Thursday, 12 May 2022

Bills

Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:41): I rise to speak on the Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. Road traffic death remains the number one killer of children in Australia. Death on our roads does not need to be a certainty. These accidents, these deaths, are preventable. There are more than 150 cities across the world where no kids or adults have died on their roads for five years or more since 2009. We have much to learn. In cities such as Oslo and Helsinki, pedestrian and cyclist deaths were cut to zero in 2019. In Belfast and Edinburgh they have managed to reduce speed crashes and road deaths as well.

I absolutely support the delivery of the road safety strategy but believe that we can go further. The government’s aim of reducing the road toll by 50 per cent by 2030 could be more ambitious. This bill is a step in the right direction and will address the distracted driving that has plagued our roads. I for one know what it is like to be in a head-on collision, being hit by a person at high speed while he was distracted on his phone. By enforcing the use of seatbelts and penalising those caught using handheld devices while driving we can deter these dangerous driving habits. In 2021, 31 people died while not wearing a seatbelt. For most of us, wearing a seatbelt seems obvious, but we cannot become complacent. New South Wales and Queensland have already deployed camera detection technology.

This bill will mean that we can employ discreet cameras to identify drivers illegally using a phone or not wearing a seatbelt. The cameras allow high-resolution images to be captured in all conditions and for those images to be reviewed in real time to detect potential offences. There will be a $496 fine, and four licence demerit points would then be issued to the registered owner of the vehicle, who can then pay the penalty or elect to go to court. This comes off the back of a trial from two years ago. The trial was conducted over three months in Melbourne, and in that time it identified 679 438 vehicles breaking the law, equating to one in every 42 photographed drivers. It is clear we have a real problem on our hands. Road safety regulations have to adapt to modern technology. When phones were first introduced, driver distraction was not recognised as a really serious or emerging road safety issue.

However, it has become apparent that mobile phones and our reliance on them are impacting road safety. Up until now, distracted driving has caused a whole lot of new road accidents, and it has been entirely unaddressed. This is unlike drink driving or speeding, which are now fairly in control. Make no mistake, distracted driving is a killer on our roads. For those that are concerned about being unfairly fined by the new technology, let me address your fears. The photo behind every mobile phone camera fine, captured and transmitted electronically, is assessed by a human eye, by a team of people based in Australia, before being sent to the vehicle owner’s address. Only images suspected of showing a mobile phone or seatbelt offence are sent through to be checked by the assessment team. This provision has public support. We have all seen those cars veering into other lanes, driving too close to the car in front or sitting at traffic lights long after they have already turned green and then, on closer inspection, seen the phone in the hand of that driver.

Studies suggest that drivers using a mobile phone are approximately four times more likely to be involved in a crash than when a driver does not use a phone. While the bill does address distracted driving and seatbelt use, we can improve the safety of our roads by introducing meaningful fatigue management regulations in our commercial passenger vehicle industry. There are too many loopholes, yet no efforts to seriously regulate fatigue management practices of operators have been made. This is about not just ensuring safe workplaces but also ensuring the travelling public have access to safe transport.

Due to their high amount of time on the road the drivers most at risk of fatigue are commercial drivers. On top of that, they face severe financial pressures to work beyond the legal requirements to make ends meet. Those in the gig economy have little to no protections and find themselves being forced to work more and more hours. Failing to do so can leave them without a job. We know that driving drowsy is similar in terms of slow response times and judgement errors to driving while intoxicated. Twenty-four hours without sleep is roughly equivalent to having a blood alcohol content of .10. Fatigue management and road safety go hand in hand. Regulating the hours our commercial drivers spend on the road is low-hanging fruit. I am disappointed to see fatigue management measures absent from this bill. Until the issue is addressed, Victorian transport workers will continue to be forced to drive for hours over the legal limit. We discussed this just yesterday. Until this issue is addressed, there will be pressure on truck drivers to drive from one side of Australia to the other and back without sleep. These workers are operating incredibly heavy vehicles that require constant attention. Failing to manage this fatigue puts all of us at risk. However, I will commend this bill to the house.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (12:47): I am next on the list. I am very happy to rise to speak on this bill. It is certainly bringing about significant reforms which are very important for safety on our roads. I query, in thinking about the debate today, some of the assertions from the opposition about the conviction with, in particular, some of their amendments today with regard to road safety et cetera, because as has already been stated by my learned colleague Mr Erdogan they could not even find a Victorian picture to put in their promotion on this issue with regard to the status of the roads. I wondered, if they are taking it so seriously, why they could not find a local picture. They actually used something from overseas. That was a little bit odd, a little bit weird, and it does make you query their conviction to some extent. I am sure that everyone in the chamber wants safety per se, but it does make one query some of the changes that are being proposed today by the opposition.

