to marine safety and operational, administrative and regulatory processes governing roads and ports. Red flags from the Liberal–Nationals point of view include new powers to give the government the ability to stop the clock on applications to the Department of Transport and Planning for important works which could impact housing development and the potential for blatant revenue raising through new fees and charges.

This Labor government has recklessly blown taxpayers hard-earned money over 10 years of project blowouts through sheer incompetence and has racked up a debt that future generations of Victorians will be saddled with. They are desperate to get their hands on every dollar in revenue from fees and taxes that they can find. Meanwhile health and education services have deteriorated and the lack of repair of Victorian roads is a disgrace. Elements of this bill are less about improving efficiencies and more about giving the government more time to do less and charge more for already existing services.

Victoria is in the grip of a housing crisis, a cost-of-living crisis and a debt crisis, and instead of cutting red tape this government is adding to it. Instead of delivering efficient infrastructure, they are tying it up in new approval processes, and instead of demonstrating a commitment to transparency, they are shuffling investigative powers between acts. I would like to note that, true to form, we have seen in so many pieces of legislation by this government they have introduced and tried to ram through, they did not consult with the industry or stakeholders on any aspect of this bill.

This bill amends the Road Safety Act 1986 to enable additional prescribed persons to collect blood and urine samples, empowers Victoria Police employees to issue infringement notices and prosecute drivers for certain offences if authorised by the Chief Commissioner of Police, provides for the refunding of traffic infringement penalties relating to fees or costs where an infringement notice is cancelled, extends the time limit for commencing proceedings for certain offences, and makes other miscellaneous amendments to that act. It amends the Road Management Act 2004 to enable responsible road authorities to be prescribed for certain road infrastructure and amends the provisions relating to consent-for-work applications. It amends the Port Management Act 1995 to clarify provisions relating to the appointment of port managers and to expand the functions of port managers. It makes further provisions for the management of abandoned things in relation to ports and establishes a scheme for the licensing of mooring service providers. It amends the Marine Safety Act 2010 to clarify provisions relating to the management of abandoned things and clarifies a liability provision relating to harbourmasters. It amends the Marine (Drug, Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act 1988 to enable additional prescribed persons to collect blood and urine samples in relation to marine pollution incidents. It amends the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 and the Transport (Safety Schemes Compliance and Enforcement) Act 2014 to relocate the investigation powers of the chief investigator, transport safety, from one act to another and the Transport Integration Act 2010, and it amends other acts to update department references and makes other miscellaneous amendments.

According to the minister, the bill before the house improves safety, achieves operational and administrative efficiencies and improves the effectiveness of transport laws. We would have no concerns were that the only case. However, under this Labor government, which has a chronic inability to manage money, reduce red tape or improve efficiencies at all, it is worth closer examination. Road safety performance in Victoria has deteriorated, and the number of people still dying and injured on our roads is shocking. Under this government police resources are stretched past breaking point. We therefore agree that provisions allowing additional professionals to be prescribed as approved health professionals for the purpose of collecting blood and urine samples for alcohol- or drug-impaired drivers are sensible. However, under this government health services and professionals are also stretched past breaking point. We do not know where these additional health professionals will come from or if the additional requirements of them will be at the cost of other important health services.

Other amendments will empower Victoria Police employees to issue infringement notices and prosecute drivers for certain offences if authorised by the chief commissioner, ostensibly freeing up sworn police for frontline duties. The Allan Labor government has decimated police resources, and the depth of Victoria’s police crisis was revealed at a recent Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearing. There are 1100 police vacancies and over 700 officers injured and on workers compensation, and 300 senior officers are expected to retire early – and there was no additional funding in this year’s budget for the police academy. Labor have failed to invest the resources needed to train and retain officers, so they are now looking to Victoria Police employees to fulfil a role that was previously a duty of only the sworn. The Police Association Victoria is concerned that the issuing of penalty notices is a police power and uses the police discretion to determine whether an offence has occurred, particularly in relation to seatbelt and mobile phone offences. For that reason their preference is that the position remains sworn. They suggest that their hundreds of members that are injured could return to work in positions like this. Of course the government has failed to consult the police association or explore that option. Other police matters in the bill provide for increasing the time period under which the police can initiate proceedings for summary offences related to hit-and-run incidents from 12 months to two years, which we support. Indictable offences are unchanged; there is no limit.

On the Road Management Act 2004, this bill’s proposed amendments to deemed consent for works on roads are red flags for delaying important works and increasing costs. Effectively, the government is giving itself and councils more time to deal with work applications on and around roads. Under the amendments in this bill it could stop the clock on applications for works, and it would remove deemed consent for some applications where consent is automatically granted after a period of time. Deemed consent currently allows projects to proceed after a set time if the road authority has failed to respond. According to the government, this is about risk mitigation, ensuring safety and avoiding potential infrastructure damage by following a clear and detailed process. But it is far more likely that this is just a legislative change to ease the pressure on the Department of Transport and Planning, which in the process will potentially add time and therefore costs to important works. These important works may include roadworks, utility relocations and similar works, often involving property developments and housing. This Labor government has already failed to deliver on its own target of building 80,000 new homes each year, with Victorians continuing to be locked out of the housing market and access to affordable homes.

Meanwhile every major transport infrastructure project of this government has had major cost blowouts and delays, with the Melbourne Metro Tunnel cost blowout so massive that the Minister for Transport Infrastructure refused to reveal the true cost to the Victorian taxpayer during the recent budget estimates hearing. Year on year under this government we have seen $14 billion wasted on project cost blowouts and overruns. Meanwhile Victorians are being forced to foot the bill for this Labor government’s incompetence. In the midst of a housing crisis the government is introducing more red tape and increasing costs from these delays.

The Urban Development Institute of Australia opposes these changes. The Victorian Transport Association is also opposed to these changes. Developers and local councils are worried that these new powers will lead to cost blowouts, construction delays and bureaucratic gridlock, especially in growth areas, where infrastructure must move quickly. No-one denies the importance of safety or quality assurance, but when the government cannot provide a single example in the bill briefing or as a follow-up to that justifying these legislative changes, it is clear that this is about departmental convenience, not public interest.

Amendments to the Port Management Act 1995 include a range of provisions aimed at regulating mooring service providers, clarifying port management powers and establishing clearer processes for dealing with abandoned vessels. The licensing scheme for mooring service providers is to be run by Ports Victoria and is supported by stakeholders. Mooring is actually a very high-risk activity. It carries significant safety risks for operators, and less than best practice can lead to vessel and infrastructure damage and port disruption. The bill makes it an offence to provide mooring services without a licence, and licensing will ensure providers meet a minimum safety standard and have training requirements and incident reporting obligations. That said, the bill includes provisions for the government to set prescribed fees for this licensing and their renewal into the future. While there was no response to our questioning – again, during the bill briefing or follow-up – they claim this is not about revenue raising, but they have no prescribed fee set yet. Let us not forget that Labor have a very long history of introducing taxes – more than 60 new taxes in the past decade – despite, remember, promising no new taxes.

Their recent hike to port fees is a case in point. The government introduced their fee increase under the guise of revamping Station Pier, when it was really just another revenue grab for their mounting debt. They ignored the dire cruise industry warnings about hiking port fees, and the cruise industry stayed away as a result. In a spectacular own goal, the projected drop in visitations at Station Pier over the next four years will be costing the government’s tax intake from cruise ships about $9.8 million – nearly $10 million. Total ship visits are estimated to drop by 22 per cent – with turnaround passenger capacity to plummet 72 per cent and overall passenger capacity to shrink by 30 per cent – with Victoria set to lose an estimated $130 million as a result, a devastating setback for the Victorian tourism industry and economy. So we will wait and see, when the mooring service provider licence fee is inevitably announced, how much a licence will cost and the estimated revenue the government hopes to receive. Licensing for safety is reasonable; licensing for revenue raising is not.

There are also provisions in this bill allowing port managers to provide a port service such as technical advisory or maintenance services outside the port lands or water, and it clarifies they can charge a commercial fee for use of assets and services provided. Again the government claims this is about cost recovery, not revenue raising. However, with the debt they have racked up projected to hit nearly $200 billion by 2028, which will be $28.9 million in interest every day having to be paid by Victorians, we know this government is looking for every opportunity to hike up fees and charges.

The issue of abandoned vessels has long needed attention, so port stakeholders told me they support the reforms for abandoned vessels, a problem that has plagued the industry for years. And I know of many ports – Port Fairy, Portland – where this has been a problem. The progress has long been unclear and it should have been addressed well before now. The bill provides a framework for identifying ownership, arranging removal and recovering costs. That is a positive step.

If the Minister for Ports and Freight wanted real efficiencies and gains for Victorians, Victorian businesses and industry and the Victorian economy, instead of tinkering around the edges she should have turned her mind to addressing the monumental failures in her portfolio, such as getting freight off road and onto rail. The promised port rail shuttle network has failed to materialise, and now the government has revised the estimated completion date to a far-off quarter 4 in 2029–30. Their stated expectation of the port rail shuttle is to move 30 per cent of Melbourne’s metropolitan containers by 2050, yet the proportion of containers moved by rail instead of truck is currently around only 6 per cent. That has gone down an enormous amount since we were in government in 2014 to now only 6 per cent.

The minister is silent on what the delay to the port rail shuttle network means and has kept the industry in the dark on what, if any, progress they can expect. Importers have been paying a levy now for four years to the tune of millions of dollars for the port rail transformation project, and still we do not have a rail shuttle. The Port of Melbourne estimates the number of trucks visiting the port each day could rise to 34,000 trucks by 2050, and their dock with the greatest container growth, Webb Dock, has no rail access. A surge in trucks servicing the Port of Melbourne could undermine any benefit from the West Gate Tunnel for inner west residents, who are already literally sick from living with the current pollution.

In a cost-of-living crisis this government’s failure to plan and to deliver efficient port services and freight networks has increased the cost of goods and hindered economic growth. Of the western intermodal freight terminal, the WIFT, the Premier is quoted as saying Melbourne’s west needed the facility immediately and it had to be the first cab off the rank. That is what she said. Why then has the government backflipped and quietly shelved this project? The answer is because they have blown billions on incompetent management of major infrastructure projects and cannot fund the project they said was on the doorstep of nearly 50 per cent of existing interstate rail freight customers, providing access to hundreds of warehousing and logistics businesses in Melbourne’s outer west, and they have already paid $400 million towards the WIFT with no result. We have no idea whether that $400 million is recoverable for any future plans or has gone down the gurgler.

Over to the Port of Hastings now: there is a two-year blowout, a delay, on the Victorian renewable energy terminal. Following the federal Labor government’s rejection of the Allan Labor government’s proposal for the Victorian renewable energy terminal at the port, the government quietly announced that they are now actively assessing the role of other Victorian and Australian deepwater ports, and as a result wind farm construction projects may go interstate. They cannot even manage to meet their own legislated renewable energy targets as a result.

Back to the bill: there are further provisions under the Marine Safety Act 2010 and the Marine (Drug, Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act 1988 which address the management of abandoned vessels on inland waters, clarify liability issues relating to harbourmasters and relocate pollution response responsibilities between the Department of Transport and Planning and Crown landholders, depending on the source of contamination. The bill removes the Victorian specific liability limits so the owner of a tanker is liable to pay for oil spills to align with internationally agreed liability limits and standards. This will enable Commonwealth law to apply in Victoria’s waters and provide for spills inside or outside state waters. This is a positive move in responding to marine pollution. Other amendments enable additional qualified persons to collect samples in marine drink- or drug-driving situations, similar to the road safety amendments.

The bill makes technical but significant amendments by relocating investigative powers of the chief investigator, transport safety, from the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 to the Transport (Safety Schemes Compliance and Enforcement) Act 2014. This relocation appears administrative, but the real issue lies in how the government continues to shield certain sensitive information from being accessed under freedom of information. Under section 85, documents obtained during investigation cannot be disclosed, raising concerns about transparency and accountability. While the CITS plays a no-fault root cause analysis role, we must ensure these powers are not abused or used to cover up government or operator failings. It is a delicate balance between investigation, integrity and the public’s right to know.

I want to put on the record that I took the time to consult widely in preparing for my contribution on this bill, and I spoke with the ports of Geelong, Portland and Melbourne, Glenelg and Moyne shires, the Great Ocean Road authority, Gippsland Ports and Shipping Australia and reached out to the Maritime Union of Australia, LW Marine Services, the Police Association Victoria, who my colleagues spoke with, the Victorian Transport Association and the Urban Development Institute of Australia, and we reached out to the Property Council of Australia. I would like to thank them for their time in providing their concerns and feedback.

There are some sensible and long-overdue reforms in this bill, such as regulating port mooring services and improving the abandoned vessel process, but as usual under this government there are hidden areas that are cause for greater concern that really do have serious real-world consequences. The new powers to stop the clock on roadworks applications, which could impact critical housing and property development, and the potential for blatant revenue generation through new fees and charges are among our concerns.

