Thursday, 2 May 2019
Bills
Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment Bill 2019
Bills
Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment Bill 2019
Second reading
Debate resumed.
Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:44): I rise to make a contribution in regard to the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment Bill 2019. There have been a number of well-made contributions in the chamber today that articulated very well the Andrews Labor government’s commitment to modernising Melbourne through a number of large infrastructure projects. One project in particular that has been commented on today was the North East Link.
The bill that is being proposed, as an overall objective, will do a number of things. The scope is quite narrow in the sense that it provides early opportunities to identify any issues that might arise by the placement of utilities that may not have been foreseen. That could be seen as a positive thing simply because it will avoid unnecessary delays; so that can only be seen as a positive thing. It allows utility companies to enter into early discussions with major infrastructure builders such as the North East Link road-building authority. Whoever the successful bidders are, utilities will be able to have those early discussions.
One of the objectives I have just indicated is that it is designed in part to enable interfaces between declared major transport projects. Importantly the government will need to identify a major transport project by declaring any project as a major transport project. So it does not apply by and large to just any project; it has to be a project that is declared as a major infrastructure project. As I said, once that process has been undertaken, it will then allow utility infrastructure to be identified and any issues to be resolved in the planning phase for those projects. That enhances the ability to identify any potentially unidentified utility infrastructure as a result of early planning. Potentially some of those large infrastructure projects may even be completed on time and under budget, which would be a fantastic result for the state of Victoria.
The other objective of the bill is to allow for best practice. It will ensure that interfaces are considered where there is the greatest scope to come up with an option that best serves the interests of the project and the utilities considered. By contrast, if interfaces are only considered during the construction phase then there may be limited scope to avoid unnecessary costs and unnecessary delays and disruptions to services.
I might just take the opportunity to talk about an example where these sorts of situations can arise and cause unnecessary delays, in particular the situation we see in Sydney with the building of the light rail project. There has been a long, ongoing problem there with the lack of identification over electricity supply, and an intractable dispute has in fact developed as a consequence of that. A project that perhaps could have been completed a long time ago is in fact still under dispute and has ground to a halt. This very bill is actually designed to give early consideration to those things to avoid those complications; it is a significant matter.
We need to take into account the way that our cities and suburbs may have been designed in the past. Of course some placement of early utilities may have arisen from the way suburbs were previously constructed, and perhaps those things may not be identified anymore. Parts of Melbourne, for example, might have been developed way back in the 1840s. Perhaps what occurred back then was that town councils were responsible for some of those utilities, which may then have been passed on to local gas or electricity generation companies that perhaps no longer exist. That is perhaps, through no fault of anyone really, just the haphazard way that things developed, but now there may be unforeseen problems with the early identification of any potential utilities.
The bill also allows for more efficient arrangements to be put in place to identify these utilities. Currently the act requires that the project authority must give notice to every utility company. We believe this is an unnecessary burden as many utilities may only have infrastructure in limited geographical areas. A more efficient approach would be for all parties to require the project authority to take all reasonable steps to identify all utility infrastructure that may be affected by the project, and then the project authority can engage with those utilities that it believes may be affected by a declared project. So again this goes to comments that I made earlier. This is about the early identification of any utilities—setting in train a process whereby they can be identified—and then putting planning in place to remove or relocate those facilities. For example, existing time frames could be used more efficiently, and, again, that is a feature of this bill that will facilitate this to occur.
Currently the project authority or the utility may only give written notice of the intention to commence negotiations 30 business days after the project authority first provides notice of the potential effects of the project on utility infrastructure—so that is 30 business days after the project authority first provides that notice. If the utility fails to respond to a notice issued by the project authority within that 30-business-day time frame, then the utility infrastructure is deemed to be unnotified infrastructure. That provides another layer of complexity there and again a delay to the time frames. One of the objects of this bill is to speed up or provide a more streamlined process with notifications. Under the proposed amendments the 50-business-day negotiation period can be triggered as soon as the utility responds to the notice provided and supplies information requested by the project authority. This is a much more sensible approach.
