Thursday, 5 March 2020

Bills

North East Link Bill 2020

Statement of compatibility

Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (10:09): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the North East Link Bill 2020.

Opening paragraphs

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the North East Link Bill 2020.

In my opinion, the North East Link Bill 2020, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

The main purposes of the Bill are to:

• establish a new statutory corporation, the North East Link State Tolling Corporation;

• provide for the imposition, collection and enforcement of tolls in relation to the use of the North East Link tollway;

• provide for the tabling and amendment of North East Link tolling agreements;

• amend the Road Management Act 2004 to modify the operation of that Act in relation to the North East Link road; and

• make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Human Rights Issues

Human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill

Section 8—Recognition and equality before the law

Section 8 of the Charter provides that every person is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection of the law without discrimination.

Clause 59(2) of the Bill permits different tolls and toll administration fees to be specified for different cases or classes of cases, including in respect of different zones or groups of zones, different classes of vehicle and the use of different vehicles at different times or any combination of those matters.

Clause 62 provides that a toll administration fee is not payable in respect of either a vehicle that is registered with the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation, or that is otherwise exempt from the payment of tolls, toll administration fees, or both, under the regulations (the power to make those regulations being in clause 113(1)(e)).

Clauses 59(2), 62 and 113(1)(e) differentiate between, or permit differentiation between, zones of travel and classes of vehicle only. They do not treat individuals differently in relation to their legal rights and therefore do not interfere with, and do not limit, the right to recognition and equality before the law.

Section 12—Freedom of Movement

Section 12 of the Charter provides that every person lawfully within Victoria has the right to move freely within Victoria and to enter and to leave it and has the freedom to choose where to live.

The rights in section 12 may be engaged by a number of clauses of the Bill:

(a) Tolling provisions

The rights in section 12 may be engaged by Part 4 of the Bill, that deals generally with the specification of toll zones and the power to fix and collect tolls. In particular, clauses 58 and 59 of the Bill confer certain powers on the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation with respect to tolls; clauses 60 and 61 establish liability for payment of tolls and toll administration fees; and clause 113 confers power on the Governor in Council to make regulations for or with respect to tolling.

Those clauses may limit the right to freedom of movement under section 12 of the Charter, however, any such limitation is reasonable and justified because:

• the power to specify toll zones is not unlimited. In particular, the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation may only specify toll zones over a road within the North East Link Project area and those toll zones and any applicable tolls and toll administration fees must in accordance with an agreement between the State and that Corporation;

• it is intended that there will continue to be alternative un-tolled routes available to all vehicles, and individuals will have a range of other transport options, including walking, cycling and public transport, available to use on these alternative routes; and

• driving in a toll zone is discretionary and it is reasonable that drivers are required to pay for a discretionary activity from which they intend to derive a benefit.

Accordingly, the clauses of the Bill that allow the imposition of tolls may interfere with, and limit, the right to move freely within Victoria under section 12 of the Charter, however, any such limitation is reasonable and demonstrably justified.

(b) Access to the North East Link road

The rights in section 12 may be engaged by clause 151 of the Bill, which amends the Road Management Act 2004 to, among other things, confer on the North East Link State Tolling Corporation certain functions and powers of a road authority under that Act. This includes the power to:

• cause to be removed, destroyed or blocked a means of access to the North East Link road that was laid out without the consent of the North East Link State Tolling Corporation; and

• cause to be erected and maintained, fences or other obstructions along the North East Link road for the purpose of preventing access to the North East Link road.

The amendments made by clause 151 of the Bill may limit the right to freedom of movement under section 12 of the Charter, however, any such limitation is reasonable and justified because:

• it is appropriate that access to the North East Link road is regulated to ensure safe and efficient operation of the road;

• there will continue to be alternative routes available to individuals; and

• the effect of these provisions is to confer the existing powers of the Head, Transport for Victoria in relation to any freeway under the Road Management Act 2004 on the North East Link State Tolling Corporation in relation to the North East Link road.

