Tuesday, 5 April 2022
Bills
Puffing Billy Railway Bill 2022
Puffing Billy Railway Bill 2022
Second reading
Debate resumed on motion of Ms SYMES:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources) (16:57): I would like to make some comments on the amendments that Mr Davis has foreshadowed he will move in committee and speak to them. There have been some discussions between members here and members in the other place, and I think we have a resolution that everyone can agree is a reasonable compromise and something that ensures that the integrity of the reforms that this bill has within it is preserved but some of the concerns around appropriate input of community groups with a long history, passion and deep knowledge about the operation of the Puffing Billy railway are given due consideration. So I thank all members for their contribution to the debate on this bill this afternoon. It has been a bit of a trip down memory lane for a few members. For some members this is about the strength of their local economy, for some members this is about an iconic tourist experience and for some it is a matter of some great sentimentality.
In terms of the amendments, what I would like to do is ask that my amendments be circulated.
Government amendments circulated by Ms PULFORD pursuant to standing orders.
Ms PULFORD: The member for Evelyn in the other place, who is the shadow minister, has been having some discussions with the minister who has carriage of this bill, Minister Pakula. And so Ms McLeish—
Mr Ondarchie: On a point of order, Acting President, I would just like to correct the minister. I think the member for Eildon is the shadow minister for this, not the member for Evelyn.
Ms PULFORD: Thank you. Yes, that is what I meant, the member for Eildon.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Thank you for the correction, Mr Ondarchie.
Ms PULFORD: I think I might be a redistribution behind in my outer-eastern geography, and I apologise. I am from the other side.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Just for the record, the point of order is upheld.
Members interjecting.
Ms PULFORD: Enough help from all of you, thank you. For the purposes of the house’s consideration of this, the amendment is in Mr Davis’s name. There is an amendment to clause 6 to make some minor changes to the language to insert the words ‘and develop’—clause 6, page 5—and there is another to insert the word ‘volunteers’ in line 19 of clause 6, page 5. The government is happy to accept those amendments in Mr Davis’s name.
Amendment 3 in Mr Davis’s name goes to the proposal around a stakeholder consultative committee. Following some discussions between parties and members I have a house amendment that is very, very similar in every respect to Ms McLeish’s amendment but for some minor changes which she told me are acceptable to her. So I think we have some agreement to proceed with the house amendment on how the consultative committee would be established and some direction provided through this amendment on its composition, its meeting frequency and the like. When we get to the committee stage we can get into that, if people are interested.
The Puffing Billy Railway Bill 2022 represents a couple of things. I think it represents a really challenging and difficult period for those in the community who have a long association with Puffing Billy. There have been some really awful events that have been profoundly impactful for some people. I would like to recognise the efforts of my parliamentary colleague John Eren, who was the Minister for Tourism and Major Events, the minister with carriage of this legislation, at a really, really dark time in Puffing Billy’s history. It was Mr Eren’s work that put in place the commencement of the reform that led to the legislation before us today.
But the other thing that this bill does is modernise and provide appropriate arrangements that will ensure ongoing management and sustainability of something that is very, very special to all of us. My in-laws lived a very long time in Belgrave South. You could often see Puffing Billy going past and hear Puffing Billy going past. My sister-in-law’s business is a stone’s throw from where the tickets are collected. I have never quite been mad enough to participate in that iconic fun run, where people race along, but I have certainly dangled my legs out and I have certainly ridden with my children on Puffing Billy. Indeed I rode on Puffing Billy as a child with my parents too, and I am sure that that is actually a really common Puffing Billy story and experience. Across generations this is a really, really special outing and a lovely thing, and so the work that has been undertaken to preserve the strength and the standing in the community and the confidence that we can all have in Puffing Billy is going to be so important to preserve its future so that the next generation can dangle their legs and can ride with their mums and dads or their grandparents or whoever they like.
The bill, as members I think well know, establishes a new principal act, the Puffing Billy Railway Act 2022, introduces a framework for the ongoing management and sustainability of this iconic railway, changes the name of the board and modernises the governance and reporting in ways that would be I think familiar to all members—a modern and appropriate set of governance arrangements.