The proposed amendments would also give the project authority discretion to provide more time for utilities to comply with or provide information on the utility infrastructure. As I mentioned, some town planning arrangements may have been historic. The ownership of those utility infrastructure placements may have been passed from authority to authority, and it may take some length of time to contact relevant organisations or access additional plans, depending on where they may be held, to find out appropriate and relevant information that allows for the proper identification of these utility infrastructures. The owner of these utility assets can contact the relevant authority and indicate that they do need more time. That is a sensible approach.
There are also some transitional provisions included in the bill. These provisions also recognise that project authorities for declared projects may have already taken steps to identify utility companies and to notify them that they need to supply information on the location of their infrastructure. Again it just provides for a further streamlining and the ability to identify these assets. The utility companies themselves or the organisations that own these assets may have already complied with the request for information and have commenced discussions with the project authority about what should be done to protect, remove or relocate utility infrastructure. Again the bill allows for the early facilitation of discussions and identification of these infrastructure assets.
The transitional provisions will formally recognise that when the required exchange of information has already occurred it does not need to be repeated to satisfy the requirements of the act—again, another commonsense approach to this matter. If the parties have already entered into early discussions and early identification of assets, that entire process does not need to be started again. That is again a mechanism aimed at facilitation of major infrastructure projects.
There are also other provisions which are eminently sensible and that relate to earlier dispute resolution if agreement cannot be reached. Dispute resolution mechanisms are always worthwhile. They allow parties to enter into a process whereby early discussion can potentially head off or truncate any protracted disputation, and that is always to be welcomed. For example, the current act provides for a 50-day negotiation period. This is when agreement cannot be reached between parties. If parties cannot reach agreement within the 50-business-day period, then either party may inform the other that a dispute in fact exists. It is proposed to enable either party to trigger dispute resolution within this period by notifying the other party that the dispute does in fact exist. As I said, that will aid and assist in avoiding unnecessary delays in circumstances where all reasonable endeavours to negotiate resolutions or solutions that might be acceptable to both parties have been undertaken but agreement cannot be reached. It is a useful process that allows and encourages people to facilitate early discussions. It allows and encourages parties to explore alternatives and options around identification and perhaps relocation of infrastructure assets. That is to be welcomed. Again there is a process and a time frame around that where perhaps the parties are at a stalemate and both parties have undertaken reasonable arrangements but the agreement can still not be reached. That is a welcome process.
I know there has been much discussion around potentially what this might mean to communities and how communities might be impacted by this, but as I have indicated, the scope of the bill is indeed very narrow. The narrowness is confined to simply identification of infrastructure assets. As I have commented on earlier, the North East Link is the biggest road project in this state’s history. It is a significant project. It will allow for the completion of the ring-road between the Eastern Freeway and the M80 ring-road, and it will allow for the connecting of the growing northern and south-eastern suburbs. It is a major infrastructure upgrade, and because it is a large project no doubt there will be a number of utility infrastructure placements that will be within the project footprint. That is something that will need to be identified. This bill allows for the early facilitation of appropriate discussions between the relevant authorities to allow that to occur.
Just as an example to date, the North East Link Project has entered into or is negotiating agreements with 17 utilities. That is a rather large number of utility companies to have to deal with. You can imagine, just by looking at that alone, that the project is indeed a large project. A large amount of utility infrastructure has been identified there. That is a large task just in and of itself, to try to allow for the relocation or removal of that infrastructure. It includes partnerships and resourcing agreements to enable the parties to resource the up-front planning required for utility identification and management. Identification is important, but there needs to then be a planning process. Whether the parties come together and look at how these utilities might be planned in terms of the removal and what the time frames might involve, whether there are other contracting arrangements that need to be undertaken to facilitate planning and whether other arrangements need to be undertaken, it is quite a large task. Early planning and identification will no doubt save time and hopefully facilitate the early completion of the project. That is just one aspect.
The bill will help the project authority and utility companies to get resolution of these types of agreements sooner. This will ensure that the agreements with utility companies can be locked in before tenders are finalised. As I commented earlier regarding the example of the light rail project in Sydney, this will be critical, because tenders to a project road builder, such as for North East Link, actually assist the tenderers in understanding what they may have to contemplate when they are in fact bidding for a project such as North East Link. That is going to assist everyone. It will assist communities, it will assist the road builders and successful tenderers, and it will obviously assist the government as well.