However, what is most critical in this new bill, the Roads and Ports Legislation Amendment (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill 2025, is what it fails to address, which is the serious attempt to improve road safety and the efficiency of Victoria’s ports by this tired and lazy government, so it is worth focusing on the missed opportunity that this bill presented the Minister for Roads and Road Safety. The minister has failed to seize the opportunity to address the appalling and worsening state of regional roads, particularly in south-west Victoria. The government cannot continue to ignore their responsibility to put proper funding and resources into fixing and maintaining rural roads in the state of Victoria. The statistics from the Transport Accident Commission are stark. This year we have seen a tragic increase in road deaths in rural and regional areas. These statistics, the people we have lost – friends, family, brothers, sisters, mothers – are up 23 per cent on last year, a 23 per cent increase in lives lost. These are the very roads that this government continues to neglect. And it is not just a safety issue, it is a matter of equity and common sense to maintain all roads. This horrific statistic of a 23 per cent increase in fatalities on rural roads should be cause for deep concern and a wake-up call to the Allan Labor government to stop claiming they are investing in rural roads and to urgently get on and fix the roads properly.

The Victorian Farmers Federation has expressed, more than once, serious concern about the rising number of road fatalities in regional Victoria, particularly highlighting the poor condition of regional roads as a major contributing factor. Why is the government silent on this contributing factor? Is it that they do not want to admit that their inaction for the past decade leaves them complicit in regional road deaths? Remember, regional road deaths are up 23 per cent this year compared to last year. In the electorate of South-West Coast the conditions are nothing short of dangerous. Road shoulders drop off by over a foot in many places. It is just so confronting. Sometimes the choice makes driving so unsafe. The choice is between a head-on collision and falling off the left shoulder of the road into the gravel, and it is really hard to get control back when you are in the gravel. White line markings are either faded or non-existent. Advanced driving aids in modern cars rely on markings to help drivers navigate the roads, and they do not exist. Forget trying to use any of those safety mechanisms on our country roads. We often do not have enough bitumen remaining for two lanes of traffic, hence having to veer onto the shoulder and drop down dangerously into the gravel where the shoulder drops away when another car approaches. These are the conditions that we face in regional Victoria.

In metropolitan Melbourne you might see a traffic hazard sign ahead, and that usually indicates a breakdown or roadworks. In regional areas the road traffic hazard signs indicate that the road itself is hazardous. The government love to boast – and I heard it again this week in the chamber – that they are pouring money into Victorian roads, but when you look at the budget papers and when you drive on the roads, the figures just do not stack up. It is as though the members opposite are handed talking points and they have never stepped foot on the bitumen outside the metropolitan tram tracks. In south-west Victoria work has been undertaken on the Princes Highway recently, just outside of Warrnambool, but the new surface ends abruptly, and right beside it lies cracked, broken asphalt – on Victoria’s highway 1, a most important freight and commuter route. Contractors on the ground tell me they are forced to build roads to substandard specifications, dictated by the government, even when they know the surface will fall apart within months. And it does, often within weeks. It is beyond belief that this government still blames floods from two years ago rather than accepting responsibility for its own inaction. The south-west of Victoria is in the grip of the most severe drought on record. This is not about capability, it is about priorities and accountability. Other states, like South Australia, build stronger roads with fewer people. The technology exists, but here in Victoria we build roads that crumble quickly, with no proper oversight and no consequences for poor-quality outcomes.

Recently the Allan Labor government announced that children under the age of 18 get free public transport – not helpful to regional Victoria because, unfortunately, there is precious little public transport in regional and rural Victoria. Parents have to drive their children everywhere on these appalling, unsafe roads. This bill could have been an opportunity to address rural road safety, to embed proper funding, to lift standards and to stop the waste, but instead we see another opportunity squandered and more regional lives put at risk. Victorians in the regions are fed up. This government has to do better. We cannot see another year, next year, with more lives lost. It is a disgrace that this year 23 per cent more people in rural Victoria have died on our roads than last year. This government is pouring money into metropolitan Melbourne concrete tunnels, and the metropolitan road fatalities have dropped by 7 per cent, which is a good thing. But in the interim, by ignoring Victorian rural roads, the fatalities increase, and by 23 per cent on last year – someone’s mother, someone’s brother, someone’s loved one. It cannot continue. The roads are a disgrace. This was a missed opportunity by the Minister for Roads and Road Safety to address a massive crisis that is really crippling south-west Victoria and regional Victoria. Families are frightened to be on our roads.

Bronwyn HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (10:42): I rise with great pleasure to make a contribution to the Roads and Ports Legislation Amendment (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill 2025. I think at the outset I would like to say that the Allan Labor government is deeply concerned about road safety and the terrible loss of lives and serious injuries that we have seen. In fact that is why this is quite a hefty piece of legislation. It makes substantial changes to various acts, and the whole purpose of it, when it comes to road safety, is to make our roads safer for those that travel on them or use them in other ways.

I think it is pretty insulting to have from the opposition this sort of allegation that the Allan Labor government does not care about people and is not doing what it can to ensure that people stay safe. You would have thought something like road safety would be a bipartisan issue that we could work together on. But instead of using this opportunity to perhaps put up some solutions or constructive criticism, it is just the old political whingeing and creating of division – this idea about metropolitan versus regional Victorians, which is constantly talked about. It is almost like Trump: if you say it often enough, then people will believe that it is true.

This is the legislation that we are looking at. Of course you cannot fix everything all of a sudden in one bill. But the idea is that we will continue to do whatever we can as a government to ensure that our roads are safe and that all road users, vulnerable road users as well as drivers of vehicles, are safe. We also acknowledge the situation at the moment where there have been some terrible accidents and fatalities on our roads. Of course this has been a worldwide phenomenon; it has not just been in Victoria and in other states around Australia but also throughout many Western countries.

To get back to the bill, this is, as I said, quite a hefty bill. It is making amendments to no less than eight acts. In the space of 10 minutes I will not be able to go through them all in the detail that the opposition was able to, so I will just look at the amendments that are being made to the Road Safety Act 1986, the Road Management Act 2004, Transport Integration Act 2010 and the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 and talk a little bit about them and the purpose of this legislative change.

As the Parliamentary Secretary for Roads, I know a key focus has been on road safety, particularly as it relates to vulnerable road users. Vulnerable road users are defined as those that use our road network but are not protected by a vehicle shell, which therefore places them in a position to be more exposed to the risks and dangers of the road network. Vulnerable users, as outlined by the national road safety strategy, are cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians, children under the age of seven and the elderly. According to the national road safety strategy, which Liberal governments past and present have been involved in as well, vulnerable road users comprise 33 per cent of total road casualties. Throughout my time in this role I have looked at various ways to reduce the risk of harm for our most vulnerable road users, such as school crossing safety assessments – this is a big issue around schools, both regional and metropolitan; the role that booster seats can play for children over the age of seven – children in both regional and metropolitan areas; and ways that the Commonwealth can use the black spot program. This bill takes key steps in addressing the risk posed to our vulnerable users as well as those who are behind the wheel. It also makes vital reforms in the road safety space through expanding the length of time Victoria Police can investigate a crash that involves a minor injury, providing more options for Victoria Police to be able to obtain a blood sample for drugs and alcohol and streamlining the infringement process for road safety cameras. Even one life lost is too many, and we are enforcing and making sure there are strong penalties for things such as being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, which we know massively increase the dangers on our roads to both drivers and others.

When it comes to the police and some of the additional powers in this bill – and not just powers but also resources – there are probably two main things here. They expand the timeframe for when police can investigate a minor crash. If there is a car crash and somebody is killed or seriously injured and the person fails to stop and render assistance, this is an indictable offence and there is no time limit for when police can lay charges on the alleged perpetrator. But under the current law if the victim suffers only minor injuries, it is only a summary offence and therefore the police have a maximum of only 12 months in which to fulfil their investigation and lay charges. The act of a hit-and-run – whether it causes a minor injury or a serious injury or fatality – ought to be treated in a much stronger way. The mere fact of leaving the scene without rendering assistance is just unthinkable, really, and there ought to be the strongest possible laws to stop it or as punishment. It is also important that, due to the lack of ability to recruit new police at a time when there is a considerable number of retirements, this legislation talks about expanding who it is that can collect a blood sample for drink and drug driving. At the moment, a police officer or a limited group of health practitioners are required to do that, but this legislation will provide that particular Victoria Police staff are also able to do that. That then frees up our uniformed police to be out there on the beat making sure that our streets are safe and that as Victorians we are being protected by them.

These are creative ways of dealing with the problems that we have, using legislation from a minister that is really deeply thinking about these issues and looking at ways we can assist, whether it comes to resourcing or whether it comes to making the jobs of our frontline personnel such as police easier and more streamlined and giving them the support that we can to ensure that they can continue to do their job without obstacles and problems to deal with as they go along.

There is also the improving of responsibility for management of road infrastructure, and I know the opposition speaker talked a bit about this and how this is some sort of grab for power by the state. But if you talk to any Victorian – and I talk to many residents in the electorate of Thomastown – people really want to know who is responsible for what. This is about making it clear when it comes to particular requirements when it comes to maintenance of our roads that there is actually a very clear and defined process and way of ensuring that we know exactly who is responsible. That then means that the issue can be fixed and the problem can be addressed much quicker, because under the Road Management Act there is a breakdown of responsibility for road infrastructure between the state government and 79 different local government councils. We know, for example, that the state government is responsible for 23,000 kilometres of the road network in Victoria, but it has shared responsibility also with council, whether it is a bridge, a state road or a residential road. These shared responsibilities can be difficult, and that needs to be addressed.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (10:52): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Roads and Ports Legislation Amendment (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill 2025 and join with my colleague the member for South-West Coast in presenting the opposition’s position on this bill, which goes across both the ports and freight and roads and road safety portfolios. I will leave the port aspects of this bill to the member for South-West Coast, who has already outlined her views and our views on that, and will focus more particularly on the road aspects of it and road safety aspects of it.

There are a number of amendments, and it is an omnibus bill that goes to a number of issues. Indeed the first parts, amendments to the Road Safety Act 1986, are really a matter for the Minister for Police and the Shadow Minister for Police and Corrections. There are three main issues there. The bill increases the period under which police can initiate proceedings for a summary offence related to a hit-and-run incident from 12 months to two years to give police more time to conclude investigations into those hit-and-run incidents that are of a more minor nature. I note indictable offences where a person is killed or seriously injured are unchanged by this legislation; there is no limit on the statute of limitations in that respect.

The bill allows for additional professionals to be approved for taking blood samples in the case of drink and drug driving cases, which is an attempt to make it easier for police to process those people who are recorded as drinking and driving or taking drugs and driving, and also provides for the Chief Commissioner of Police to authorise unsworn Victoria Police employees to sign off on infringement notices for offences detected by road safety cameras. The intent is to free up sworn officers from this rather administrative task, and while we do not oppose this in principle or in practice, we do note the comments of the Police Association Victoria, who have indicated that they would prefer that this continued to be undertaken by sworn officers. In fact there are some 800 currently on WorkCover leave, and many of those could potentially be used to do those desk jobs where they may be able to return to work and do lighter duties such as something like this.

There are other aspects, though, of the Road Management Act 2004 amendments. The first is that the bill expands the regulation-making powers so that regulations can specify the responsible road authority for certain types of infrastructure that form part of the road, and the example given in the second-reading speech is of a bridge that goes over a railway line. The road that that bridge forms part of may in fact be a local council road, but in certain circumstances it might be more appropriate that VicTrack maintain that particular bridge given it forms part of their infrastructure. Again, we have no issue with that.

I often get, as the shadow minister for roads and indeed as a local member, questions about how there is an issue with roads because no-one knows who owns them and all levels of government handball to each other. It is actually quite straightforward more often than not, other than in some of the circumstances I just outlined. We know that Victoria has 23,000 kilometres of road that it is responsible for. I will get the figure wrong, but I think it is 180,000-odd kilometres of road that local councils are responsible for, and the federal government is not responsible for any roads. They do fund many of our highways and freeways in conjunction with the state government, but they are not federal government roads. In broad terms it is quite clear who is responsible for our roads. Indeed VicRoads has a map that you can look at, and you can zoom in on certain areas to be clear as to whether it is a road managed by the Department of Transport and Planning and VicRoads or whether it is a local council road. But that regulation-making power will be appropriate in circumstances. There are sometimes fuzzy areas, particularly when it comes to highways through towns, whether in the suburbs or in regional Victoria, where there is a dividing line effectively as the gutter of the road – council on one side, VicRoads on the other – and this regulation-making power will give some flexibility to make clear who is responsible for certain infrastructure around the roads.

The area that we do have some concern about, though, in this legislation is the reforms for the consent-for-works process. There is a process under the Road Management Act to get consent for works on roads from the appropriate road authority. This is in respect of virtually anything. If it is a utility having to dig up a road to address a sewer or a gas main or underground power cables, they need to go to the road authority, whether that is VicRoads or local council or others, including toll road operators, to get consent for those works. But there are plenty of other examples as well. There are developers who might be developing a new housing estate or a commercial or industrial estate that need to put in an intersection, and as a result they will need approval to work on the road to build that intersection into the new estate, for example. What the government is doing under this legislation is allowing road authorities to stop the clock on applications for consent. For example, if they ask the applicant to put in more information, they stop the clock on the timing of how long they have got.