I also note that the clauses reflect provisions to similar effect in the Melbourne City Link Act 1995, the EastLink Project Act 2004 and the West Gate Tunnel (Truck Bans and Traffic Management) Act 2019 with respect to the operators of the tollways under those Acts.

Accordingly, clause 151 of the Bill may interfere with, and limit, the right to move freely within Victoria under section 12 of the Charter, however, any such limitation is reasonable and demonstrably justified.

Section 13—Privacy and reputation

Section 13 of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with.

The rights in section 13 may be engaged by a number of clauses of the Bill:

(a) Tolling provisions

Clauses 61, 63, 66, 79, 80, 83 and 88 which deal with tolling, also provide for the identification of the driver or operator of a vehicle, or operator of a trailer, for the purpose of establishing liability for tolls and fines.

Under the “operator onus” scheme established by clause 63 of the Bill (that is consistent with the present schemes in place for EastLink, City Link and the West Gate Tunnel), the operator of a vehicle or trailer may avoid liability for tolls and fines arising out of the use of a vehicle in a toll zone in the North East Link tollway by nominating the actual driver or another person who may have been responsible for the vehicle. This clause authorises vehicle operators to provide personal information (e.g. full name, address and date of birth) about a person believed to be responsible for the vehicle at the relevant time to an “authorised person”. This enables the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation to use that personal information to seek payment from the responsible person.

Those provisions engage, but do not limit, the right to privacy under section 13 of the Charter. Any interference with privacy authorised by these provisions is lawful and not arbitrary because it is authorised by the legislation as enacted by these clauses. Further, the Bill contains the following procedural and substantive safeguards that prevent the interference from being arbitrary in nature and protect individual’s privacy:

• the information may only be used by the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation for limited purposes;

• the operator of the vehicle is required to provide reasons for the belief that the person they are nominating had control and/or possession of the vehicle at the relevant time;

• the authorised person must accept the nomination as effective in order for it to have any consequence; and

• the making of false and misleading statements in a statement is an offence under clause 65 of the Bill.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that these clauses do not limit the right to privacy under section 13 of the Charter.

(b) Use and disclosure of information obtained by the Secretary

Clause 97(1) of the Bill provides for the Secretary to the Department of Transport (or a relevant person as defined in section 90I of the Road Safety Act 1986) to disclose information about registered vehicles and trailers to an enforcement agency (including the Chief Commissioner of Police) or an employee or contractor of an enforcement agency for the purposes of Part 4 of the Bill. This part of the Bill relates to the fixing and collection of tolls and toll administration fees and enforcement.

Clause 97(2) of the Bill provides for the Secretary (or a relevant person as defined in section 90I of the Road Safety Act 1986) to disclose information about registered vehicles and trailers to the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation (or persons employed or engaged to provide services for that Corporation) for the purposes of sending a request to a responsible person for payment of a toll or toll administration fee.

Clause 97(3) of the Bill provides for the Secretary (or a relevant person as defined in section 90I of the Road Safety Act 1986) to disclose “driver licence information” to the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation (or persons employed or engaged to provide services for that corporation) for the purpose of taking action for recovery of a toll or toll administration fee.

“Driver licence information” is defined in clause 97(6) to mean specified information held by the Secretary for the purpose of the Secretary’s driver licensing functions under the Road Safety Act 1986, namely: a person’s name, a driver licence number, a date of birth, a telephone number, an email address and a residential address.

Clause 98(1) of the Bill requires the Secretary to disclose information about a vehicle or trailer registered in an Australian State or Territory other than Victoria to the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation (or persons employed or engaged to provide services for that corporation) on request. The information may only be disclosed for the purpose of issuing requests for payment of tolls and toll administration fees to operators of vehicles or trailers registered in another State or Territory.

Clause 98(2) of the Bill requires the Secretary to disclose “interstate driver licence information” of a responsible person to the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation (or persons employed or engaged to provide services for that corporation) on request. The information may only be disclosed for the purpose of taking recovery action for tolls or toll administration fees, in accordance with the minimum debt recovery requirements under the Bill.