Bidders can therefore factor these proposals into their assessment of the project—into the costs and risks associated with utility infrastructure removal, relocation and protection. It is a very important aspect of this legislation. It allows for the full and transparent identification of potential risks that may have been unforeseen had it not been for this process. It is a very useful and helpful process. As I indicated, this will reduce the risk premium that bidders would otherwise price into their proposals, resulting in cost savings to the state and also to the successful bidders. (Time expired)
Sitting suspended 1.00 p.m. until 2.03 p.m.
Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:03): I rise in support of the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment Bill 2019, which is essentially about making sure that Victoria continues its role as the leader in infrastructure delivery. The proposed bill addresses the issues that often arise between utilities and project proponents in the identification of utilities that are affected by declared major project development.
Utilities such as power, gas and water are the framework of the growth of our cities, suburbs and towns. The bill identifies these and other services under the authority of the Victorian legislation. The bill enables a streamlining of negotiations, which are often drawn out and sometimes result in the Victorian taxpayer paying a premium to utility owners, some of which are owned by or managed by overseas entities.
The bill is about sensible project planning. It recognises and responds to the needs of early identification and intervention. It recognises the need to provide utility owners, their customers and those delivering the declared infrastructure with certainty and resilient planning. The bill enables a more articulate approach to resolving disputes early, and in doing so it opens the way for more resilient project planning and execution.
Victoria has done more public-private partnerships to deliver major infrastructure projects than the other states. We have seen landmark projects that have fostered innovation and created many benefits from competitive bidding, world-class design and smart project planning. Smart project planning that is not rushed and smart project planning that is carefully considered are the critical success factors in major transport projects.
Just as we must ensure that there is additional provision for public transport to offset the impacts of construction disruptions, we also need to make sure there is certainty and early planning in the way utilities are managed, altered and/or relocated in a major project. The bill reduces the potential for negotiations to be drawn out. It provides mechanisms for disputes to be resolved without the unnecessary delays that ultimately create costs for utility customers and the Victorian public.
As a proponent of most major transport infrastructure projects, the government on behalf of Victorians can enable better outcomes for major projects. As an example, this bill could help ensure the early delivery of the dedicated busway as part of the North East Link Project. That is smart planning, and it would be disastrous if such an important element of the project that would help to reduce congestion during construction and promote alternative transport was held up because of issues and delays in managing utilities.
Given the need to ensure Victoria leads with smart project planning, the bill is about changing those project processes that were introduced a decade ago and are now well behind the best practice approaches used in major infrastructure delivery. It is about swapping the lawyers picnics—drawn out delays and unnecessary costs—for sensible, fair and efficient processes. Most of all it is about helping to ensure our major declared projects benefit from smart planning.
Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan) (14:07): I rise today to make a very brief contribution on the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment Bill 2019 at rather short notice, so bear with me. Obviously this is an important bill. The Andrews Labor government has an extensive and important infrastructure plan in place that we will be rolling out. Significantly, the North East Link is the biggest road project in the state’s history and something that will complete the ring-road between the Eastern Freeway and the M80 ring-road, connecting the growing north and the south-eastern suburbs. So this is a significant piece of legislation that will actually result in traffic management in Melbourne being much more manageable and connecting growing communities across our metropolitan area and beyond. Of course with these major road projects that the government is committed to delivering it is incredibly important that the planning for these projects is as efficient as it can possibly be. This is the major reason for this bill coming before the Council today.
Essentially what this bill seeks to do is to deliver proper planning for the delivery of power and utilities at the early stages of project planning, and this is obviously something that makes an incredible amount of sense when we are spending large amounts of money and resources in delivering these major infrastructure projects. It is incredibly important that the planning process is properly approached and that we are ensuring that that includes proper planning with utilities services so that these projects can move forward without delay and continue to deliver the kind of road network that modern Melbourne needs.