Another point Mr Davis raised was with regard to the Mordialloc Freeway, with assertions that they could have done it better or differently or at a different price or something else. Who knows? ‘Would have, could have’—didn’t. ‘Gonna, wanna’—didn’t. We did. We have delivered, and that is what matters. I think it is so easy to sit back in the peanut gallery and say, ‘Oh, well, we could have done something magical there. We could have created a new highway going to X, Y, Z, to the other side of the universe’. But they did not. I think really what that says is that this has delivered something pretty fantastic for the community in the south-eastern suburbs and also those wanting to connect to the south-eastern suburbs—and I will say that myself, having driven on that fabulous freeway and noting how convenient it is—so I would suggest that sometimes it is the politics of envy when they are looking at what we have delivered and what we continue to do in that space. So I did think that was a little bit of a cheap shot, but do you know what? We will take it as flattery in the sense that we have actually delivered on this project, and if you want to tell more people about the project we have delivered, then we can deal with that as well.

Another point raised by Mr Davis was about modest changes that are being made with this bill. I took a little bit of exception to that, because I think using that descriptor is quite a significant understatement of the significance of the changes that we are bringing about with this bill in terms of safety for fellow Victorians. Maybe it is just because they are not delivering this bill and we are, I do not know, but I do take exception. I want to validate the point that I am making, because we know that driver distraction is estimated to be the contributing factor in 11 per cent of road fatalities, amounting to approximately 24 lives lost each year. Driver distraction is also estimated to be the cause of over 400 serious injuries per year, and we know that for each individual person and all the people connected to their lives and all those that might be connected in rehabilitation et cetera, there can be very significant ramifications.

In 2020 an investigation found one in 42 drivers to be illegally using their mobile phones while driving, and much has already been discussed here today about the dangers associated with that. Using available data, the Monash University Accident Research Centre has estimated that an automated enforcement camera program focused on mobile phone use and seatbelt wearing could prevent 95 casualty crashes per year and save taxpayers $21 million annually. So again, I would query the use of the word ‘modest’ in regard to the significant changes and also to the lives that might be saved and also those serious injuries which could be prevented.

The bill will also make our roads safer by adding to the list of serious offences that Victoria Police may use to trigger immediate licence suspension and disqualification. Again, the word ‘modest’ with regard to that I do not think fits. I think really understating the various significant elements of these reforms is not helpful. The bill will also—and I am going to speak a little bit more to this shortly—improve and make the transport accident scheme fairer.

Another point that I want to make is with regard to the amendment proposed by the opposition. I do not like to be cynical, but really we have already got so many committees in place. We have got the Economy and Infrastructure Committee. We have got so much committee work being undertaken—good-quality committee work—so I am not resiling from the work that is being undertaken. And yet: ‘We need another committee and another committee’. Really? All you are doing is at the end of the day holding back the significant reforms that we are seeking to bring through this chamber here for the benefit of Victorians out there—that means for all our relatives, our friends, our colleagues, everyone, our communities. These are reforms that we are trying to deliver here and now, and really, I am sorry, but it is just grandstanding, because there are so many committees already. I know Mr Davis—and further to Mr Erdogan’s point—certainly has form on this. It is like, ‘Let’s just create another committee. We might stifle that bill. I might get brownie points for that’. That is fine and well, but what about the Victorians out there who are waiting on us to drive these reforms through? They are relying on us to get these reforms through the chamber—very good and sound reforms—and I think it is good and well that we make that happen.

With regard to investment in roads et cetera, there were a lot of criticisms that were flying about but there were not really any statistics along with that. So I just want to put some clarity on the table with regard to what we have invested in here, because I think that was also greatly underestimated. If we are looking at regional Victoria—because much was said about roads in regional Victoria—we are delivering new and upgraded roads across regional Victoria, including the $272 million upgrade of the Great Ocean Road and dairy supply chain routes in south-west Victoria; the $60.8 million Keeping Ballarat Moving program, which will improve the flow of traffic across seven of the city’s most notorious traffic hotspots; the $513 million upgrade of Princes Highway east, which is duplicating a total of 43 kilometres of road between Traralgon and Sale; the $365 million Barwon Heads Road duplication; and the $323.7 million Echuca–Moama bridge project. Other regional projects are also in the early planning and investigation phase, including the Bellarine link and the Shepparton bypass.