The bill updates the functions, changes the name of persons appointed to the board to directors from members and removes ambiguity with members of the Puffing Billy Preservation Society, and I know people have spoken through the course of the debate about the important work that members of that group have done in safeguarding and nurturing this iconic experience for such a very long time. Transitioning to a skills-based directorship, again, is something that will be very familiar to members from other reforms, other pieces of legislation. It is best governance practice to have a skills-based board, and many of our statutes reflect that. It will also create the power that enables the making of regulations to support the day-to-day operation.
It is a really important piece of legislation, a really important set of reforms and something of a turning of the page for people who have been involved, for good and for bad, with Puffing Billy through its history, so I look forward to going into the amendments in a bit more detail in the committee stage, should members wish to. But I commend this bill to the house.
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Committed.
Committee
Clause 1 (17:07)
Mr DAVIS: Can I just briefly summarise where we are, thank the Minister for Employment for her comments now at the end of the second reading and indicate that there have been significant discussions between the government and in particular the Shadow Minister for Tourism, Cindy McLeish, the member for Eildon, and she has certainly put very forcefully the case that there needs to be better representation of volunteers. Consequently our amendments were circulated, and I agree with the minister’s summation that the first two amendments that we have proposed are ones that are replicated in the government’s amendments. I also agree that the new clause, clause 3, which is in both sets of amendments, is substantially the same, establishing a stakeholder consultative committee and working to ensure that the committee meets twice a year and has greater representation from a broad community section.
There are, however, a couple of differences that I want to draw the chamber’s attention to and seek some assurance from the minister on. I should just begin by again noting the work that has been done between the acting minister in this circumstance—given the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events is laid low with COVID—and Ms McLeish. There has been a large measure of agreement achieved. The government’s amendment is a little neater, if I can put it that way, in terms of some of the sub-points in (3) of amendment 3 in that the new clause actually refers to the relevant acts. Councils are defined, schools are defined and so forth, and that is a neater and more satisfactory drafting solution. So I am happy with that, although I must say I think everyone knew what councils were and what schools were.
The point of contention, though, is the Puffing Billy Preservation Society, and I note and I appreciate that the government has put that on the top of the list. I will read amendment 3, point (3):
(3) The stakeholder consultative committee must consist of members who represent persons whose interests the Board considers may be affected by the matters referred to in subsection (2), including members who represent the following—
(a) the Puffing Billy Preservation Society;
(b) community service groups;
(c) local heritage groups;
(d) volunteers of the Puffing Billy Railway;
(e) local trader associations, chambers of commerce and tourism organisations;
(f) communities located near land forming part of the Puffing Billy Railway;
(g) Councils, within the meaning of the Local Government Act 2020—
as I have pointed out—
…
(h) schools …
(i) children and young people associated with the Puffing Billy Railway.
(4) The stakeholder consultative committee must meet at least twice each year.
That last one is in common with our proposed amendments. The difference I think that is substantive—and I will seek some assurances from the minister in lieu of moving our amendments—is that our amendments ask for at least three members of the Puffing Billy Preservation Society to be on the stakeholder consultative committee.
I will just lay out my concerns baldly here. What concerns me is that (3)(a) in the government’s amendments does not have any such requirements, so it could be that among the long list of choices there no-one from the Puffing Billy Preservation Society is appointed. It could be that one or two but not three are appointed. It could be that in some years the stakeholder consultative committee is completely bereft of members of the Puffing Billy Preservation Society. I am not necessarily suggesting that that is the government’s intent; in fact I suspect after the discussions it is not the government’s intent. But let me be again bald here: it is not about the current minister that I am concerned; it is a future minister of whatever colour—maybe a future Labor minister even—who has not shared the discussions that have gone on on this matter, and they may not appoint somebody or the board may not appoint somebody who is a member of the Puffing Billy Preservation Society. So that is my concern, that there is no clarity about that. It may be that the minister can provide some assurance on that, and I think it would be valuable to have that assurance in Hansard.