“Interstate driver licence information” is defined in clause 98(4) of the Bill, as information about a person’s name, driver licence number, date of birth, telephone number, email address or residential address to which the Secretary has access for the purpose of a law of a State or a Territory other than Victoria that corresponds with Part 3 of the Road Safety Act 1986 (that deals with licensing requirements).

Similar provisions are inserted into the Melbourne City Link Act 1995, the EastLink Project Act 2004 and the West Gate Tunnel (Truck Bans and Traffic Management) Act 2019 in relation to disclosures of interstate vehicle and trailer registration and interstate driver licence information to the respective toll road operators (see clauses 127, 139 and 162 of the Bill).

By authorising or requiring the Secretary to disclose registration and driver licence information, these clauses of the Bill engage the right to privacy in section 13 of the Charter. However, any interference with privacy authorised by these provisions is lawful and not arbitrary because it is authorised by the legislation as enacted by these clauses. Further, the Bill contains or, enables the making of, a number of safeguards, which protect the rights of individuals to their privacy:

• Clauses 97 and 98 of the Bill enable the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation (or persons employed or engaged to provide services for that Corporation) to use vehicle and trailer registration and driver licence information disclosed to them by the Secretary for the purpose of sending written requests for payment of tolls and toll administration fees and taking action to recover tolling debts. However, the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation will only have access to driver licence information for debt recovery purposes that comply with the minimum debt recovery requirements specified by the Minister and published in the Government Gazette (see clause 68 and 97(3)). It is intended that the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation will be required to engage in appropriate debt collection practices, have adequate measures in place to deal with hardship and dispute resolution, and make effective use of that information to minimise the number of tolling offences referred to the enforcement agency.

• The Bill will apply various provisions of Part 7B of the Road Safety Act 1986 to the North East Link tollway, including provisions requiring the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation to have an Information Protection Agreement with the Secretary to the Department of Transport. An Information Protection Agreement is required to, among other things, set out how the information will be protected and procedures for managing breaches of privacy.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that clauses 97, 98, 127, 139 and 162 do not limit the right to privacy under section 13 of the Charter.

Section 20—Property rights

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

Clause 151 of the Bill amends the Road Management Act 2004 to, among other things, confer on the North East Link State Tolling Corporation certain functions and powers of a road authority under that Act. This includes the power to cause to be removed, destroyed or blocked a means of access to the North East Link road that was laid out without the consent of the North East Link State Tolling Corporation (see section 134H(13) to be inserted into the Road Management Act 2004 by clause 151). This is relevant to section 20 of the Charter as a means of access may constitute a person’s property.

Clause 151 of the Bill engages but does not limit the right under section 20 of the Charter because:

• the North East Link State Tolling Corporation’s power to remove or destroy a means of access is:

o authorised by the legislation as enacted by the Bill; and

o confined to circumstances where such property was formed or laid out without the consent of the North East Link State Tolling Corporation; and

• the effect of these provisions is to confer the existing powers of the Head, Transport for Victoria in relation to any freeway under the Road Management Act 2004 on the North East Link State Tolling Corporation in relation to the North East Link road.

I also note that the clause reflects provisions to similar effect in the Melbourne City Link Act 1995, the EastLink Project Act 2004 and the West Gate Tunnel (Truck Bans and Traffic Management) Act 2019 with respect to the operators of the tollways under those Acts.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that the provisions conferring the power to remove or destroy a means of access does not limit the right to property under section 20 of the Charter.

Section 21—Freedom from imprisonment for inability to perform contractual obligations

Section 21(8) of the Charter provides that a person must not be imprisoned only because of his or her inability to perform a contractual obligation.

Division 4 and parts of Division 5 of Part 4 of the Bill engage but do not limit the right under section 21(8) of the Charter.

Division 4 of Part 4 reflects provisions of the Melbourne City Link Act 1995, the EastLink Project Act 2004 and the West Gate Tunnel (Truck Bans and Traffic Management) Act 2019 with respect to the liability to pay tolls and administration fees. Clause 69(1) provides that a person who drives a vehicle in a toll zone on the North East Link tollway without the vehicle being registered for that purpose commits an offence for which the person may be liable for a fine or infringement penalty. This provision does not apply to vehicles that are either exempted by the regulations from the requirement to be registered or pay tolls, or that are covered by a tollway billing arrangement that was not suspended at the time of the offence being allegedly committed (see clause 69(2)).