There is also what is called ‘deemed consent’ in particular, and this legislation removes deemed consent in relation to freeways. That is, if you make an application and the authority does not provide a response within the requisite time, whether it is 30 days or whatever it might be, you have consent – consent is deemed to have been given. This amendment removes that, and I am very concerned about this provision. In the bill briefing with the government and in questions that we provided, there has been no evidence given of why this change is needed. It seems to us on this side that it is simply a mechanism for the department to say, ‘Look, stuff’s too hard. We want to just keep pushing it off.’ That is a concern for us in many aspects if it means that improvements to or maintenance of roads might be delayed but more particularly if it holds up activities that are crucial to our roads, or more particularly to other developments near our roads. Most particularly at the moment this is housing developments.

We have sought advice from a number of agencies, including the Victorian Transport Association and the Urban Development Institute of Australia, and they have raised concerns about exactly that – that this would be more red tape, making things more difficult and slowing things down. That is exactly what we want to avoid happening. As a result, we will be looking to move an amendment to this particular clause when it comes up in the other place to knock it out, because we do not think there is any justification for it. Looking at the Road Management Act, there is already quite a clear process for consent to be applied for and for safety and the protection of infrastructure to be maintained under the existing processes in that act. We do not think that this is justified, and indeed not only that, we think it actually will slow down development, particularly when it comes to housing, and that is a concern at this time. So we will move an amendment in the other place to that effect and ensure that this is not just creating more red tape unnecessarily.

I think the broader question of the roads is one that we have had a lot to say about. Despite the government’s claims about record funding, what we are actually seeing is less activity on our roads – less actual fixing of the roads. In respect of the area of major patching that the government’s own performance measures show, we are seeing a 93 per cent reduction in what they are planning to do. They actually did not meet their targets last year. They missed them by 50 per cent in getting major patching done. Instead of saying, ‘We’ll go back next year and do more,’ they are actually doing less. So it is going from a million square metres to 70,000 square metres. The government will say, ‘That’s because we’ve fixed all the roads after the floods, and now we’re going back to doing rehabilitation and resurfacing.’ If you go across to the next page in the performance measures, the reality is that those targets are also reducing. The government has barely made 3 million square metres when four or five years ago they were doing 15 million square metres of roadworks. That is a disgrace, and it is why our roads are in such an appalling position.

Katie HALL (Footscray) (11:02): I am delighted to rise and contribute on the Roads and Ports Legislation Amendment (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill 2025. I note that the opposition are not opposing this, and I would like to acknowledge the Leader of the National Party, who could speak about roads underwater. We have heard many contributions from the Leader of the National Party about roads. I always try and make a contribution to bills that relate to the port, given my electorate is perhaps the most adversely impacted by the operations of the port, and any reforms we can make to improve the port’s operations I think are a very good thing.

This omnibus bill contains amendments to a range of transport legislation. The reforms in this bill represent a continuous focus on identifying areas where our road safety framework can be improved. These improvements enhance enforcement and support processes to better detect drivers who are doing the wrong thing, and of course better detection of road safety offences also provides general deterrence from doing the wrong thing. In my community in particular we often deal with issues of truck drivers who are doing the wrong thing. I was very pleased that in last year’s budget we were able to provide approximately $10 million to support the rollout of enforcement cameras that will improve the effectiveness of the truck bans that are coming in; we are creating no-truck zones on six local thoroughfares in Melbourne’s inner west. This of course will complement the West Gate Tunnel Project when it opens, and that is certainly going to be a very exciting development for my community.

The bill provides Victoria Police with an additional 12 months to bring proceedings against a driver who is alleged to have committed a hit-and-run offence that has resulted in a minor injury or property damage. 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 a person has been injured or property has been damaged. More serious hit-and-run offences where a person has been killed or seriously injured are indictable offences with significant penalties. Indictable offences have no limit on how long after an alleged offence charges can be laid. However, if an alleged hit-and-run incident has resulted in minor injuries, the offence is a summary offence, with only a 12-month period after the incident for Victoria Police to commence proceedings. This has proven difficult in some circumstances, because it can take considerable time to identify the person who was driving the vehicle at the time and to locate them. The reform in this bill will increase this time period from 12 to 24 months, to increase the likelihood that the alleged offender can be identified, located and prosecuted.

The bill also makes changes to the way road safety infringements are issued. Road safety cameras are a really important component in the regulatory toolkit for detecting road safety offences. I often have constituents approaching my office wanting more road safety cameras at particular locations. Road safety cameras are now used to detect and enforce a range of offences, including speeding, red light, seatbelt and distracted driving offences, such as using a mobile phone whilst driving. I think it has been a couple of years now since we introduced that reform. As the range of offences has expanded, so has the volume of infringements being detected by the cameras. These infringements currently need to be issued by sworn police officers. This bill will amend the Road Safety Act to allow for most offences detected by road safety cameras to be issued by specially authorised Victoria Police employees. These changes allow for a more effective use of resources, namely time and personnel – critical resources in any organisation, but particularly within our police force.

It is important to note that these changes are not just about revenue raising, as suggested by those opposite, but rather about protecting motorists. I know that the cycling community locally in the inner west often raises concerns about people using their mobile phones while driving, and these changes are about ensuring everyone on and around our roads is better protected, including cyclists, pedestrians, families and schoolchildren. I remember when I, back in the day, worked in the Victoria Police media unit and the all-too-frequent car-versus-pedestrian or cyclist issues that would be called in. It is quite shocking.

This bill would allow for regulations as well to specify additional health professionals who are allowed to take blood and urine samples, to expand VicPol’s ability to detect drivers who are under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. Driving while impaired by alcohol or drugs is a major contributing factor to the road toll in Victoria. In fact illicit drug and alcohol impairment are two of the five top causes of serious crashes on Victorian roads. While detecting these offences in a range of circumstances, most commonly in roadside testing, a blood sample must be obtained after an initial detection has taken place, and presently this can only be performed by a registered medical practitioner or an approved health professional, which includes nurses or other people approved by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine. These samples must be obtained within 3 hours of the person driving the vehicle. If the right person is not available at the right time and place, the evidence and the ability to hold someone accountable for putting the community in harm’s way is lost. What amounts to administrative protocols should not offer an easy out for people who get behind the wheel while they are intoxicated.

The amendment in this bill will allow for additional approved health professionals to be prescribed in regulations. Victoria Police will be able to utilise the 2000-plus collection clinics across Victoria when seeking a qualified health professional to take a blood sample. With so many clinics across Victoria, this reduces travel time to a collection site and supports drug impairment assessment processes being completed within the prescribed 3-hour time limit. This means more flexibility, faster response and better support for police. Having access to additional health professionals will improve VicPol’s ability to detect drink and drug driving offences whilst ensuring that our medical practitioners can focus their efforts where they are needed most. Changes to both infringements and impairment testing will ensure that frontline workers can focus on their primary role of keeping Victorians safe.

This bill will also change the way roads are managed and who manages them. Changes to the Road Management Act 2004 expand a regulation-making power to increase flexibility in assigning management and maintenance responsibilities to the most appropriate authority. Whilst these are unlikely to make the headlines, I am sure every member in this place has spent a lot of time speaking to constituents about roads that are council-managed, and I am sure many a council officer has had the same conversation with residents about state-managed roads. I commend the bill to the house.

Matthew GUY (Bulleen) (11:12): I rise to make some comments on the Roads and Ports Legislation Amendment (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill 2025 and note the opposition is not opposing this bill. I note that as an omnibus bill it does cover around half-a-dozen other bills in relation to marine safety, road safety, ports and a whole range of other issues, which I will make some comments on as we go through. As I said, the opposition does not oppose the bill. There are a number of points in there that are quite commonsense, and we understand the necessity to bring them into legislative framework. There are some issues, obviously, that do give us some concern, particularly around changes to the Road Management Act 2004 and some issues in relation to further empowering public servants to issue fines. But of course, as I said, the opposition will not oppose the bill ultimately, and we respect the right to get on with some of the points in this omnibus legislation.

Victoria is, as we know, in the grip of a housing crisis. We do hear that, and we do know that. We can all debate about why and all the rest, but the last thing I think any of us want to do is make it harder to approve homes or to get homes through a planning process at this point in time. I think that it is very important that we do everything we can. The government say they want to speed up the process, and I certainly do and my colleagues on this side of the house certainly do too. One of the things I do note from this bill – and I will just put this on the record from the start – is the changes to the Road Management Act. A lot of concerns have been raised by the UDIA – the Urban Development Institute of Australia – and the Victorian Transport Association (VTA), who have opposed those changes. They are very, very concerned that it will add to the time of outer urban developments being approved. I know from my own ministerial experience that some of the biggest delays in getting precinct structure plans or development approvals through will not be through necessarily the planning process. They will come through the processes of having some of the statutory authorities get back to you or have their part of that process ticked off and agreed to and then, particularly in the nature of VicRoads, going back for a second time after things have been approved to say, ‘We’ve changed the designs of roundabouts,’ et cetera. The developer has then got to go back and alter it all again when it has been approved and it has gone through.

There is a risk that some of the changes to the Road Management Act in this bill might add further red tape to those processes and the ability to get some of those planning scheme amendments approved and underway. That is, as I said, realistic and real. We raise those concerns and put them on the record because from our point of view we do need to make sure that while there are appropriate levels of compliance in relation to the construction of intersections, be they roundabouts or signalised, this does not come needlessly at the expense of getting development approvals through the system and ultimately people in homes, because I know we all want to do that. Everyone says it and we all mean it. We want Victorians to be able to buy their first home or whatever it may be and to get into a home, and if we are holding up developments on the basis of statutory authorities and adding to that red tape, obviously that is going to be diminishing our ability to do that.

The UDIA have stated that they have concerns that these risks will introduce delays and inefficiencies into development delivery, particularly in growth areas, where coordinating road authorities may be under-resourced or slow to respond. That is the crux of my point too. Some of the authorities – particularly water, although it is not in this bill, not for discussion, but water authorities at the top of the list, and then obviously the road authorities are next – are I would not say under-resourced but I would say in many cases slower to respond, because they do not see that the housing issue is on their priority list, understandably. But of course it is for government, for all of us, so the concept of these changes could in fact lead to the undesired circumstance of further delays to the approval process. The VTA have also said it could be used to delay roadworks, and they were very worried, in the conversations with both the member for South-West Coast and others on our side, that these amendments, while minor, could in fact delay roadworks. Anecdotal discussions with planners and developers indicate this kind of red tape is what they are facing as part of the problem in terms of getting through the development approval process and bringing more housing to market. While we, as I said, do not oppose the bill, we raise those points on record, and we will be watching to make sure that an omnibus bill like this, which is not meant to be divisive, does not cause unnecessary delays, something that we obviously did not intend or want to be the case.

I do note that the bill does have a clear focus on logistics and freight logistics in many ways, talking about marine and access to ports. There has been a lot of discussion and debate about this I think in Victoria, particularly for the last 20-odd years, since the Brumby government brought down Melbourne 2030, which was their initial vision for the broader metropolitan area. The Napthine government brought down Plan Melbourne. The Andrews government then tweaked Plan Melbourne. What Melbourne does have is access to both the Port of Hastings and the Port of Melbourne, and I remember the Labor Party talking up Bay West, for instance, as another option, along with the Port of Geelong. We have got a number of ports around the greater Port Phillip Bay area. The most important thing on that is that they have to be interconnected by rail. Road cannot move the freight that is coming off ships – it just cannot. I think we all acknowledge that the Port of Hastings is very limited on that front, and probably the members of Parliament in that area would acknowledge that too, because standard gauge rail access would be impossible nowadays. Certainly along the Frankston line that is impossible, and of course on the south-eastern line it is impossible. The weight-to-bogie ratio would be too heavy for sky rail, for instance, and while the concept of sky rail to remove level crossings is much debated, the end game of removing the level crossings is a good thing.

The issue we have is that those stations have been conducted not as island platforms but as side platforms, so you have got the two tracks running in the middle and the two stations on the outside.

So running a third or a fourth track would require massive land acquisition around the outside. I understand that was simply done for architectural reasons, and you cannot change things. I would have thought running them as island platforms would have been more efficient and also meant that in the future if you needed to run a standard gauge line toward the south-east to access, say, the Port of Hastings, or freight services or even express passenger services for suburban or regional services down to Gippsland, that would be able to be put in place. Unfortunately, it would be a much, much more expensive process now. I understand also some of those construction mechanisms around sky rail – as you will see, the walls on the sky rail constructions would not be strong enough if some of the larger freight trains, hypothetically, derailed up on one of those. This is just a matter of rail safety planning. They have not been built with that in mind.

The point is that Victoria does in the Port Phillip Bay basin area have access to those three, potentially four, port locations, which should put us at an advantage over things like Port Botany in Sydney or Brisbane’s TradeCoast or potentially even in the future the Port of Darwin, because we do have the access to deep water. We have the access close to the city with the Port of Melbourne. We should be better using the Port of Geelong. What that says to me – while it is not necessarily part of this bill, it is an omnibus bill including ports and roads legislation and looking at freight and logistics planning for the future – is that the ability to plan the Port Phillip Bay basin region between the Greater Geelong area and the Greater Melbourne metropolitan area as Victoria’s trade capital certainly does exist.