Ms PULFORD: Mr Davis, your fears for the wellbeing of my colleague might be greater than the state of his health, but in the spirit of the discussions that I have had with Ms McLeish I certainly can, I guess, give you some context as to why the government is moving this house amendment and why it has in doing so accepted Ms McLeish’s proposal in substance. You are accurate in pointing out that difference in terms of how prescriptive it is. We are moving here to a skills-based model rather than a representative model, but I would also want to provide you with some reassurance, I think, of the stakeholder consultative committee subgroups listed there. It is a very conscious decision that the Puffing Billy Preservation Society be listed first, and it would be our intention—it is our intention—that that voice be part of that stakeholder consultative committee.
Mr DAVIS: Let me be clear. I thank the minister for that point, but I just would not want to see a point in the future where there was no member of that group on the stakeholder committee, and I am hoping that that is not possible.
Ms PULFORD: I do not really have anything to add. I mean, that was more a comment than a question. I guess just to perhaps close out this discussion, our intent in moving this amendment would be that those voices all be part of and be heard through that consultative committee process and that that be a really important input to the new skills-based board.
Mr DAVIS: Just to press it a tiny bit further, without being tedious, I think there are nine groups that are denominated there. The preservation society would be a bit more sharply represented than one in nine, I would imagine. That is what I have been told.
Ms PULFORD: That is probably a level of prescription that is difficult for me to confirm for a future minister. It might be one of my colleagues, and it might be one of your colleagues, but the establishment of this stakeholder consultative committee that is being proposed by Ms McLeish will be enshrined in this legislation, and the voices that are to be heard through that will be enshrined in this legislation. This is a substantive change, and that will be there in the statute. I thank the members of the opposition, Mr Davis and Ms McLeish, for the constructive way that we have come to a spot today where all of those voices can be heard but the reform to a skills-based board—the integrity of that aspect of this legislation and this reform—can be preserved.
Mr DAVIS: Again, I just reiterate our thanks to the government for the discussions and note our intention has been clear all the way through to ensure that the volunteers are represented and are seen to have a significant role and that that input is there. To the extent that this is a very significant step in the right direction, we welcome that. I think I have made my point clear, and any future minister can see the intent that we certainly have with these steps.
Ms BURNETT-WAKE: I do have some general questions, if I may. ‘Puffing Billy Railway’ is defined in the bill as:
any land vested in or owned, leased or managed by the Board; and
any rail infrastructure, facilities or rolling stock owned, leased or managed by the Board …
This definition is all about ownership. Why wasn’t ‘Puffing Billy Railway’ defined as ‘the narrow 2-foot, 6-inch railway between Belgrave and Gembrook and the associated land and assets’? Because of this broad definition, technically if land is owned in the CBD, this could be classified as the ‘Puffing Billy Railway’. I am looking to find out why the definition is so abroad. It could have some unintended consequences.
Ms PULFORD: Okay. Let me see if I can answer this to Ms Burnett-Wake’s satisfaction. The bill defines ‘Puffing Billy Railway’ as:
any land vested in or owned, leased or managed by the Board; and
any rail infrastructure, facilities or rolling stock owned, leased or managed by the Board …
as the member has pointed out. The bill includes a broad definition to ensure that all land and infrastructure of the railway is captured, reflecting that the railway is broader than the track and rolling stock itself and includes, for instance, the Lakeside visitor centre. This reflects and supports the broad responsibility of the board for all actions taking place on land and infrastructure that they manage, including maintaining safety.
Ms BURNETT-WAKE: I understand what you are doing, but it is quite broad, and it could still capture if an asset is owned outside the railway corridor, so I am just seeking some assurances that it is really defined in that rail corridor.
Ms PULFORD: I might take some quick advice on that, but it is certainly not our intention that the scope of the board’s activities would involve a whole lot of extraneous property development, for instance. I think they have got plenty to do with their gorgeous railway.
I am advised that one factor in our thinking here has been that providing a narrower definition of ‘Puffing Billy Railway’ may have unintended consequences for the operation of the new bill, including constraining the scope of the board’s activities, so that is something that we were mindful of. Would you like me to check the other bits of land theoretical idea?