To register a vehicle for use on a toll zone on the North East Link Road, a person may make an application to the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation in writing, orally, or partly orally and partly in writing (see clause 71(2)). The relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation is not required to accept an application and may cancel or suspend the registration of a vehicle, in accordance with Part 4 of the Bill (see clause 71(3)). It is expected that the terms of a tollway billing arrangement or registration agreement would provide for the cancellation or suspension of the arrangement or agreement if the person fails to comply with their obligations under it (for example, the obligation to keep their account in balance).

A person is guilty of an offence against clause 69(1) if the registration of the vehicle, or a tollway billing arrangement that covers the vehicle, has been cancelled or suspended at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed. It is a defence to an offence against clause 69(1) if the driver believed on reasonable grounds that at the time of the offence the vehicle was registered or that the tollway billing arrangement was not suspended (see clause 69(4)). It is also a defence if the driver received an invoice in respect of the trip in question and the invoice was paid in full by the driver (see clause 69(6)).

The consequences of a failure to pay an infringement penalty or fine in respect of the offence under section 69(1) include that a person may be imprisoned. In circumstances where a vehicle is driven on the North East Link tollway when registration of the vehicle is suspended or cancelled because the customer is unable to comply with their obligations under a tollway billing arrangement or registration agreement, the provisions of the Bill have the potential to lead to imprisonment for an offence committed in circumstances where there was a failure to comply with a contractual obligation.

However, the relevant provisions will only impose a criminal liability on a person who commits the offence of driving on the tollway without having entered into a tollway billing arrangement or registration agreement, or where such an arrangement or agreement was suspended or cancelled. The suspension or cancellation itself does not give rise to the offence. Further, the effect of the defence to the tolling offence is that criminal liability can only arise where there is both a failure or inability to perform the contractual obligation and the driving of a vehicle or trailer on the tollway with no reasonable ground for believing that the tollway billing arrangement was not suspended.

Further, if the right is limited any limitation on the right is reasonable having regard to the fact that the Bill provides for the following additional safeguards:

• Clause 70(1) provides that only one criminal offence may be commenced, and only one infringement notice issued, in respect of a tolling offence constituted by the driving of any one vehicle in a toll zone in any prescribed period. This imposes a ‘cap’ of one offence per vehicle per prescribed period, on the number of tolling offences that the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation may refer to the enforcement agency. This is consistent with the position under the Melbourne City Link Act 1995, the EastLink Project Act 2004 and the West Gate Tunnel (Truck Bans and Traffic Management) Act 2019.

• Clauses 97, 98 and 68 of the Bill will require the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation, as a condition of being able to receive and use information from the Secretary for debt recovery activities other than requesting payment of a toll or toll administration fee, to comply with any requirements for debt recovery published by the Minister in the Government Gazette. It is intended that these requirements will ensure that the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation has appropriate arrangements in place for dealing with tollway users who suffer financial hardship, and that they will prevent the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation from requesting the issue of an infringement notice or the commencement of proceedings for an offence where the toll and toll administration fee to which the tolling offence relates is the subject of a hardship application or a complaint or dispute.

Those safeguards are expected to minimise the number of infringement notices issued and court proceedings commenced for tolling offences in relation to the North East Link tollway, in line with the tolling offences on City Link, EastLink and the West Gate Tunnel. These safeguards also significantly mitigate the risk of a person being imprisoned for tolling offences, particularly those suffering from financial hardship preventing them from meeting contractual obligations under a tollway billing arrangement or registration agreement.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that, to the extent that the provisions in Divisions 4 and 5 of Part 4 of the Bill may limit the right to protection from imprisonment for an inability to perform contractual obligations under section 21(8) of the Charter, any such limitation is reasonable and demonstratively justifiable having regard to the matters set out in section 7(2) of the Charter.