I note, and I know the member for South-West Coast has raised this a number of times, that the number of charges in relation to the Port of Melbourne which have risen under the current government has seen a number of some of those bigger vessels head to the Port of Botany, which I think at one stage surpassed the Port of Melbourne as the greater container-handling port, although that does fluctuate. We have to remain competitive, and our port has got to remain competitive. Just taxing for the sake of taxing – we will take two steps back if we simply put tax on some of the bigger ships coming in and think that it is a great revenue raiser. We have got to remain competitive. Our port is a massive employer, particularly for the inner western suburbs of Melbourne. It is a massive asset for Melbourne, the Port of Melbourne, and we need to preserve its ability to be competitive around Australia as much as we can. I think that is something that certainly should surpass whoever is in government, just like our airport. They are massive assets which we need to optimise for our economic future. We do not oppose this bill.

John LISTER (Werribee) (11:22): Thank you to the member for Bulleen for his meditations on this omnibus bill. In particular, I will go to some of the concerns raised not just by the member for Bulleen but by the member for Gippsland South around clauses 21 and 22 of the bill, which I think are particularly important for my growing community in Wyndham. Around 400,000 people call Wyndham home, with a significant number of people who rely on their vehicles for work and to help move themselves and their growing families, and we need to ensure our roads are getting them there safely.

This legislation covers a range of matters, but most significantly to the community I represent it goes to road maintenance and safety. There are two pieces of legislation in particular that this bill seeks to amend that I will focus on, the Road Management Act 2004 and the Road Safety Act 1986. This is why, from the very first days of my candidacy for this place, I was a strong advocate for more local roads to bust local congestion. We are delivering the ring-road project in Wyndham, from our current works on Ison Road, building an alternative connection to draw traffic away from Ballan Road, which I will get to in a moment and which is very important for this bill, to a new freeway interchange to fix the traffic in the emergency lane on the Princes Freeway and our new bridge, which will unlock a new route between Wyndham Vale and Tarneit.

However, the work that this government has to do is not just about concrete, asphalt and rebar. It is also about how we manage our network. Those opposite have raised some concerns with those two clauses I mentioned, clauses 21 and 22 of the bill, which go to some of the provisions around the coordinating authorities and private developers, in the case that I want to speak to. They said that no evidence had been given that this was an important thing that we need to do. I will give the member for Gippsland South, who said that, an example which came up just last week in my electorate. They have foreshadowed that they will try and knock out these two clauses in the other place, and I hope the special envoy or whatever they are for the western suburbs in the other place listens to my contribution, because I think this is particularly important given the amount of emails that I am sure they would have received as well.

Last week I saw firsthand and was contacted by many residents about works by a private developer which interface with our main connector road in Manor Lakes, Ballan Road. Within minutes of being sent images of trucks and cars being stuck in a soft edge left unmarked by contractors for the private developers, I called the minister’s office to have this investigated by the department and their external works team. I have made it clear to the community that where a developer has the privilege of taking part of our state road network to complete works that will benefit their company – and of course future residents, which we love to welcome to our community – it cannot be to the detriment of other road users. That is why it is timely to see these changes in this bill, and I want to use it to send a clear message to council and private developers in these circumstances.

The changes in clauses 21 and 22 of the bill will strengthen the process by which a developer, council or other works or infrastructure manager applies for consent to conduct works on a public road. It does this by providing coordinating road authorities with a better process for requesting additional information and limiting the circumstances in which deemed or automatic consent can occur. I still think it is pretty shocking that you can just wait for the clock to tick over and, if you have not had a response, go right ahead, set your roadworks up and inconvenience most of our community without having that oversight. I still think that is pretty rich. To put it briefly, the department will have more power to review plans, and developers will not just get an automatic green light.

There are some more details in this. In the case of a developer wanting to build an access road onto an existing public road, which we saw in the circumstances last week in my community, the changes in this bill will remove that deemed consent. This will mean that the coordinating road authority has more time to properly consider the application and request additional information if this is required, particularly around that interface with the arterial road. The changes in these clauses do not change the process by which a developer would request access to a freeway, but the amendments in clause 22 strengthen the process for applying for and receiving written consent in relation to conducting works on roads, which is particularly important for the circumstances I described in Wyndham last week. This means that there is more oversight and control over works from a safety, traffic management and road network integration perspective before these works commence.

I had residents coming to me the moment they saw the barriers going up along Ballan Road at this private development. We went straight to the minister’s office and raised those concerns, but of course deemed consent was there and they could go ahead, and lo and behold, we had trucks stuck in the soft edge that they had left unmarked and unlit at night. I think that was pretty abhorrent. I want to thank the minister and her office for their support for our community and their excellent advice in the matter that I have described. It is no secret that I am not private developers’ friend. My community expects us to put in place clear expectations that these private companies uphold their part of what is a social contract with our entire community when it comes to accessing our arterial roads, which help us get around our community.

I now want to turn to changes made in the Road Safety Act. As a road crash rescue operator at the Werribee fire brigade, I have seen firsthand the impact road trauma has on our community. There are a few really important changes that this bill makes to the Road Safety Act, particularly around the time Victoria Police has for proceedings around hit-and-run offences, which I have seen a fair few of now. When someone is killed or seriously injured in a hit-and-run, it will become an indictable offence, with no time limit for police to lay those charges. I think it is pretty disappointing, and it would be pretty harrowing for the family and those first responders involved to think that there is a ticking clock in those circumstances and there will not necessarily be justice for what has happened on our roads.

When a person suffers only minor injuries, it is classed as a summary offence, and that comes with a 12-month deadline for police to start proceedings. I understand it is important to have that deadline in some circumstances so that we have access to justice and the person who may be guilty of that offence gets their day in court as quickly as possible. However, it is simply not enough time in a lot of cases. It can take months to put that evidence together, identify the vehicle involved in some cases, particularly with stolen vehicles, and work out who was behind the wheel. That is why this bill matters. It matters to first responders in my community, and it matters to those people who use our road network in Wyndham. We are doubling that timeframe from 12 to 24 months so police have a fair shot at making sure those offenders can be held to account.

I was also reflecting the other day with some of my comrades at the fire brigade on the way that our speed camera network works, the speed at which infringements get turned around and the need to introduce a little bit more efficiency when it comes to issuing those infringement notices. It is important to have a process for issuing infringement notices, but what is also important is that those people who have been detected as doing the wrong thing on our roads by these automatic systems find out as soon as possible. You find out immediately when highway patrol pulls you over and tells you what you have done wrong – it is immediate; with the lights and sirens you know you have done something wrong. It should not take weeks or months –

A member interjected.

John LISTER: Not from me. It should not be weeks or months later. If someone has been through a red-light camera in our community, they may not find that out. So introducing more people with good oversight around that process who are able to issue those offences means that we can get those infringement notices out quicker and people can correct that behaviour sooner.

A member interjected.

John LISTER: I will take up the member’s interjection. When it comes to ‘money through the door’ from these automatic systems, there is a really set, transparent process for how that money is spent, and it is spent on purchasing vehicles that road crash rescue operators can train on to hone their skills on our road network. It goes towards other initiatives from the TAC in our community, including education campaigns, and other things like our automatic signs that we have up to tell people to slow down on particular roads.

That money from those fines does go back to our road safety. However, we also need to make sure that these automatic systems are addressing behaviour. By expanding the number of people who can issue those infringements, we therefore get them out quicker and we get them out into the hands of the people who have done the wrong thing sooner. We do not necessarily disagree on the whole bill, but the party opposite, which talks about community safety and wanting to make sure people get their consequences sooner, drums on all the time and posts Facebook posts all the time and all sorts of other drama, you would think would want people to know that they have done the wrong thing so they can correct their behaviour sooner.

I do want to return to what I said earlier in my contribution. This work is not just about concrete and rebar and asphalt on the ground, this work is about how we manage the network and keep Victorians safe. I, in conclusion, commend this bill to the house and wish it a speedy passage through the upper house as well.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (11:32): I rise to make a contribution on the Roads and Ports Legislation Amendment (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill 2025. As we have heard from multiple speakers, this is an omnibus bill covering two key portfolios, ports and freight and roads and road safety. It is interesting that they are brought in the one bill – possibly it is because it is the one minister. The bill contains amendments to multiple acts. With regard to ports we have got the Port Management Act ‍1995, the Marine Safety Act 2010 and the Marine (Drug, Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act ‍1988, and with the roads component we have got the Road Safety Act 1986 and the Road Management Act ‍2004 as well.

I am going to start with comments around the ports. Interestingly, and fairly typically, there was not any consultation done around the changes here with the industry. I know the shadow minister did lots of consultation on this and was able to report back that they had not been consulted but also that the changes were not particularly controversial. The introduction of a licensing scheme to regulate mooring service providers is in fact something that people looked at as quite positive. It is pretty big work when you are mooring some very large vessels. It is heavy, it is dangerous and it can be high pressure. At the minute there are not really great controls in place, so something needs to be done, and this is looked at quite favourably. So greater control of activities around mooring services is something good.

At the moment with the mooring services, there is not a prescribed fee, but the bill actually makes reference to ‘any prescribed fee’, so that indicates, certainly to us, that there are perhaps plans that there may be a fee introduced. If this is a revenue-raising initiative, well, that may be money that they can use to fix Station Pier, for example. If anyone here has visited Station Pier, they would know that it does need significant work.

I always advise caution with the introduction of some of these types of fees, because sometimes the consequences are not what you had hoped. We have got a great example here that in November of 2023 the government increased the port fees at Station Pier by 15 per cent to fund the maintenance of the pier. We see this as a typical thing with the government, even with the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund: ‘We don’t have enough out of general revenue’ – which we should have – ‘so let’s start putting fees and charges on all sorts of things to raise that little bit of extra money.’ We saw it with the mental health levy as well being imposed on businesses.

This increase of the port fees by 15 per cent down at Station Pier was supposed to help with maintenance. Well, it has had the absolute opposite effect, because what we have seen is rerouting of the major vessels by Cunard and Princess, so we have actually lost business; we have lost revenue. What it means is Melbourne is going to miss out on 113 cruise ship visits between 2025 and 2028, and in the tourism sector this is significant. What it also means is it is blowing a $27.8 million hole in the tourism economy. Further, the Parliamentary Budget Office – so this is not us talking – did some work around this, and it projects that the drop in cruise ship visits will cut state revenue by $9.8 million, coming on for the next few years. It is really quite extraordinary. The small change with increasing port fees has actually backfired. The government should have funded the maintenance down there and modernised the port, because it does not look as though you are entering a fabulous city, which Melbourne certainly is. And with this there are the site occupation charges and the tourism expenditure. I do hope the government have these sorts of consequences in mind each time they introduce new fees and charges.

With regard to the roads changes, the amendments here are fairly non-controversial. Some of them make sense. There are some around the collection of blood samples from those who are drink or drug driving. What happens currently – you will have the breath test or the saliva test, and if you are over the limits then you need to go off to the emergency departments, and the emergency departments are pretty well overloaded, I would say, at the minute. The amendments here also see additional professionals to be approved for taking blood samples, so you do not need to go do that. I do also note that we have such workforce shortages that this might be difficult, because we know also that we need to obtain these samples within 3 hours.

There are some changes to hit-and-run, with the statute of limitations going up from 12 months to two years, and the Chief Commissioner of Police can sign off for non-sworn officers to be able to issue infringement notices. This would be in relation to road safety cameras. We know that the Police Association Victoria would much rather see this function remain with the sworn officers, and we know that that can be very difficult. Sworn officers: we have a lot of vacancies in positions and a lot of people off on WorkCover, and the police force is under a great deal of pressure. I think that even though the police association are not in love with this, it perhaps can help things move along a little bit quicker and make things a little bit more efficient.

There are reforms for consent works, which are a little bit more problematic. The government are giving themselves or perhaps councils more time to deal with works applications on and around roads. These can be roadworks, such as intersection upgrades or roundabouts. It might be utilities. You might have relocation of underground lines or gas mains or water authority sewerage connections. A lot of these would be associated with housing developments, and we know that there is a huge backlog of housing being brought on line at the moment in some areas. There is quite a lot in the south-east that has been waiting for the Minister for Planning to get on with and make some approvals. What these amendments do is stop the clock on applications for works and remove deemed consent for some applications where consent is automatically granted after a period of time.

The government said this was about risk mitigation, ensuring safety and avoiding potential infrastructure damage by following a clear and detailed process. ‘Clear and detailed process’ also rings some alarm bells at times. Yes, you have got to dot your i’s and cross your t’s, but this could lead to additional red tape. And what does that additional red tape mean – we know it can mean cost overruns and people spending a lot of time filling in forms and shuffling paper. On the other hand, though, the legislative change could ease the pressure on the Department of Transport and Planning and in the process potentially – this is the red tape – add time and costs. The minister’s office were unable to provide examples of why this is needed and what has prompted the amendments. We also had the department there, who were unable to help us there.