Ms BURNETT-WAKE: If you do not mind.
Ms PULFORD: To the very best of the government’s knowledge, we have no reason to believe that Puffing Billy has ambitions to get into a whole bunch of activities other than—
Mr Davis: Get into broad gauge, for example.
Ms PULFORD: Yes, get into broad gauge or get into housing redevelopment or building cinemas or anything. I think every signal we have had from the community, from volunteers and from everyone involved throughout is that they are happy with their iconic railway. That the scope of the bill is extended to the scope of things the board has responsibility for is actually a pretty common set of governance arrangements. I think that is probably the best explanation I can give you of that.
Ms BURNETT-WAKE: Just a follow-up question to that: what if the preservation society or the board obtained some further property, like the Walhalla railway? Could that be then included?
Ms PULFORD: In theory, yes. But, again, we have no reason to believe that is within the breadth of anyone’s ambitions. This is a bit beyond the extent of my briefings and preparations for this committee stage, but should they be suddenly desiring of other heritage railway assets around the state, I suspect that that would engage other legislation and that would ultimately be a question that would come before the house. Again, in very general terms, were a board overseeing an organisation that is subject to an act of the Parliament to start going beyond the intended scope of their legislation, then it would be, I guess, available to them to talk to the government of the day about an amendment to their act. But we are talking about some pretty hypothetical scenarios here, and we have no reason to believe that that is in anyone’s short-, medium- or even long-term plans. I think the lovely Walhalla people might have feelings about that.
Ms BURNETT-WAKE: Just one more. Clause 27 allows the board to grant a lease, licence or easement over any land vested in or owned, leased or managed by the board. Is it the intention of the government to allow the board to grant proprietary interests in land not owned by the board, and where does this leave the rightful owner?
Ms PULFORD: No, it is not.
Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 (17:25)
Mr DAVIS: I move:
1. Clause 6, page 5, line 1, after “maintain” insert “and develop”.
2. Clause 6, page 5, line 19, after “Board” insert “, volunteers”.
Ms PULFORD: As I indicated in the summing-up, the government is happy to support these. They are quite minor in effect, but they certainly do nothing to offend the intent of what we are here to do today.
Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 7 to 9 agreed to.
New clause (17:27)
Ms PULFORD: I move:
3. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 9—
“9A Stakeholder consultative committee
(1) The Board must establish a stakeholder consultative committee in relation to the Puffing Billy Railway within 12 months of the commencement of this section.
(2) The function of the stakeholder consultative committee is to provide to the Board comments regarding the following matters—
(a) business and strategic matters relating to the Puffing Billy Railway;
(b) the safe operation and management of the Puffing Billy Railway;
(c) the visitor experience provided by the Puffing Billy Railway and the surrounding region;
(d) the recruitment, engagement, recognition and retention of volunteers;
(e) the maintenance and preservation of the heritage of the Puffing Billy Railway.
(3) The stakeholder consultative committee must consist of members who represent persons whose interests the Board considers may be affected by the matters referred to in subsection (2), including members who represent the following—
(a) the Puffing Billy Preservation Society;
(b) community service groups;
(c) local heritage groups;
(d) volunteers of the Puffing Billy Railway;
(e) local trader associations, chambers of commerce and tourism organisations;
(f) communities located near land forming part of the Puffing Billy Railway;
(g) Councils, within the meaning of the Local Government Act 2020, whose municipal districts include land forming part of the Puffing Billy Railway;
(h) schools, within the meaning of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006, that are located near land forming part of the Puffing Billy Railway;
(i) children and young people associated with the Puffing Billy Railway.
(4) The stakeholder consultative committee must meet at least twice each year.”.
This new clause reflects my comments in the second-reading stage and our earlier discussion in the committee stage. I do not have anything more to say except that I commend this bill to the house and thank all members for assisting us to come up with a good resolution to this question.
Mr DAVIS: The opposition supports this change. We have obviously made our points known about the numbers of different groups, but we will support the government’s amendment.
New clause agreed to; clauses 10 to 47 agreed to.
Reported to house with amendments.
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 with amendments.