Section 25(1)—Presumption of innocence

Section 25(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

A number of provisions of the Bill engage the presumption of innocence under section 25(1) of the Charter because they have the effect of:

• imposing a legal onus on the defendant in relation to certain defences to tolling offences under the Bill; and

• placing an evidentiary onus on the defendant with respect to certain matters relating to such offences.

However, the presumption of innocence is in any case not an absolute right and may be made subject to limitations which are reasonable and demonstrably justifiable.

(a) Defences to tolling offence

Clause 69(1) of the Bill provides that it is an offence to drive a vehicle in a toll zone unless the vehicle is registered in respect of that toll zone by the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation at the relevant time.

Clause 69(4) and (6) set out defences to that offence where the driver proves that:

• he or she believed on reasonable grounds at the time the offence was allegedly committed that the vehicle was registered with the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation or was otherwise covered by a tollway billing arrangement that was not suspended at the time of committing of the offence; or

• the driver was issued an invoice in respect of the trip in question and that that invoice was paid in full in the manner and in the time permitted by the invoice.

Clauses 69(4) and (6) impose a legal onus of proof on the defendant as the defendant is required to prove the matters identified in the relevant defence and, therefore, may limit the rights under section 25(1) of the Charter.

If the right is limited, the limitation is reasonable and justifiable for the following reasons:

• The matters in relation to which the defendant bears the legal burden are matters within the knowledge and/or control of the defendant, including that:

o the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that the vehicle was registered or covered by a tollway billing arrangement; or

o the defendant received, and paid in full, an invoice in respect of the relevant trip (which may have been paid to another toll road operator under a tollway billing arrangement).

• Conversely, it would be difficult for the prosecution to prove these matters to the standard required.

• The offence relates to the participation by an individual in a regulated activity (driving on a toll road) from which they intend to derive benefit and therefore it is appropriate that the individual also accept some risk that they may have to account for apparent wrongdoing in connection with that activity.

I note that clause 69 reflects equivalent tolling offence provisions in the Melbourne City Link Act 1995, the EastLink Project Act 2004 and the West Gate Tunnel (Truck Bans and Traffic Management) Act 2019.

(b) Operator onus offence

Clause 89 of the Bill provides that the offence of driving unregistered in a toll zone is an “operator onus” offence for the purposes of Part 6AA of the Road Safety Act 1986. Part 6AA establishes the operator onus system, which is based on the principle that the registered operator of a vehicle or trailer at the time of an offence should be responsible and liable for the offence. However, the registered operator can avoid liability if he or she establishes that at the time of the offence, he or she was not responsible and either:

• provides information sufficient to identify and locate the person driving or in charge of the vehicle; or

• explains why he or she cannot with reasonable diligence ascertain the identity of the person who was driving or in charge of the vehicle.

The effect of this is that any person named by the registered operator of a vehicle may be found guilty of the offence as if he or she were the driver of the vehicle.

Clause 89 (and Part 6AA of the Road Safety Act 1986) may limit the presumption of innocence, however the right to be presumed innocent is not an absolute right and may be made subject to limitations which are reasonable and demonstrably justifiable. Any limitation is reasonable and justifiable for the following reasons:

• To the extent that clause 89 may be said to extend the operation of Part 6AA of the Road Safety Act 1986, any such extension is of the geographical application of that Part 6AA to a new road. Part 6AA of the Road Safety Act 1986 is routinely extended in this way. The operator onus provisions apply generally to speeding and certain other traffic offences. Such offences apply on all declared roads, and most are created by erecting signs or other traffic control devices. The geographical operation of Part 6AA is therefore extended every time a new road is declared, traffic sign erected or speed limit imposed.

• There are appropriate safeguards in the nomination process, including that:

o the operator of the vehicle is required to provide reasons for the belief that the person they are nominating had control and/or possession of the vehicle at the relevant time;

o the authorised tolling person or enforcement official must accept the nomination as effective in order for it to have any consequence; and

o the making of false and misleading statements in a statement is an offence under clause 65 of the Bill.

• The defendant has an opportunity to prove otherwise, as it is a defence to the charge to prove that the defendant made a statement and that an enforcement official ought to have accepted that statement, or that the acceptance ought not to have been cancelled, or that the enforcement official ought to have been satisfied that a nomination was incorrect (s 84BH of the Road Safety Act 1986).