Just while I am on roads matters, I want to bring up the issue of road traffic counters. I find it really quite extraordinary that when I put some questions on notice in about traffic volumes in particular areas, I found that no traffic surveys had been conducted in the last five years on the Eltham-Yarra Glen Road between Watsons Creek and Yarra Glen, and also on the Melba Highway between Dixons Creek and the big intersection of the Healesville-Kinglake Road. That is really quite extraordinary, because there are some incredible roadworks that have been planned, certainly on the Melba Highway. It was shut for a period, but it was such a debacle that they had to reopen it and reschedule and change the nature of how they are doing the works to later this year. But we do have an impending closure of the Eltham-Yarra Glen Road for a couple of weeks, which is going to cause a lot of difficulty, and I thought that it would make a lot of sense for the government and the department to understand the volumes of traffic that use those roads, because I see the volumes of traffic and I am not quite sure that we have had the due diligence done in that area. Strangely, though, since I put my questions on notice in I have seen road counters all over the place.

We have also had questions on notice that have been put to the department about damage to cars from potholes. People have hit potholes, damaged their cars, busted rims and wrecked the front end of their cars. We know that there are a lot of people that have had their applications dismissed and that the government does have a very big backlog there. One of the answers was:

A road authority is only liable to pay compensation if it has not met its obligations …

I think they have not met their obligations.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (11:42): I am very pleased to be able to speak on this important omnibus bill that is making amendments to a suite of acts. I will just pick up on a couple of points that have been raised by the opposition in the chamber. Firstly, just to be absolutely clear, we did consult far and wide when it came to local port amendments and the introduction of mooring licences. Who knew – everyone from local port managers, mooring service providers and shipping lines to stevedores supported these changes.

Further, we did not jack up the cruise shipping fees; we simply updated an out-of-date fee schedule. The last time we updated the fees was in 2021, so when we updated them in 2024 the $3.50 increase per passenger for cruise ships was below CPI for that period, just to be crystal clear on that. If we are going to compare with other states in Australia with regard to cruise shipping, Melbourne’s cruise shipping fees are less than Sydney’s – Sydney’s are 40 per cent more. Funny how they did not mention that; I am shocked that they did not mention that. It might be relevant. Maybe it is relevant in this context to have a little bit of perspective before we go sledging out our own ports et cetera. But that is who the opposition are – they just sledge, and never mind the details. I think we need to have a bit of perspective when we are speaking to such important matters.

I should further say that there is important maintenance work to be done at Station Pier. It must be undertaken. I am not sure if those opposite do not see that as necessary or otherwise – I was a little bit confused about the comments that were being made in that regard – but certainly for the resilience of that pier and for the important service, so to speak, that it provides in terms of cruise ships coming in and out, we need it to be safe, resilient and supported into the future.

Coming back to other aspects of the bill, there are many important pragmatic changes. I want to zone in on to start with, now that I have acquitted some of the concerns of the opposition, a continued focus on identifying areas where our road safety regulatory framework can be adjusted to improve enforcement and supporting processes in order to better detect drivers who are doing the wrong thing. Better detection of road safety offences also provides greater deterrence for those doing the wrong thing. I must say that so many people in my electorate are so passionate about road safety.

Cindy McLeish interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: I do not know what you are talking about, but anyway, I do not get complaints about red light cameras or speed cameras. It is the opposite. They are always wanting more. I am speaking very broadly, but if I look at the themes, it is about people slowing down and having measures to slow down people, particularly with regard to pedestrians. They are very passionate about this. They never mention revenue raising, because their paramount concern is about the safety of locals, and I share that concern and am happy to advocate on that. Certainly I have got commitments for a number of really important road safety or pedestrian safety upgrades in my area that are being designed as we speak, and I think it reflects well on them that they do not have, broadly, that cynical attitude to these important measures that can help control bad driving or reckless driving; they actually back them in.

What I think is really important is the timeframe that is allowed when we are looking at hit-and-run offences. I will make a qualification. We know that the more serious hit-and-run offences where a person has been killed or seriously injured are indictable offences with significant penalties, and indictable offences have no limit on how long after an alleged offence charges can be laid. However, if the alleged hit-and-run incident has only resulted in minor injuries, the offence is a summary offence, with only a 12-month period after that incident for Victoria Police to commence proceedings. We can see inherently there is a vulnerability in that space in terms of the police having sufficient time to track down the driver who was involved in the incident. This has proven difficult for police because, it goes without saying, it can take a considerable amount of time to identify who was driving the vehicle at the time and to locate them. The reform in this bill will increase this time period to commence proceedings for alleged hit-and-run incidents resulting in minor injuries from 12 to 24 months to increase the likelihood that the alleged offenders can be identified, located and prosecuted. I think this is a really commonsense and welcome reform.

What has been spoken to – and I want to reiterate this because I think this is also a very important and pragmatic change – is allowing regulations to specify additional health professionals who are able to take blood and urine samples to expand Victoria Police’s ability to detect drink- and drug-impaired drivers. The imperative for this is that driving while impaired by alcohol or drugs is, sadly, a major contributing factor to the road toll and serious injuries in Victoria. When detecting these offences, in a range of circumstances a blood sample must be obtained. This 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. These samples must be obtained within 3 hours of the person driving the vehicle. The amendment in this bill will allow for additional approved health professionals to be prescribed in regulations. Having access to additional health professionals will improve Victoria Police’s ability to detect drink- and drug-driving offences. Looking at that unfortunate linkage with the road toll, we can see that this is an important and pragmatic step forward to enhance their capacity to detect these kinds of offences. The bill will also allow for specially authorised Victoria Police employees to issue infringements for some offences detected by road safety cameras, freeing up sworn officers for other duties.

We know that road safety cameras are an important component in this regulatory toolkit for detecting road safety offences, and I am frequently advocating for more; I want more in my electorate because I know that people in my electorate want them as well, and I am glad they do. Road safety cameras are now used to detect and enforce a range of offences, including speeding, red lights, seatbelt and distracted driving offences such as using the mobile while driving. As the range of offences has expanded, so has the volume of infringements being detected by these cameras. These infringements currently need to be issued by sworn police officers, so the bill will amend the Road Safety Act 1986 to allow for most offences detected by road safety cameras to be issued by specially authorised Victoria Police employees. This will free up sworn Victoria Police officers for other duties. If we think of the spectrum of matters, whether we are talking about road safety or whether we are talking about attending to family violence and so many other matters that police have to deal with, we can see that providing an important avenue to be able to allocate this task to persons who can undertake the task appropriately certainly is a very sensible reform.

These changes to enforcement practices and requirements in the Road Safety Act will support the enforcement of road safety offences, so it will make it, pragmatically speaking, harder for drivers who do the wrong thing, provide a stronger deterrent effect and contribute to improved road safety outcomes. I think we can all see the inherent benefits of that. Without sliding into cynicism, this bill is fundamentally about road safety, keeping Victorians as safe as possible on our roads. I hope that that is the vein in which it is taken, as opposed to just defaulting to revenue or other aspects of this, because fundamentally, if you do not speed, you are not going to get a fine. There are choices that drivers can make too. Nobody is being forced to speed. I think there is that sense of self-responsibility that all drivers certainly should adopt. I am not saying that to tell other people; I have to obviously adhere to this myself when driving as well.

I am also pleased about some changes to the Marine Safety Act 2010, noting that the seat of Albert Park of course has the beautiful Port Phillip Bay, and so water safety in this regard actually has a deeper aspect in terms of keeping workers safe around mooring et cetera. But I do not have time to speak to that, so I will commend the bill to the house.

Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (11:53): It is a pleasure to rise to make a few comments on the Roads and Ports Legislation Amendment (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill 2025. As we have heard, this bill amends a number of acts. It is an omnibus bill in relation to safety, operational, administrative and regulatory processes governing roads and ports. As our lead speaker pointed out when she made her contribution, this is a bill that we will not be opposing. But I find it to have some little bit of irony, I guess is probably the right term, in that we have got a roads and ports bill here before us when these are two areas that need an enormous level of attention and investment in the state of Victoria. I will not talk for too long on this, but there are a couple of points before I sit down that I would like to make.

Others have said enough about the situation of our roads here in this state, and I will just make the point, because one member on the other side – I think it was the member for Thomastown – mentioned the fact that we are always whinging about the roads on this side of the chamber. I will just make the point on that that the reason we are often raising the issue of roads in this place is because – and I can speak for my electorate of Gippsland East – we have got a regular stream of people, like truck drivers, other freight company drivers, bus drivers and people who use the roads regularly always coming into our offices saying, ‘Can you get into this in Parliament? The roads are the worst I’ve ever seen them.’ So if the member for Thomastown has any queries about why we keep raising that, it is the increasing weight of complaint that we are getting from our constituents.

Without investment, and in fact with cuts and reductions, there is no other outcome possible but for them to get worse. There is just no other outcome that can occur if you are removing the effort that should be being put into our roads and repairing them. The reason that we have this situation is, by the government’s own budget papers, that we are staring down the face of a $192 billion debt and interest repayments of over $28 million a day. That means there is then pressure to fund the things that need to be funded, and that is what we are seeing. The member for Gippsland South in his contribution made the very important point that while it is argued that there is a small incremental increase in roads funding, the reality of it is that the targets that have been set for the amount of road repaired, the square metres, have reduced. I do not know how we are ever going to get on top of this roads problem when they are worsening and in the budget papers it says we are going to treat less area than we have in the most recent couple of years. There is only one possible outcome from that, and that is that our roads get worse.

I want to talk about our ports. Not every member in this chamber has ports in their electorate, but I have got a couple. Our ports are in a situation –

Michael O’Brien interjected.

Tim BULL: None in Malvern, that is right, but you can have one of mine, member for Malvern. We have this situation where our ports are becoming increasingly used by not only commercial vessels but also recreational vessels. In Lakes Entrance at the moment there is currently a burgeoning broadbill fishery off the coast. It is attracting an enormous amount of boaties to our area to access this fishery. The point I want to make is that boating infrastructure and the maintenance of it, the navigation aids and the like, are just as important as maintaining our road network. In some of our ports around the state – and I can speak to the ones in my electorate – we have navigation aids that are in great need of maintenance and in great need of replacement. As someone who does a bit of boating on the lakes, particularly a bit of boating at night, I can assure you that you are very, very dependent on having these navigation aids, especially when there is a little bit of fog about on the water. Our boating infrastructure needs maintenance across the board. We must make sure it is the responsibility of the government of the day to provide the funds to make sure that our boaters are kept just as safe as those who are using our roads. This bill does such things.

I will not repeat everything that previous speakers have said, but the bill increases the period under which police can initiate proceedings for a summary offence related to hit-and-run incidents from 12 months to two years. We support that. That is a good move. If that is going to help people be held more accountable for the crimes they commit, that is a good move. It allows for additional professionals to be approved for taking blood samples in the case of drink-driving or drug-driving offences. We support that too. That is a good move – holding people accountable who are doing the wrong thing. It makes further provision for the management of abandoned things in relevant ports, another matter that we support. We have had a few of these abandoned vessels left around the Gippsland Lakes at certain times, where the owners are quite happy to forfeit their vessel but do not have the money available to them to be able to do that appropriately. There is nothing more unsightly than if you are holidaying in a certain area and you have abandoned vessels that have been left half-sunk, or sometimes fully sunk, putting a blight on what would otherwise be a very, very picturesque outlook. There is more to this bill than that, of course, as other speakers have mentioned, but there are three points in there that, when reading through the different clauses and criteria, I thought were very, very important.

I will conclude my contribution shortly, but I just want to say that whilst those issues I have outlined are important, the real issues that exist with our roads and our ports generally relate to underfunding. I repeat the point that it is incumbent on the government of the day to address these matters and make sure our roads and our waterways are safe for motorists and are safe for the boating fraternity. It is Parliament’s job to keep Victorians safe, and that is why we need additional investment in those areas. We are not opposing this bill – this bill has some good things in it, there is no doubt about that – but we need to tackle the real issues relating to these two areas. In making that point I conclude my contribution.

Nathan LAMBERT (Preston) (12:00): I also rise in support of the Roads and Ports Legislation Amendment (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill 2025, particularly clauses 1 through to 20. I will defer to the remarks earlier by the member for Werribee and others on clauses 21 and 22 and the member for Footscray and others on the later clauses.

Those who have listened to my members statements may know that I have referred recently to two serious incidents that have taken place at the Northland shopping centre. Unfortunately, yesterday there was a third serious incident. Police approached a man in the eastern car park – which is quite narrow, as people who use it know – and that man was in a stolen car. He successfully evaded police by driving the stolen car in through the doors of the actual shopping centre and driving through the shopping centre, terrifying workers and shoppers, and then exiting out on the eastern side near Kmart. I do not want to make light of that very serious incident at Northland yesterday, but for those of a certain vintage who have seen The Blues Brothers movie, it was unfortunately literally that thing: a person drove a car through a crowded shopping centre. Given that the bill in front of us does address police enforcement powers with respect to road safety, I thought I would just take this opportunity to thank the police for their efforts in relation to that incident. I am pleased to report to the house they have actually made an arrest this morning and will no doubt be laying charges under the road safety rules and I imagine the Crimes Act 1958.