Obviously the government is committed to ensuring that the projects that we have announced and that we have funded are projects that have proper planning in place and deliver in terms of utilities that are brought into the regime earlier. Some steps can be moved through more quickly, and it makes sense to do that. The bill does not change the rights of utilities, just the timing of the utility notification process. In doing so, it ensures that consumers are not disadvantaged under the current system.
In closing, I would just like to reiterate that there is a very simple aim of this piece of legislation. This bill simply seeks to in a very logical and uncomplicated way ensure that our road projects are delivered and planned for, taking into account the significant planning that has to occur before projects are rolled out in relation to utility companies in particular. I commend the bill to the house.
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Roads, Minister for Road Safety and the TAC, Minister for Fishing and Boating) (14:11): I would like to thank members for their contributions to the debate. It is an important and very specific piece of legislation that will support the government’s delivery of major projects, an area in which we have a significant agenda and a significant and busy program of works ahead. I thank members for their support for the intent of what we are seeking to do here this afternoon.
I would take the opportunity to respond to a couple of points made by Mr Davis. I know these are matters that he has indicated he might wish to canvass in the committee stage, but I take the opportunity to respond now because questions that Mr Davis did pose during his contribution are outside the scope of this bill. This bill does have a very narrow scope. It only makes changes to part 7 of the existing Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009. Mr Davis was asking about the declaration of projects. I would indicate that the declaration of projects is provided for under part 2 of the act. The bill makes no changes to that part of the act, only part 7, and so the questions that he has asked are somewhat outside the scope of the bill.
But let me take the opportunity to respond now. I think we will be kinder to the standing orders if I do it now. You can decide whether this satisfies your questions and we can proceed accordingly, Mr Davis. Mr Davis asserts that the government has taken to using the act in a way that is contrary to its original intent, declaring projects for the purpose of providing project authorities with access to delivery powers.
Mr Davis: Routinely is what I’m saying.
Ms PULFORD: Routinely, yes. The fact is that it has always been possible under this act either to declare a project to use the one-stop shop pathway and the delivery powers or to declare a project so that it may use delivery powers only. The only changes made to the declaration provisions in part 2 of the act were made by the previous coalition government in 2013. The provisions in this respect have otherwise remained unchanged. The previous coalition government declared the following projects for use of delivery powers only: the Western Highway project, the Melbourne metropolitan tunnel rail project and the Western Highway duplication project. Mr Davis’s concerns that the declaration of projects for delivery powers only is against the spirit of the act is a little contrary to the practices of the government that he was a senior member of.
What Mr Davis, I think, was implying in his contribution was that if the project does not use the one-stop assessment and approval pathways under the act then there is no assessment, no consultation and no engagement with the community. This is not the case, and I think it reflects perhaps a misunderstanding of the one-stop shop pathways that are provided under the act. These pathways are an alternative means for securing the planning and environmental approvals a project may require, depending on its nature, location and potential impacts. If the one-stop shop process is not used, the project authority still needs to obtain relevant planning and environmental approvals in accordance with the prescribed process, so there are no shortcuts as such. When a project authority seeks and obtains planning and environmental approvals under other existing state and commonwealth laws, the authority must comply with the requirements to provide information, notify and consult. The North East Link Project is currently going through this process right now. An environment effects statement, as I am sure members who have been participating in this debate are well aware, has been released and is open for public comment and submission. The EES is on display, has been since 10 April and will be until 30 May.
I gather Mr Davis might not completely agree with our interpretation of the legislation, but I thought I would take the opportunity to make those comments on part 2 of the act before we get into the committee stage and we are dealing with matters in part 7. But again I take the opportunity to thank members for their contribution to the debate on this piece of legislation and look forward to assisting members with any questions or other matters they want to raise in the committee stage, if we are to have one.
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Committed.
Committee
Clause 1 (14:17)
Mr DAVIS: If I can just begin very briefly, the opposition obviously does not oppose this bill. We think there is some merit in it; there are some matters for caution as well. But we do have a number of questions. The first thing is that, Minister, you read out a list of projects where declarations have been made. Would you make available to the chamber a list of all occasions where declarations have been made and which parts of the act have been declared, and the reasons why parts of the act in those cases were not declared?
Ms Pulford: Over what period of time?