I note that identical operator onus offences already apply to the driving of an unregistered vehicle on City Link and EastLink and the West Gate Tunnel so the effect of the Bill is that the legal consequences for driving an unregistered vehicle on each toll road is the same.

(c) Certificate evidence

Clauses 69(5), 94, 95 and 96 of the Bill are evidentiary provisions which set out how a certificate may be used to provide evidence:

• that a tollway billing arrangement was suspended at a particular time;

• that a vehicle (or trailer) was registered under a particular name at a particular time;

• that a registration number was assigned to a particular vehicle (or trailer) at a particular time;

• as to tolls based on the records of the enforcement agency; and

• as to details of vehicles (or trailers) and billing arrangements based on the records of the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation.

Evidence produced by certificate in accordance with these clauses is presumed to be proof of a matter stated unless evidence to the contrary is raised.

To challenge certificate evidence, a defendant must present or point to evidence to displace the presumption. While these clauses impose an evidential burden on a defendant, the right to be presumed innocent is arguably not limited, because the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the relevant facts for the offence to be established, disprove the defendant’s evidence, and to do so beyond reasonable doubt. If the right is limited, the limitation is reasonable and justifiable because:

• the evidentiary certificate relates to matters recorded in the business records of the relevant North East Link Tolling Corporation, the enforcement agency or the Secretary, that are generally non-contentious;

• if the matter is contentious in the context of a particular proceeding or an offence, the evidence is not conclusive and the defence can lead evidence that is contrary to the certificate; and

• the use of evidentiary certificates streamlines the administration of justice and provides costs savings through not having to call a witness for issues that are not in dispute.

I note these clauses reflect provisions to similar effect in the Melbourne City Link Act 1995, the EastLink Project Act 2004, and the West Gate Tunnel (Truck Bans and Traffic Management) Act 2019, with respect to the tolling offences under those Acts.

(d) Evidence from tolling devices

Clause 93 of the Bill specifies that if the fact that a vehicle was driven or a trailer towed in a toll zone is relevant to an offence or for the recovery of a debt, evidence of that fact indicated or determined by:

• a tolling device that was used in a prescribed manner; or

• an image or message produced by a prescribed process

is admissible as evidence and is proof of the fact, absent evidence to the contrary.

Clause 93 therefore imposes an evidential burden on a defendant to present or point to evidence to disprove the fact sought to be proven by the use of the evidence from tolling devices. While clause 93 imposes an evidential burden on a defendant, the right to be presumed innocent is arguably not limited because the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the relevant facts, disprove evidence presented or pointed to by the defendant, and to do so beyond reasonable doubt.

If the right is limited, the limitation is reasonable and justifiable because:

• the evidence relates to mechanical or technical processes that are generally reliable and non-contentious;

• if the matter is contentious in the context of a particular proceeding or offence, the evidence is not conclusive and the defence can lead evidence that is contrary to the tolling device evidence; and

• the use of detection technology significantly streamlines the administration of justice and reduces costs of detecting and prosecuting offences involving moving vehicles.

I note this clause reflects provisions to similar effect in the EastLink Project Act 2004 and the West Gate Tunnel (Truck Bans and Traffic Management) Act 2019 with respect to the tolling offences under those Acts.

For those reasons, I consider that while the Bill may limit the right to be presumed innocent by section 25(1) of the Charter, any such limitation is reasonable and demonstratively justifiable having regard to the matters set out in section 7(2) of the Charter.

Are the relevant Charter rights actually limited by the Bill?

Provisions of the Bill engage but do not limit rights conferred by sections 8, 13 and 20 of the Charter.

Is any limit on relevant rights by the Bill reasonable and justified under section 7(2)?

Provisions of the Bill engage and may limit the rights conferred by sections 12, 21 and 25(1) of the Charter, but none of those rights is an absolute right and the limitations are reasonable and demonstrably justifiable having regard to the matters set out in section 7(2) of the Charter.