As I have mentioned before in this place, my father is an engineer and he has worked on a lot of road safety incidents, and I suppose over the years I have become used to listening to his matter-of-fact way of describing what happens when a vehicle hits another vehicle or hits a cyclist or a pedestrian or a truck. There is a very cold law of physics, K=½mv², which basically means that you really do not want to get hit by something that is heavy and you certainly do not want to get hit by something that is moving quickly, and even if you have crumple zones and other things that can dissipate that energy, those forces are inhuman and the results are traumatic. Of course it is our first responders, particularly our paramedics, who have to deal initially with that, and then it is our ED medical professionals and those in intensive care.

I would like to note that Austin Hospital, which provides emergency care and intensive care to Preston and our area, has recently had a tragic loss of one of their key members, Professor Rinaldo Bellomo, who I did not know personally but I understand was a beloved figure within that ICU team. He had come to Australia from Italy. Acting Speaker De Martino, as you may appreciate, many people do that and make a great contribution to our society, and he had certainly done so, not only as a clinician in our area but as one of the world’s leading medical researchers in intensive care. For those who know that research well, he had an h-index of I believe 201, which is quite extraordinary. That is almost Nobel laureate territory. I will not do a full eulogy here – that has happened appropriately with his colleagues – but I would just like to quote the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, who issued a statement describing Professor Bellomo as ‘a towering figure in the fields of intensive care medicine’ and saying ‘the global intensive care community have lost a giant.’ He leaves behind his beloved wife and daughter and many grieving hearts around the world. I would just like to place on record our gratitude for his work in the Preston area, and our thoughts are with his colleagues, his friends and his family. I am sure if Professor Bellomo could be here he would say, as medical professionals always do, that prevention is much better than cure when it comes to severe trauma, and of course part 2 of the bill in front of us and indeed part 3 are part of this government’s important and ongoing reforming work to prevent and minimise road trauma.

I know when I speak to locals in Preston and Reservoir they are very grateful for the minister’s industriousness and her ongoing reform of the Road Safety Act 1986, which we have in front of us, and the rules and the technical documents that are empowered by that act. I speak to her and her team often, as she knows, about Road Safety Act related issues. Certainly we often speak about a challenge we have in parts of Preston, but particularly in Reservoir, where we have a lot of roads that are only 6.5 metres wide, relatively narrow roads. These days, with a lot of townhouses and so forth, there are cars parked on both sides of those roads, and surprisingly to me, they are still zoned at 50 kilometres per hour. I have raised previously in the house that there perhaps is a case – and I know the minister has given this consideration – that they should be automatically reduced to 40 kilometres per hour in circumstances where it is clearly not possible for two vehicles to pass each other safely or in fact to pass each other at all because the gap is too narrow for two vehicles.

I understand Darebin council are currently looking to potentially reduce High Street to 30 kilometres per hour in some places. I do think that is a matter for them. There is certainly some merit in that. We do, sadly, still get a lot of pedestrian incidents in that part of central Preston. But I would say to them, were Darebin council here, that it would be unusual to have those streets down to 30 kilometres per hour while some of those other streets I have just described are still 50 kilometres per hour. That discrepancy would not quite make sense. Similarly, when we think about the speed zoning policy, which of course falls under the Road Safety Act and the Road Management Act 2004, I have spoken to the minister – and I know the member for Pascoe Vale has also done so – about how our speed zones operate in busy shopping strips. I think particularly of the shops along Plenty Road near Tyler Street. We have just had tram stop 52, the northern one, reinstated there, and we are very grateful to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure for that. But we will speak further to the minister about whether that can come down to 50 kilometres an hour along that strip.

Another issue that locals do raise is shared-use path crossings, where bike paths cross over a road and where the bikes have right of way. I think they are really important pieces of infrastructure. We are going to need more of them. But you will know, Acting Speaker de Martino, that everyone is quite familiar with the standard format for a zebra crossing. Often it has flashing lights. We know what it looks like; people know what to look for. But of course cyclists have to dismount at zebra crossings, and that means we cannot use them for shared use paths. And we do not have a national standard for shared use paths. I know the minister and her team are having a think about how we can address that particular issue, and we are grateful for it. I do think there has to be a little bit of a quid pro quo there. I absolutely support the right of cyclists to have the right of way, but a cyclist travelling at 50 kilometres per hour is very difficult for a driver to pick up. I think there may have to also be some rule about cyclists – and as a regular cyclist I would support this – slowing to 15 kilometres per hour or something that does allow cars to have the visibility, given that bikes of course move much faster than pedestrians. Similarly, I have previously raised the issue of semimountable kerbs at the Bell Street bridge in this house. I am slightly disappointed that I remain the only person in the history of the house to talk about semimountable kerbs, but I will just reiterate my previous comments on that.

Finally, if I can, another issue that comes up locally is ‘Keep clear’ zones, and there is currently advice in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices that they should be used very sparingly, because apparently road users are meant to understand that you are not allowed to block any cross intersection, including those that are not signalised. But my certain feeling driving around, and I think most people would agree, is in fact most Victorians do not understand that that is how road rule 170 works. In fact in many parts of Preston and Reservoir people block those intersections, and the effect is that people cannot get out of local streets and often cannot perform manoeuvres that would be in everyone’s interests and would be in the interest of road safety. So we have chatted to the minister’s team about just whether we can be a bit more liberal in our application of ‘Keep clear’ zones, which actually provide a very important function. We would love to see some where Cuthbert Road meets Cheddar Road, and particularly on Bell Street at Newcastle Street and Hotham Street, where they would really help out local residents.

The bill in front of us also amends the Road Management Act, which as the member for Footscray alluded to is a very important act that sets up the system by which we know who has responsibility for various roads. As she touched on, many of us deal with those issues where council and the state government have joint responsibility for an intersection. I know for us at the intersection of Broadway and Boldrewood Parade there is a large double-lane roundabout there with five separate roads coming into it. You certainly would not design that intersection that way were you to do so today. We continue to talk to the minister and indeed to the Minister for Housing and Building about how we solve that particular issue, noting that there is some government-owned housing land to the north and it may be necessary to use a little bit of that land to ultimately fix that intersection in the long run.

Were the member for Pascoe Vale here, he would have liked me to touch on issues related to Murray Road just east of Elizabeth Street, which is technically his electorate but which certainly affects people in the electorate of Preston. We would love to see that road eventually head back to just one lane. We thank Cate Hall, who is a local advocate down there.

I will return to where I started by thanking police and our medical professionals, including the late Professor Rinaldo Bellomo, for all the work they do to help people with road safety. We are trying to help them today with this bill, which will improve road safety in Victoria.

Richard RIORDAN (Polwarth) (12:10): I rise this afternoon to speak to the Roads and Ports Legislation Amendment (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill 2025. The wonderful seat of Polwarth of course can expect to be affected by this bill somewhat more than others because not only do we have the state’s worst roads but we also have three pretty neglected ports managed by this government. This government has in recent times handed the management of those ports not over to specialist port authorities or people that have expertise and experience in ports but to this government’s new administrative incarnation, called the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority. I thought I would spend a bit of time this morning just going through the fact that the ports legislation component of this bill today is designed to obviously free up and oversee the better management and running of ongoing concerns around ports, such as abandoned vessels, how to deal with pollution and oil spills and so on. These are quite admirable traits of the bill, I guess, and the opposition will not be opposing them. But I raise the point that for those issues to really warrant solving and good discussion, we need to make sure that the ports that we have are running to their best ability.

I will start with the port of Lorne. The port of Lorne is not renowned these days for its bustling fishing industry and other things, as it was for many, many decades, with the famous coota boats out on the pier at Lorne. But today of course it is a very important area for the community as a base of tourism. Riddle me this: how do you have a situation where a government of the day no longer allows you to wash a boat in a port or does not allow you to clean and process the fish that you catch when you come ashore at the port of Lorne? That seems a bit strange, because if you do not do it at the port and you do not do it at sea, where else would you be expected to do it, particularly in the township of Lorne? What we find ourselves in at the moment is quite a heated community debate, because the federal government back in 2018 promised many millions of dollars for the redevelopment of Point Grey and the Lorne Pier precinct. This government in its wisdom has handed it to a body that has very little marine and/or fishing expertise, understanding and experience and has actually gone to great lengths, spending an estimated $1 million to $2 million perhaps on planning and other administrative expenses, to come up with the notion that it is no longer environmentally friendly to wash a boat or skin a fish or deal with those issues at the port itself. If a government is so bereft of imagination and capacity to facilitate what anyone would deem pretty standard activities at a port, one wonders how much else it may have gotten right in this ports legislation.

It is important that the government, in looking at the best outcomes for its ports, actually goes back to the drawing board and talks to the Lorne aquatic club and to those that have a passion for the fishing industry, who are still in plentiful supply in the township of Lorne. They could actually sit down with those people and work constructively with them to ensure that when they spend many millions of dollars on a much-needed physical upgrade of the precinct around the Lorne Pier, the port of Lorne, they in fact make sure that the port provides the most basic of services for not only the benefit of the users of the port but also the ongoing safety and viability of the port. It is also interesting to note that in the government’s oversight of this redevelopment they have also made the interesting decision to completely demolish most of the fishing heritage and port heritage of the area and offer, as a replacement, a temporary and much smaller coffee kiosk.

Once again I would say that the Lorne community is very proud of its long fishing heritage. In fact in the community itself there are many iconic images and pictures of the fishing heritage of Lorne, and they are quite keen to see that heritage preserved. While we encourage and support the development of a modern and functional public marine area, it is also important that the history of that area is preserved and protected where possible. So that is the first port.

The second port of course is even more complicated. The port of Apollo Bay is probably the most significant piece of port harbour infrastructure that exists along Victoria’s south-west coast, excluding of course the much bigger Port of Portland. Nonetheless between Port Phillip Heads and Warrnambool and through to Portland there is not a lot of safe refuge for marine craft, so the port of Apollo Bay provides a very important piece of civic and community infrastructure. That port has been, quite frankly, messed around with endlessly by government for the last 10 years. The Colac Otway shire had carriage of the port and management of the port until last year, and in that time the municipality had spent in the order of $1.5 million to $2 million planning for the future of the port, with detailed plans about how to keep the port open and keep the port viable and how that port could be redeveloped and worked upon, using, once again, support from then Morrison government in 2018. The money has been with the state since that time.

You would think it was a bit of a no-brainer to have a local management authority working with the local community and the local users of the port to come up with a plan, and a plan they did come up with that had general support from the community. Step in the now Allan government, and they said, ‘No, we don’t want the council running this anymore. We’re going to hand it all over to our new agency, the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority, which has no ports experience, expertise or understanding. We’re going to give it to them to run.’ The very first thing that the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority did was put the $1.5 million to $2 million worth of community research into how best to manage the port in the bin. They promptly put it in the bin, and they said to the world, ‘Let’s spend another $2 million to redo this plan, but we’ll do it through our new lens.’ I ask you: why on earth would they decide that they could redevelop the port through a lens other than the lens that had been developed by the local community? It would be my assessment that it was a decision of this government that they would no longer allow and encourage an active, thriving, busy commercial fishing port in Apollo Bay, an industry that has been successfully operating for a very, very long time in that area, and instead that they would do their darnedest to downgrade its usefulness, downgrade its facilities and downgrade its services, first of all, through apportioning much of the funding that had been allocated for physical works back to writing more reports that had already been done. That was their first grave mistake. The second grave mistake is they have spent a lot of time disagreeing with the input and advice from those who actively commercially use the port.

The reason it is important, both in Lorne and in Apollo Bay, to have viable and active ports is because when they generate a revenue and an income it returns to these smaller coastal communities and can then be reinvested into maintaining ports, because ports are essentially a very expensive piece of public infrastructure to maintain well. They are highly susceptible to coastal influences and of course the very corrosive sea and salt air, which always makes maintenance a very tough gig.

In the minute or so I have left I will touch on the port of Port Campbell, the third of my ports, which is suffering the same consequences as the other two ports have – a government that has handed the management of them over to an agency that has little or no expertise in the ports field and, in so doing, refuses again to listen to the local community and users of the port. One of the ongoing issues for the port of Port Campbell has been the state of the jetty facility there. It has an upper and a lower deck. Little maintenance issues such as the safety of the ladder or the safety of the surface of the jetty itself as to whether people can or cannot stand on it are pretty basic understandings that any good marine manager needs to keep an eye on, plan for and manage into the future. It is disappointing that this government has allowed this to happen to these three really important ports that not only provide a huge visitor attraction to these three coastal towns but also provide potentially important places of refuge at times of wild seas and other marine catastrophes that might happen at the time. The fact that we are not keeping them as functional, active and safe as we can belies the fact that this government, even though it has brought this legislation in on ports, has not put enough into port safety.