Our government is also investing well over $700 million in maintaining Victorian roads in the current financial year alone. This far exceeds the yearly average under the previous coalition government. Can I repeat that: this far exceeds the yearly average under the previous coalition government. We have a lot of faffing about and a lot of hot air over there, but when you put the cards on the table and you compare accurately and you look at the data, we far exceed the yearly average of the previous coalition government in terms of investment. Let us just be really factual in this discussion, because let us face it, you can get in here and you can say anything you want, but at the end of the day you need to provide the data and you need to back up what you are saying. I think I just want to put to bed some of the rather fanciful discussions that have gone on today in terms of investment by the coalition versus investment by the government with regard to upgrading roads.

There was another point with regard to dooring improvements—I mean dooring, D-O-O-R-I-N-G—with regard to the TAC. The TAC already covers cyclists doored by the driver, which is the majority of dooring offences which occur. Changes from this legislation address the gap where a cyclist is injured by a passenger door. My understanding is that peak cycling bodies are very keen to see this change come through; hence the imperative to get these reforms through the chamber for the betterment of those who particularly want to see enhanced safety for cyclists, TAC improvements with regard to cyclists and sustainability with regard to low-carbon transport. I would have thought that was a really good imperative and a sound reason, among many, to be supportive of this legislation in its entirety and to not try to stifle and faff about with an amendment which merely seeks to hold back reforms that Victorians deserve now. That is certainly something that I hope is understood here. This is really serious in terms of the reforms that need to come through this chamber, and trying to stifle those reforms is frankly at risk, I will posture here, of being irresponsible, because it is timely.

We know that many on all sides of the chamber have talked about the challenges with people trying to drive, somebody said, with their knees while they are playing on their mobile phone. I do not know how you would do that. That is extremely dangerous of course. I have not witnessed this myself, but of course if others have witnessed it that is certainly quite shocking. Nevertheless it emphasises why we do need to take this action to make sure that we can make the roads in this way safer by encouraging better behaviour from fellow Victorian drivers. I would like to think that most drivers would seek to do the right thing, but of course there are those who do not. Therefore this is why there is such an imperative to get these reforms through.

The other thing that I wanted to look at, amongst others, is what we have done in our time in government with regard to investments in road safety initiatives, because there were so many allegations by the opposition about what we have not done. I think it is actually better to put on the table factually what we have done. During our time in government we have invested over $1.7 billion in road safety initiatives, including delivering over 2300 kilometres of flexible barriers installed on high-traffic and high-risk rural roads; completing 50 safer intersection upgrades, with a further 51 underway; and targeting improvements to motorcycling safety, with a new mandatory training program for novices. We have delivered pre-licence preparation for young Victorians to be future safer drivers with the Road to Zero education complex and the Road Smart program of teacher resources, classes and in-car activities; an uplift in the number of roadside drug tests from 100 000 to 150 000 per year; new drug driver and drink driver behaviour change programs; and a requirement to fit an alcohol interlock for any driver found to have blown over .05.

I know when I first learned how to drive that I did a driver safety course, and I have to say, from objective feedback from family, that the standard of my driving improved significantly after being put through various safety requirements and being tested in a safe environment, in a controlled road space. It certainly significantly improved the way that I drove and the way that I reacted. I know that since doing that, when under pressure at times or when I have had to brake suddenly, for some reason that training has stayed with me. I am going on a tangent slightly, but I am just saying the benefit of the various mechanisms to improve the way we drive and our behaviour and our responses in driving are just so critical. I know from having felt it myself—it was only a one-day training session that I did, but it stayed with me. And so now when there is something on the road, I go into that autopilot. I am not saying all the time. Let me not deem perfection in my driving—certainly not—but I am just saying it lends itself to having protective mechanisms and preventative mechanisms to get the best out of Victorian drivers as opposed to—

Mr Ondarchie: You shouldn’t be on autopilot, though.

Ms TAYLOR: What’s this?

Mr Ondarchie: You shouldn’t be on autopilot. You should be concentrating.

Ms TAYLOR: No, no, no, no. I just mean that when you are under pressure, and you are faced—I am saying I went into a good response. That is what I am saying, to unpack that, further to your comment. (Time expired)

Sitting suspended 1.02 pm until 2.12 pm.