Tim Pallas, MP

Treasurer

Second reading

Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (10:09): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Incorporated speech as follows:

The Project

Mr Speaker, the Government’s North East Link business case was released to the public ahead of the 2018 State Election in which the Andrews Labor Government was roundly endorsed by the people of Victoria for a second term.

The first act of Government after the election was to commence procurement of the project with the release of an Expression of Interest for the primary package, to be delivered as a Public Private Partnership.

The project provides Melbourne with the long-awaited missing freeway link connecting the M80 Ring Road with an upgraded Eastern Freeway to connect Melbourne’s north and east areas.

It is expected to cut travel times by up to 35 minutes and provide for a safe and efficient freeway connection for up to 135,000 vehicles a day.

The project will create more than 10,000 Victorian jobs.

The North East Link is the biggest road transport project in Victoria’s history and forms part of the Government’s unprecedented transport pipeline to assist people to travel around Victoria.

Local Benefits

The North East Link will take 15,000 trucks off local roads every day and reduce congestion in the northern and eastern areas of Melbourne.

Local residents will access more than 25 kilometres of new and upgraded walking and cycling paths as well as upgraded bridges and signalised crossings for walkers and bike riders.

We are spending millions of dollars upgrading sports grounds in Melbourne’s northern and eastern suburbs, to keep local clubs playing and thriving during construction and beyond.

We have listened to the community’s concerns during the Environmental Effects Statement process and have adopted carefully considered measures to ensure minimal disruptions to the local area.

We are constructing five land bridges over the North East Link between Wittman Reserve and Winsor Reserve, creating approximately 8,500 square metres of ‘green’ public open space and we will plant more than 30 000 trees as part of the project.

Contents of the Bill

The Bill establishes the framework for the operation of the North East Link, with the road to open to the public in 2027.

State Tolling Corporation

Firstly, the Bill provides for the designation of the North East Link Road and establishment of the North East Link State Tolling Corporation.

The Bill provides the State Tolling Corporation with various functions and powers including but not limited to the ability to fix and collect tolls and toll administration fees on the North East Link and the operation and management of the North East Link.

Establishing the State Tolling Corporation as a Government entity will build the State’s capability and capacity in relation to the operation and management of toll roads. The State Tolling Corporation will also be the direct recipient of toll revenues.

Tolling Agreement

Secondly, the Bill provides for the tabling and amendment of North East Link tolling agreements between the State and the State Tolling Corporation, which authorise and regulate tolling on the North East Link. Parliament will continue to have oversight of these agreements, which are subject to revocation by resolution to both Houses of Parliament (including any amendments).

Tolling

Thirdly, the Bill provides for collecting and enforcing tolls and toll administration fees on the North East Link.

The Bill enables the State Tolling Corporation to fix and collect tolls in accordance with an agreement with the State and request the enforcement agency to commence enforcement measures for a tolling offence if tolls remain unpaid.

The Bill mirrors the enforcement provisions and reforms to toll enforcement adopted in the West Gate Tunnel Bill (Truck Bans and Traffic Management) Act 2019.

Other changes

Finally, the Bill introduces a number of changes to other Acts, the most notable being conferring on the State Tolling Corporation various functions and powers of a road authority under the Road Management Act 2004 consistent with other toll road operators.

Parts of the Bill

Part 1 deals with preliminary matters, including the purposes, objects and commencement of the Bill, designation of the North East Link road and interaction with the Transport Integration Act 2010.

Part 2 establishes the North East Link State Tolling Corporation and sets out its functions, powers and governance structure.

Part 3 provides for publication, tabling and revocation of North East Link tolling agreements and any amendments.

Part 4 deals with tolling, including the fixing and collecting of tolls and toll administration fees and tolling enforcement.

Part 5 deals with administration, legal proceedings and enforcement.

Part 6 provides for the making of regulations.

Part 7 sets out amendments to other Acts.

The Bill provides the framework for the operation of the North East Link by the State Tolling Corporation, a project that will deliver significant benefits to the State of Victoria.

I commend the Bill to the house.

Ms KEALY (Lowan) (10:09): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Thursday, 19 March.