Jordan CRUGNALE (Bass) (12:20): I rise to speak to the Roads and Ports Legislation Amendment (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill 2025. This bill is a comprehensive, reform-oriented step forward for our state, enhancing safety, boosting administrative efficiency and ensuring that the governance of our roads and ports reflects the standards expected by all Victorians. At its core this bill aims to modernise and strengthen key areas of our transport and infrastructure framework. It does so by refining enforcement processes, reducing risks at commercial ports, improving road management procedures, strengthening local port operations and enhancing the investigative capacity of our transport safety authorities.

Let me begin with a matter of utmost importance, which is road safety. The Victorian government has long recognised that safe roads save lives. I would like to share some important figures that highlight the impact of road trauma across our community based on the latest data from the Transport Accident Commission. Over the four years between November 2020 and November 2024 there have been 1680 TAC claims involving hospitalisations across the three LGAs that make up the Bass electorate. They are not just numbers, they represent individuals in our community whose lives have been disrupted, families affected and in some cases long roads to recovery. 1528 of those hospital stays lasted 14 days or less; 152 required hospitalisation longer than 14 days. These extended hospital stays often reflect the severity of the incidents and the long-term consequences for victims and their families. This data serves as a powerful reminder of why road safety continues to be a top priority for our region, and it calls for targeted investment in prevention, whether that is through better infrastructure, stronger community education or ongoing support for those recovering from trauma.

This bill continues our unwavering commitment to making our roads safer for everyone, particularly by addressing enforcement issues that have challenged frontline officers and investigators. One of the key reforms in the bill is an amendment to the Road Safety Act 1986 that doubles the current timeframe in which Victoria Police can initiate proceedings for certain hit-and-run offences. Where these offences involve minor injuries, proceedings must currently be commenced within 12 months. This can often prove insufficient, especially when investigations are complex and involve difficulty in identifying the driver. This bill will extend that period from 12 months to 24 months, giving police more time to bring offenders to justice. It is a measured and fair reform that balances the rights of all parties while strengthening community trust in the road safety system.

In addition, the bill expands the list of professionals who may be prescribed as authorised persons to collect blood samples for drug and alcohol testing. Presently only registered medical practitioners and specific health professionals can carry out this task, and there are often delays in accessing those personnel, particularly in regional areas or in time-sensitive circumstances. By widening the scope of eligible professionals, we make it easier for police to enforce our drug and alcohol driving laws, which are critical to lowering road trauma.

Further, the bill allows for authorised Victoria Police employees, not just sworn officers, to issue infringement notices for offences detected by road safety cameras. This includes offences such as speeding and red-light violations, seatbelt breaches and mobile phone use. This reform frees up the time of sworn officers for more urgent enforcement and community engagement duties while ensuring camera-detected offences are addressed promptly and efficiently.

If we turn our attention to ports, the gateway of commerce, logistics and international trade, this bill takes decisive action to introduce regulatory oversight of mooring services at commercial ports. Mooring and unmooring are physically demanding and potentially dangerous processes that involve high-tension ropes and require close coordination with vessel operators. Port practices in this space not only endanger lives but also threaten vessels, port infrastructure and continuity of operations. To manage these risks, the bill establishes a licensing scheme regime for mooring service providers administered by Ports Victoria. Operators will be required to meet strict standards in relation to staff training, equipment, incident reporting and emergency preparedness. A licence will be valid for five years and may be suspended or cancelled if safety standards are breached. These changes bring mooring services into alignment with the existing framework for towage services and ensure our ports remain efficient and safe places to work.

The bill also gives Ports Victoria the authority to issue a mooring services determination, setting out obligations on service providers at a port-specific level. This includes operational standards, record keeping and incident response protocols, helping avoid disruptions like vessel breakaways, which could shut down an entire port. This is forward-thinking risk-based regulation in action.

On our roads the bill delivers needed updates to the Road Management Act 2004, including expanding the regulatory power to allow for more flexible assignment of responsibilities for certain types of infrastructure. For example, some municipal road bridges that cross rail lines are currently the responsibility of local councils, though they may more appropriately fall under VicTrack or Transport for Victoria. This bill allows regulations to be tailored to such cases, making road ownership and maintenance more logical and sustainable. The bill also reforms the process of applying for consent to carry out works on public roads. It tightens up requirements around the information that must be submitted, eliminates deemed consent for high-risk applications and introduces a stop-the-clock mechanism. This will allow coordinating road authorities to pause a decision period while waiting for additional information, thus preventing unsafe or inadequately planned works from going ahead by default.

Moving to local ports, this bill strengthens the operation and administration of Victoria’s local ports, which play an essential role in regional communities and economic activity. It clarifies that local port managers may provide technical and advisory services not only outside their local area but also within their own, including to councils and other government bodies. Importantly, the bill authorises the minister to permit local port managers to charge fees for services and facilities on either a cost-recovery or a commercial basis. This added flexibility will allow financial sustainability without removing the capacity to respond compassionately during emergencies or for community benefit. The bill improves procedures for managing and removing abandoned vessels in ports and waterways – vessels that pose environmental, navigational or aesthetic problems – and clearly sets out the steps required to determine abandonment, locate owners and dispose of such items in a timely and lawful way. Equivalent amendments are made to the Marine Safety Act 2010 to ensure consistency across all Victorian waters.

The bill also clarifies the role of the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Planning in responding to marine pollution. It confirms that the secretary is responsible for dealing with the pollution from maritime sources while supporting other agencies in handling incidents from inland sources. The bill also repeals an outdated liability cap in the Marine (Drug, Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act 1988, aligning Victorian law with internationally agreed limits and ensuring we are not unfairly burdened in the event of an oil spill.

Taken together, the Roads and Ports Legislation Amendment (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill 2025 represents a strengthening and well-considered package of reforms, responds to community and industry feedback, corrects legislative gaps and, most importantly, lays a safer, smarter and more efficient foundation for the future of transport in Victoria. It is a bill built on collaboration with Victoria Police, the Department of Justice and Community Safety, Ports Victoria, local governments and the chief investigator. It reflects both technical expertise and policy ambition. I commend the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, the department and her office for this bill. It honours our responsibility to govern with foresight, compassion and rigour. I commend the bill to the house.

Chris CREWTHER (Mornington) (12:30): I rise today to speak on the Roads and Ports Legislation Amendment (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill 2025. This is a wideranging omnibus bill that touches on everything from mooring safety at commercial ports to administrative reforms in transport governance. I first want to look at the road safety enforcement elements. In particular, this bill amends the Road Safety Act 1986 to (1) increase the time available to prosecute lower level ‘fail to stop and render assistance’ offences from 12 to 24 months, a logical step that will support proper investigations, (2) enable a broader group of approved health professionals to collect blood samples in drug driving cases, helping Victoria Police overcome access challenges in rural or understaffed areas, and (3) allow authorised police employees, not just sworn officers, to issue infringements based on road safety camera detections, which should ease pressure on frontline police.

On paper, these are constructive reforms. However, no legislative amendment can substitute for meaningful action on the ground. We are suffering a crisis on Victoria’s roads, particularly in our regions, and that includes the Mornington Peninsula. Road safety in Victoria is deteriorating from Mallacoota to Mornington to Mildura and from Orbost to Ararat and elsewhere. Lives are being lost because of dangerous driving, crumbling roads and policy neglect. The fact that this Labor government is allowing our debt situation to go up to $194 billion in a few years time, which is $29 million in interest a day and which is $1.2 million in interest an hour, is not helping us to invest the necessary funds we need to into our roads, and indeed we have seen cuts in this area over time.

This year alone over 80 people have been killed on regional Victorian roads. That is more than 60 per cent of the total road toll, despite regional Victorians making up less than a quarter of our population. The fatalities are horrifying, but they are not isolated; they are part of a wider trend. We need to look after our regional Victorians, who do make up a disproportionate amount of our road toll, including my family, who are who are still in Horsham in western Victoria, which is where I grew up, and so many other Victorians in our regions. The data actually backs this up as well. Dangerous driving offences have surged, with more than 300 cases in the last year. According to Victoria Police, speeding, distraction and fatigue are some of the most persistent causes of fatal crashes.

And let us not forget drugs. A major study published in 2024 by Dr Jennifer Schumann and her colleagues at Monash University analysing a decade of crash data in Victoria revealed some deeply troubling facts. Methamphetamine is now the most common drug detected in fatal road crashes, present in over 15 per cent of fatalities between 2015 and 2019. In motorcycle fatalities it was detected in a staggering 28 per cent of cases. THC, the active component in cannabis, is also rising rapidly, especially among injured drivers. These trends are not abating, they are accelerating.

Of course let us not forget the deteriorating roads, including potholes and more in my electorate and elsewhere. Budget cuts have led to a sharp decline in road maintenance, with resurfacing spending falling from over $200 million to $37.5 million. This has resulted in only 422,000 square metres of regional roads being rehabilitated or resurfaced in 2023–24, compared to 9 million the previous year. What is clear is that this Labor government is more concerned with headlines than results. Year after year Labor ministers announce a regional roads blitz, yet the department’s own performance data shows maintenance work has plummeted.

Meanwhile, families like the Bartletts in East Gippsland were nearly killed on crumbling bitumen when a 16-year-old learner driver rolled the family car three times because the edge of a regional road collapsed under her tyre. That was not just bad luck, that was a failure, and it is on this Labor government.

We also have to look at, say, Forest Drive in my electorate in Mount Martha, which has now finally been fixed, despite the many injuries and deaths we have had there over the years, with funds that were allocated many years ago from the former federal coalition government to fully fix this project.

But it was not helped by the state government delaying this project multiple times, meaning that Zoe McKenzie and I had to put so much pressure on to get the state Labor government to deliver the project using the funds that were already sitting there, committed by the former federal coalition government. Now we are in a similar situation with Uralla Road in Mount Martha and its intersection with Nepean Highway. Similar to Forest Drive, it has seen injuries and deaths over the years. The work is already fully funded as well, by the former federal coalition government, so the state government does not have to put any more money towards it, but the state government needs to deliver it. We are calling upon the state government to deliver this project as soon as possible, because we cannot see more injuries and deaths at that location as well.

Back to the bill, the amendments related to the Road Safety Act are largely uncontroversial. The reforms to consent for works on roads are more problematic. Basically, the Labor government has given itself and councils more time to deal with works applications on and around roads. It can stop the clock on applications for works and remove deemed consent for some applications where consent is automatically granted after a period of time. The Labor government says that this is about risk mitigation and ensuring safety and that potential infrastructure damage will be avoided following a clear and detailed process. On the other hand, it appears to be a legislative change to ease the pressure on the Department of Transport and Planning and in the process potentially add time and therefore cost to important works. These works may include roadworks, utility relocations and similar works, often involving property developments and housing. The minister’s office and department could provide no examples of why this is needed and what has prompted the amendments. This is yet another example of red tape, with which this government is obsessed, whether in road works, utility activity or even private development requiring road access such as new intersections or the provision of gas and water sewerage connections to housing developments.

The Victorian Transport Association, I note, is opposed to this change, noting it could be used to delay roadworks. The Urban Development Institute of Australia, also opposed, notes that it risks introducing delays and inefficiencies into development delivery, especially in growth areas where coordinating road authorities may be under-resourced or slow to respond. This is why the Liberals and Nationals have introduced a sensible amendment in the Legislative Council to knock out these clauses.

Lastly, I want to look at the port management amendments. On the subject of ports the bill introduces welcome reforms, particularly the introduction of a licensing scheme for mooring service providers. The mooring and unmooring of vessels are high-risk operations, and until now the lack of regulation has left safety infrastructure and operational standards in the legal grey area. I note that there was a sunken yacht near Mornington Pier just recently, in the last week, which will have to be retrieved – linking into all these issues. So these changes are long overdue. The bill also strengthens the management of abandoned vessels – again, a reasonable measure given the growing number of derelict boats left in our waterways – and it clarifies that port authorities can charge commercial rates for services inside and outside port waters. While we support cost recovery where appropriate, we will be watching closely to ensure that this does not become just another cash grab from this Labor government dressed up as reform.

Let us take a moment to step back, though, because the real issue here is not just port management, it is port performance. I want to take a moment to talk about the government’s renewable energy terminal at the Port of Hastings. Let us be clear: the Port of Hastings offshore wind hub has now been delayed by two years. Instead of delivering power by 2028, it may not be ready now until 2030. Because of that delay, there is now real concern that Victoria will miss its own legislative target of 2 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2032. The delay could now mean that the first offshore turbines are assembled elsewhere – Bell Bay, Geelong or even Port Kembla in New South Wales. That could mean jobs lost, economic opportunity lost and credibility lost.

While the bill before us talks about managing mooring operations and regulating abandoned vessels, it is worth asking: how is any of that going to matter if we cannot even get the port projects we need delivered on time, on budget and on an environmentally sound footing?

I will mention, lastly, that I was involved, as the CEO of Mildura Development Corporation many years ago, in the Murray Basin rail project, which I note saw so many cost blowouts and more while also being reduced in scope. This would have seen real competition between our ports, but it has not been delivered properly. That is something that should be invested in more, but instead we are working on projects like the Suburban Rail – (Time expired)

Ella GEORGE (Lara) (12:40): I rise today to speak on the Roads and Ports Legislation Amendment (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill 2025, and I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Roads and Road Safety and Minister for Ports and Freight and her team for the tremendous work that they have done across this portfolio, particularly with this legislation and the important reforms that it will introduce.