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (14:12): I will be brief. The chief purpose of this bill is to allow the government to spend $34 million of taxpayers money on new road cameras. While the claim is that this will reduce road deaths by better enforcing seatbelt and mobile device rules, the major outcome will be to further increase fine revenue. Victorians cannot afford another new expense because this government’s COVID response has already maxed out the credit cards. Worse still, this bill criminalises safe driver behaviour just to make it easier to fine drivers. For example, passing something to a passenger will be illegal, so if your phone rings and you pass it to the passenger to answer it, you will still be breaking the law. Apparently if you have your phone poking out of your shirt pocket, you will be breaking the law. There are already many ordinary driver behaviours that are criminalised, including eating while you drive. This bill will only add to them. It is undoubtedly true that people on their phones while driving is a contributing factor in accidents, but this bill aims to criminalise a wide range of behaviours that are not distracting as well.

The reason for these changes is to make it easier to fine a driver. They do not make people safer; they only make people more vulnerable to losing their money and their licence. And we should be aware of the shambles at Fines Victoria that is currently denying Victorians procedural justice in these fines. This bill will only add to that confusion and that mess.

The government’s excuse for ramping up fines and surveillance is that Victoria’s road toll has increased. The toll increased despite record spending on police and on TAC advertising. We see this all the time. When the road toll drops the government says, ‘What we are doing is working, and we must spend more money on it’. When the road toll rises they say that what they are doing is not working and they must spend more money on it.

Another issue here is city versus regional, applying one single rule to both city driving and regional roads. But they are quite different situations. Where it can be very, very dangerous to be touching your phone in the city, on a long empty country highway briefly tapping your screen is not a problem. There should be more differentiation between the regions. I drive a lot using my phone for navigation and also for audio, and I have touched my screen from time to time as I drive; I think most everyone does on country roads. It is not as dangerous as doing it in the city, and there should be a differentiation based on that.

If we are going to spend another $34 million to attempt to reduce the road toll, we should instead be spending it on improving the quality of our roads. We know that road standards are falling across the state—and the government know it too, because they are planning on lowering speed limits on country roads from 100 to 80 specifically because the roads are not in good enough condition to support the high speed. The $34 million you plan on spending on cameras to further surveil and prosecute Victorians would be better spent on road improvements that make our lives better. These cameras will be another huge intrusion into our lives. It is another step in building the surveillance state. It is always easy to pass off government intrusion as a safety measure. Who does not want people to be safe? But freedom matters, and in the long run government overreach does not keep us safe. As modern history tells us, government is by far the greatest threat to our safety. We oppose strengthening government intrusion and oversight on principle. We do not trust the government with more surveillance powers. I will not go into that further; Mr Hayes already addressed it quite well earlier today.

We have heard people today expressing shock about seatbelts not being worn despite 40 years of the government pushing for it, making laws about it and advertising about it. Perhaps what you are doing is just not working anymore. The vast majority of Victorians have adopted safe seatbelt-wearing behaviour. The small minority who have not probably never will. In our road safety inquiry a couple of years back we heard evidence from Sweden that while most people will modify their behaviour with appropriate education and enforcement, there will always be a very small minority that breaks the rules and will always break the rules, and that cannot be eliminated. Just as it is not practically possible to get the road toll to zero, it is likely that it is impossible to get the failure to wear a seatbelt to zero or indeed to get mobile phone usage in cars to zero. There are diminishing returns to be had. You spend more money and get less results.

The Liberal Democrats oppose this legislation on principle. We oppose it for the expansion of government intrusion and monitoring, we oppose it for the criminalising of behaviours that are actually safe to make prosecution simpler and we oppose it for its focus on revenue raising. I will be introducing an amendment in a moment to raise speed limits for motorbike riders to 5 kilometres above other traffic. Variable speed limits for different vehicles is something we discussed in the road safety inquiry. This would allow motorcycle riders to move through traffic, avoiding the traffic slug, which is the build-up of vehicles travelling at the same speed, which is actually quite dangerous, and to only focus on vehicles ahead of them instead of those that are coming up behind them. I would like to circulate my amendments to the Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022.

Liberal Democratic Party amendments circulated by Mr QUILTY pursuant to standing orders.

Mr QUILTY: I desire to move, by leave:

That, contingent upon the Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 being committed, it be an instruction to the committee that they have the power to consider an amendment and a new clause to amend the Road Safety Act 1986 to provide that certain offences against that act and the road rules do not apply in certain cases where the drivers of motorcycles exceed the speed limit by no more than 5 kilometres an hour.