Mr DAVIS: Well, since the act began—2009.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister.
Ms PULFORD: Thank you, Deputy President, and belated congratulations on your role. It is the first time I have been in committee since you have been the chair of committees in this Parliament.
Yes, we are happy to provide that information. I will take that question on notice. That might take a little bit to compile. It is all information that is already publicly available but—
Mr Davis interjected.
Ms PULFORD: Yes, we will put it in one place so it is nice and straightforward for people to access.
Mr DAVIS: Could the minister indicate how the decision is made to declare an act, in the first instance, by the Premier—
Ms Pulford: Declare a project.
Mr DAVIS: Sorry, a project, I should say. And, secondly, how the decision is made to declare part or all of the act; and why.
Ms PULFORD: That question is beyond the scope of this bill. I think there are multiple other opportunities through the Parliament for Mr Davis to seek this information, but that does not go to the purpose of this bill or the function of it.
Mr DAVIS: With respect, it does in the sense that we are talking about amending clauses in this bill. The government makes a decision to declare the bill with respect to a certain project, and it often makes a decision to declare part or all of the sections. I want to understand why one section is declared and not another section. It is entirely legitimate to consider amendments to a bill in the context of the whole bill.
Ms PULFORD: The purposes clause is really quite specific:
The purpose of this act is to amend the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009—
(a) to facilitate the earlier engagement of utilities by project authorities in relation to utility infrastructure affected by declared projects; and
(b) to facilitate the earlier negotiation of utility agreements between project authorities and utilities.
So I am really very happy to answer any question you like about this piece of legislation before the house, but I think you are asking for the committee stage to be broadened quite dramatically.
Mr DAVIS: I would say: precisely, Minister. The purpose of it is:
to facilitate … earlier engagement of utilities by project authorities in relation to utility infrastructure … by declared projects …
to facilitate the earlier negotiation of utility agreements between project authorities and utilities.
My point is that the declaration itself is an important part of this, and which sections of the act are declared and which are not and how that decision is arrived at are entirely appropriate questions in consideration of these new changes and the objects of the act. The bureaucrats might say no, but it is not really their choice.
Ms PULFORD: Well, it is not a choice thing; it is a standing orders thing. We are currently considering this piece of legislation and you are asking a question that is quite unrelated to it. I am trying to be helpful; I am not trying to be difficult here. The substantive act deals with these matters, but those are not matters before the house today.
Mr DAVIS: I just record that it is frankly ridiculous to imagine that a bill that amends an act of this nature, amends the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009, does not raise a whole set of questions about when declarations are made and why. Your own purposes clause states ‘to facilitate … earlier engagement’. I am going to scratch my head here. If you want to obstruct and not answer, you are entitled to do it. That will occur, and I will record that I am unhappy with that.
Ms PULFORD: I am not seeking to obstruct; I am not. I have indicated I am happy for our officials to collate for you a list of all of the projects that have been declared, because I think that is important context. This bill indeed names one project in particular in the transition provisions because of the particular point in that project’s delivery that we are at this point in time. But I guess the Deputy President might have a view about how wide-ranging we want to go into the substantive piece of legislation that we are making reasonably modest amendments to today.
Mr DAVIS: I have made my point, and the minister can obstruct. It is a matter for her. The next point I want to make is about that project specifically, the North East Link. There are savings provisions in this to recognise that arrangements have been worked through.
As a broader point about the delivery of the North East Link Project, has the minister met with each of the councils in that project to discuss matters in this bill and to discuss related matters about the project?
Ms PULFORD: Let me just check with the responsible minister’s advisers on that.
I am advised that the answer to your question is yes.
Mr DAVIS: What was the outcome of those discussions? Would the minister share with the house the outcome of those discussions?
Ms PULFORD: Being somebody who was not in those discussions, there are limits to how much I am able to inform you on that. That is perhaps a question I might take on notice for Minister Allan, who may require a moment to reflect on the extent to which those discussions are able to be freely described on the public record and the extent to which those discussions were perhaps more of a private nature. If that would be to Mr Davis’s satisfaction, I could take that on notice and Minister Allan would be able to respond to the extent that she is able to around any outcomes.