We have heard that this bill is wideranging, and it shows our government’s commitment to improving road, port and safety outcomes right across Victoria. It will do a range of things, including enhancing road safety through improved enforcement measures, mitigating known worker safety risks and ensuring reliability at commercial ports by regulating mooring services. It will streamline road infrastructure management and simplify road work consent processes, refine the legislation governing local port operations and responses to marine pollution, clarify laws regarding the chief investigator, transport safety, to facilitate effective safety incident investigations and advance the administration and regulation of the transport sector with additional enhancements to transport laws.

This bill is an important piece of legislation that further demonstrates our government’s commitment to improving road safety outcomes right across Victoria. In my electorate of Lara we are certainly benefiting from the state government’s contributions and commitments to road safety and ensuring that road infrastructure is upgraded to meet the needs of growing communities. Prior to the 2022 state election I was proud to stand with my predecessor, the previous member for Lara John Eren, and announce that the Labor government had committed funds to improve the Six Ways intersection in Lara. This is a $16 million investment by the Victorian government, and it will include works to improve safety, capacity and traffic flow at this busy intersection, which is getting busier every single day as more and more young families move into new estates throughout Lara. This commitment to improving road safety and infrastructure is so important to the residents of Lara as the community continues to grow.

In addition, last year we saw the construction of a pedestrian crossing on Forest Road in Lara opposite the wonderful Lara Lake Primary School, a very big and busy school. This pedestrian crossing is essential to supporting the safety of students as they travel in and out of school. This was funded thanks to the pedestrian and safer schools program, one of the many programs this government has supported to improve road and pedestrian safety.

This bill will continue this important work in improving road and pedestrian safety. It will deliver improved outcomes for our road safety regulatory framework, and it will also ensure that Victoria Police have what they need to do their job in strengthening road safety.

An important step in strengthening road safety outcomes will be in the additional 12 months that this bill provides Victoria Police to bring proceedings against a driver who is alleged to have committed a hit-and-run offence. It is unfortunate that we even need to have legislation like this, but unfortunately not everyone stops and helps when they have an accident. When a person is involved in an accident and suffers minor injuries, this is classified as a summary offence. Currently, this means that Victoria Police have 12 months to start proceedings. Victoria Police have told us that this is not enough time in some cases, as it takes time to piece together what happened and to identify the person involved. This is especially the case in hit-and-run cases where the driver flees the scene. This bill will double that timeframe so that justice can be done and Victoria Police have the appropriate time to hold offenders to account.

This bill also gives Victoria Police the flexibility to access one of over 2000 collection clinics when they are seeking a qualified health professional to take a blood sample. This is important because we know that two of the top five causes of serious accidents in Victoria are drink and drug driving. Currently, if Victoria Police members suspect that someone is impaired, they require a blood or urine test to confirm it, and this must be done within 3 hours of the person driving. But only a select group of health professionals can do these tests. By expanding who can collect these samples, we are providing Victoria Police the greater flexibility that they need to ensure that they can meet the timelines and not be burdened with extra travel times.

This bill will also make amendments to ensure that specifically authorised Victoria Police employees, not just sworn officers, can issue infringement notices for most offences detected by road safety cameras.

This greater flexibility is a sensible step and supports Victoria Police, resulting in safer roads for everyone.

I would like to take a moment to thank the members of Victoria Police, who work so hard in serving and protecting the community. I know that in the Lara electorate and across the wider Geelong community we have the most incredible, dedicated members safeguarding our community. Just recently I had the chance to catch up with the team from Lara police station, and it was great to hear about how their team goes above and beyond for their community. When I visited, the team had recently concluded a lengthy search and rescue operation in and around the You Yangs, and a number of members had worked overtime and come in on their days off to help with this, and for that I thank them. They have a real passion and connection to the people in Lara. I want to thank Senior Sergeant Lorie Stein and all the members of Lara police station for the work that they do and for the commitment that they show our community.

This bill will also improve the processes for managing road infrastructure. It expands the regulation-making powers in the act to allow us to assign road maintenance and management responsibilities to the authority best suited to reduce red tape, cut delays and make sure that the right authority, whether it is the state or local government, is responsible for road infrastructure. This bill improves the process for consent to conduct roadworks on our roads. Currently, once an application for works is submitted, the responsible road authority has a designated time limit to approve or reject it. If there is no response within the timeframe, the application is closed and considered deemed consent, allowing the works to proceed, but this means that applications are often rejected if they do not have enough information, which creates a financial and a time burden. This change will ensure that there is enough time to request more information and prevent delays caused by a rejected application. It will also mean that there will be some types of works that cannot be approved by deemed consent, and this will be the case for freeways and other large projects where safety risks are high. These changes will mean that all works on public roads are done properly and safely.

I would like to speak to the changes that this bill will introduce regarding maritime safety. It is incredibly important that we ensure that safety is a focus in our busy ports. For over 180 years the Port of Geelong has been a key part of the local Geelong community, and I am proud that it calls the northern suburbs of Geelong home. The Geelong port manages a wide variety of trades that total over 46 million tonnes of cargo, worth more than $10 billion each year, and as the economy in regional Victoria continues to expand the Port of Geelong is key to our region’s import and export trade and future opportunities.

In recent years we have seen the Spirit of Tasmania call Geelong home, which brings more ferry crossings into Corio Bay and takes thousands of passengers, cars and trucks between Tasmania and Victoria each year. That is why the amendments in this bill are so important, as we need to ensure that our ports are as safe and reliable as possible. We know that mooring operations are essential to the functioning of a port’s operations, and this bill will allow Ports Victoria to implement a mooring licence scheme. This will ensure that only qualified providers can operate in our commercial ports. Commercial ports are busy industrial areas, and safety needs to be the utmost priority.

This bill will also enhance the tools available to our port and waterway managers to deal with abandoned vessels and other items that pose safety and environmental threats. Abandoned ships can lead to serious safety hazards, harm the environment and disrupt vital operations. The existing processes for handling this are unclear and slow, which hampers the ability of port and waterway managers to respond quickly when necessary. These changes will ensure that port managers have the tools to act efficiently while maintaining fairness and transparency. In Geelong’s northern suburbs we know that this is incredibly important. We have a number of small boats and vessels moored off North Geelong, and it is incredibly important that the authorities have what they need to do their important job if those vessels are abandoned.

As I have touched on in my contribution today, this bill introduces a range of initiatives aimed at enhancing transport safety and regulation, whether it is on our roads or in our waters. It improves road safety through better enforcement practices and addressing safety risks for workers at commercial ports by regulating mooring services, and on this side of the house we know just how important that is. We know just how important it is to have a safe workplace so that everyone can get home safely at the end of the day and we know how important it is that our roads are safe, and that is why we are investing hundreds of millions of dollars into fixing potholes, upgrading road surfaces, upgrading big, busy intersections like Six Ways in Lara and ensuring that our communities have the road infrastructure that they need as our communities grow.

Last year over 70 per cent of our investment into roads went into regional Victoria, and we will continue our focus on this. I commend this bill, and I wish it a speedy passage through the house.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (12:50): I rise today to talk on the Roads and Ports Legislation Amendment (Road Safety and Other Matters) Bill 2025. As previous speakers that have stood up in this place have spoken about, it covers a couple of different portfolios, one obviously being roads and the other being our ports. I am first going to talk about the roads part of these amendments. I think for everybody here in the chamber, no matter what side of the chamber you do sit on, we are constantly contacted by our constituents, especially down my way, talking about roads and road safety. I note that this bill amends eight transport-related acts – such as the Road Safety Act 1986, to enable additional prescribed persons to collect blood and urine samples and to empower Victoria Police employees to issue infringement notices. Having the visible presence on the roads of our wonderful members of VicPol as they move around the state – it is always great to be able to see them driving past, because I know as I traverse up and down the freeway from my home town of Traralgon and move through here into the city to Parliament, I think we all see road users are becoming more and more impatient and doing the wrong thing. Making changes to make our laws work better and to be able to keep us safer on the roads is a good thing.

I note that we do often come in here and talk about the state of our country roads, and one of the issues that is often brought up to me – I have a couple of road intersections in my community in the seat of Morwell and in the Latrobe Valley – one of the main ones that comes through my office door, is the Waterloo Road–Lloyd Street intersection. This intersection of roads we do have a lot of complaints about, and we do have severe accidents there, unfortunately, sometimes. It has been more than four years since the Moe residents were promised the notoriously dangerous intersection at Waterloo Road and Lloyd Street would be upgraded, and it is probably every three months that I do continually ask the question of the Minister for Roads and Road Safety as to updates on what is going on. It is a complicated set-up in Moe because it does involve a railway crossing as well.

We sit here in the chamber and I do listen to how many level crossings have been removed down here in Melbourne and the suburbs. This one here is a very dangerous intersection, especially around school time with school buses and cars trying to get from one side of Moe to the other. We have had issues with VicTrack trying to purchase land, the minister does tell us, but to constantly have to ask – and we have been waiting since before even my time of becoming the local MP down there to try to get it underway to make it safer. To date there has been some surveying work done, which people have seen, and with houses lining this intersection, it is very, very easy and quick for people to ring my office and give us feedback. We would love to see some safety upgrades done to this particular intersection because it is dangerous.

One of my other hobby horses – and I would not be doing the right thing if I stood in the chamber here and did not mention this intersection – is in Traralgon. It is the Bank Street intersection. What has happened here is we have had upgrades done to the intersection, and the intersection does require traffic lights. Once again, it involves a railway line going through with boom gates. We do know there are issues with VicTrack and making all this work.

In the next month or so they are going to be shutting down our regional rail line again so they can continue the signalling works that need to be done between Melbourne and Traralgon and further into East Gippsland. But talking with ministers on both sides of rail and also traffic management, it does not appear that we are going to get these lights up and operational once these works have been done, which is really disappointing. We had an incident not too long ago this year where a school bus and a car actually collided on this part of the road. The government has safety works around that to make it safer. It is pretty easy; you just put the damn traffic lights up and make sure they work so we are pulling people up. This will actually slow the traffic down as it goes through this intersection. It sits directly opposite the Traralgon Golf Club. What we are finding is that within the golf club we have people that have golf carts trying to make the journey from one side of the freeway to the other with no lights and no help for them to get across. It is only a matter of time before we have a significant accident. It ramps up around holiday period, and I do note we are heading into a bit of a break which coincides with the school holidays, so people will be moving out and about and around, heading safely on holidays. We hold our breath collectively, hoping that when the kids are getting on the buses to go home it is going to be a safe passage for them to get through. Even though we are talking about legislative amendments here, I need to be highlighting these issues that are continuing and that nothing seems to be done.

One of the other parts of this issue at the Bank Street intersection is probably about 200 metres down at the Kosciuszko Street intersection, the main thoroughfare for school buses with schoolchildren going home. We do have traffic lights there, and they work a treat, but we have pedestrian lights that lead from one side of the road to the other side of the road where the railway line is now. The children can travel safely and walk across the freeway comfortably, because the traffic lights are stopped. But when they get to the other side there, as part of all these works, there is meant to be an underpass for the kids to go underneath the railway line. Unfortunately, these works have not been done and are not scheduled to be done while the next lot of signalling works are done, and there are no trains on the line. So when the kids leave, going home from school or on their morning journey to school, they have actually got to walk up and over the railway line. I do not think I have spoken to any parent or any teacher at the schools that are up on Kosciuszko Street who do not have concerns about the kids walking up and over. We do need to make sure that we are doing the right thing there. I am doing my due diligence as a local member and highlighting this constantly with the minister’s office. We do hope, but we get a generic response. The more that I do ask and want these intersections fixed, we just get that generic response with a bit of a blame game on who is holding it up.

As I was saying before, there is one thing I have learned coming down here, with our country roads deteriorating a little bit. I used to pull up at the Pakenham McDonald’s and grab a cappuccino and then continue my journey in, but I have changed now, because trying to dodge the potholes, it would all be just froth and bubble by the time that I did get down here closer to Melbourne, and that included being on the Monash Freeway. I have now resorted, after I worked it out, to buying a latte. I stick that in my cup holder as I travel along the journey and by the time I dodge a few potholes and run over a few potholes and it bounces around a bit, it has actually turned brilliantly into a cappuccino, so I still get that beautiful froth on top of it. It is a shame that I have to resort to not buying my cappuccino and to buying a latte. But I have worked it out so that by the time I leave and actually get down here to Parliament that latte will be a brilliant cappuccino for me to enjoy. We hope and wait for the minister to fix up these intersections.

Sitting suspended 1:00 pm until 2:02 pm.

Business interrupted under standing orders.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we start I would like to acknowledge in the gallery the member for Summer Hill in the New South Wales Parliament the Honourable Jo Haylen MP. I would also like to acknowledge former member for Northern Victoria Marg Lewis. Also welcome to the Honourable Veena George, the Minister for Health, Woman and Child Development in the government of Kerala, India.