Mr DAVIS: Deputy President, with your indulgence, I might pick a couple of case studies that might inform our understanding of how this bill will be implemented. The first one I want to pick is the Toorak Road level crossing removal. It has been announced in recent weeks. It is a rail over road outcome that the community is quite unhappy with. I make that point so that people understand the context. I would ask what discussions the minister has had with the various utilities with respect to that. When did those discussions start, in particular?
Ms PULFORD: In the normal course of events it would be the project team, so in this case it would be the Level Crossing Removal Authority that would be engaging with utilities companies. Again, two of your questions are asking for things like what was discussed at this meeting that I was not at and what meetings or discussions someone other than me has had, so again I offer to take that on notice.
Mr DAVIS: You might want to frame it in this way, if this is helpful. When did the Level Crossing Removal Project or its predecessor, the Level Crossing Removal Authority, begin discussions with the various utilities with respect to that project, and can we have a list, please, of the authorities or the utilities with which they have had discussions?
Ms PULFORD: Again, the details around dates and times of meetings and discussions between the project team and authorities is not information that I have at hand. It is certainly relevant to the intent of the bill, but it does not directly pertain to the legislation before us today, so again I would take the opportunity to take that question on notice for Mr Davis.
Mr DAVIS: In a similar way to the metro rail project, there are a large number of utilities that are impacted through the central city and through other parts of the route of that significant and indeed important project. I wonder if the minister would provide a list of the utilities with which the Metro authority has had contact on these matters.
Ms PULFORD: I indicate to Mr Davis that all utilities companies that are impacted by the delivery of that project are routinely engaged with by the project team, as is the normal course of their work. Again, reflecting on the legislation that is before us today, this is simply about enabling those discussions that already occur to occur earlier and more formally, to provide greater financial certainty for all involved, which will provide—
Mr Davis interjected.
Ms PULFORD: Right. Well, there are probably other ways to do that, Mr Davis.
Mr Davis: Well, it is a legitimate point now, and I want to understand it.
Ms PULFORD: Yes, and you have made your point. Your feelings about the effectiveness of the act are something that you probably talked about a bit during the second-reading debate.
Mr Davis: Sure, but—
Ms PULFORD: But—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Through the Chair.
Ms PULFORD: Yes. We are appropriately chastened, Deputy President. I can certainly assure Mr Davis that all utilities companies impacted by the government’s major transport projects program and delivery are routinely engaged with.
Mr DAVIS: So, Minister, I take it that that means you will provide the list of ones contacted with respect to the metro project? Not necessarily now, but—
Ms PULFORD: I guess my point is this is so routinely done that you are quite possibly asking for every phone call from every person and every email, every note. This is a very broad scope. We have a very, very big range of projects agenda, and if we are going to spend the afternoon having you list them all—there are heaps of them—then I would again make the point that that is beyond the scope of the bill.
Mr DAVIS: A list of utilities that have been contacted formally does not seem beyond the capacity of the minister to provide. That is a very reasonable request—a major project that fits within the scope of some of the government’s agenda. The truth of the matter is the government is seeking to look at ways of facilitating engagement with utility firms, and that is fair enough—we agree with that objective—but the government must have a list. The government at one point in this bill says the project authority ‘must identify all utility infrastructure and utilities’. Well, I think they already do that—that is correct—but as a consequence they can provide a list.
Ms PULFORD: Again, there are a multitude of mechanisms available to a member of Parliament and others available to every member of the community that are, I think, more appropriate ways to seek the information that Mr Davis is seeking in this request about the nature of a project team’s contact with a particular utility company. It is beyond the scope of this bill.
Mr DAVIS: I can only again record the minister obfuscating and not wishing to provide what are very simple details. The authorities must have contacted those utilities. I am sure they have in many cases. I have spoken to some of those utilities about these very matters. It is not news that they have been contacted, but there are many smaller utilities or smaller providers of services that I am interested to see if the government has formally contacted.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister? Mr Davis?
Mr DAVIS: I think I have made my point.
Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 12 agreed to.
Reported to house without amendment.
That the report be now adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Third reading
That the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to.
Read third time.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.