Leave refused.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (14:19): I rise to speak on the Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, the bill that is designed to enable better enforcement of distracted-driving and seatbelt-wearing offences by giving evidential status to images from new types of road safety cameras and, secondly, to add to the list of serious offences that Victoria Police use to trigger immediate licence suspension and disqualification when charges are laid under the Road Safety Act 1986. The bill is also intended to transform the accident scheme by making various amendments to the Transport Accident Act 1986.

Recently the government conducted a new AI trial of some new technology designed to detect usage of mobile phones and incorrect usage of seatbelts. The trial ran for three months and scanned over 600 000 motorists, finding one in 42 to be using mobile phones. I question that data, because I drive an SUV that sits higher than most cars in the traffic and I reckon the number is higher than one in 42, to be perfectly honest with you. As a result of the trial the government is seeking to provide evidential status to the new cameras and begin penalising motorists from early 2023.

Adding to the list of offences for which Victoria Police may trigger on-the-spot licence suspensions would allow for more consistency in the legislation. Previously individuals involved in hit-and-run accidents could have their licence revoked on the spot by VicPol. The Transport Accident Act has been amended to ensure drivers convicted of manslaughter, murder or culpable driving will not be able to receive death benefits if they survive and are charged with the aforementioned offences. It is very rare, but this guarantees someone who kills their partner and is charged would not be eligible to receive financial compensation from the TAC, which they were previously able to access. The bill also allows for compensation to be paid to cyclists who suffer harm as a result of the opening of a car door and makes provisions for the protection of privacy.

Just this Monday past, as I was driving here to this building, I was stopped in traffic in my electorate in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. I pulled up at a set of lights behind a small car to observe a child who I think was probably three or four years of age running up and down the back seat while the car was stopped in traffic. The child clearly had no restraint. The parent was busy driving, distracted. I do not know what it was, but I have got to tell you, who would let their child run up and down a back seat in moving traffic in this day and age? So it is very appropriate that we should fine for that. The reason I have highlighted this is that many years ago travelling on an outer suburban road that had an increased speed limit I observed a car grind to a halt very quickly because a kangaroo was coming across the road. That car ground to a halt, and at the time an eight-year-old child sitting in the front seat who was unrestrained went through the windscreen and finished a number of metres up the road. They subsequently passed away. What is it with people in cars who do not wear seatbelts? What is it with people in cars who do not restrain children? There is a show on TV every now and again called Highway Patrol that talks about Victoria Police, and every now and again when I do catch it I am amazed at the number of people who are not wearing seatbelts. What is going on?

One of the things we should do is make sure we are examining road safety appropriately as a Parliament, and that is why Mr Davis’s amendment which has been tabled today to provide for the re-establishment of the Road Safety Committee as a joint house committee is so appropriate for us—a committee that was dissolved before—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): If I can interrupt, Mr Ondarchie, please, members, it is getting a bit noisy in the chamber, and Mr Ondarchie is entitled to be heard.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Thank you, Acting President. We should not be distracted, whether we are driving or people are speaking in Parliament, so I take that as very valid.

In response to Mr Davis’s very valid amendment about re-establishing the Road Safety Committee, a joint house committee which is a very important committee that goes to the heart of the matter that is before us today, Ms Taylor said, ‘Oh, there are too many committees. We’ve just got too many committees’. I do not know why you would trade off an excuse of too many committees for the very important purpose of ensuring road safety in this state. That is hardly an excuse—‘There are too many committees’. This is a very important committee that should be re-established by this Parliament, and simply to write it off with ‘Oh, we’re just too busy—we’ve got too many committees’ is inexcusable.

This gives me the opportunity, this piece of legislation that is before us today, to follow on from Ms Taylor and her discussion about roads and things that have happened on roads. I think she used the expression ‘Let me tell you about what we have done’. I think she used that expression. So let me talk about roads, and in relation to Ms Taylor’s expression about ‘what we have done’, let me tell you about what the government have not done. What they have not done is paid any attention to roads in Melbourne’s north—none whatsoever. Somerton Road has been ignored for decades—nothing in this state budget. Craigieburn Road, the duplication which was promised four years ago—guess what they are doing in an election year? In an election year they are finally turning a bit of soil to show: ‘We’re going to start Craigieburn Road in Melbourne’s north’. But I tell you what, the people of Craigieburn and the people of the new electorate of Kalkallo are awake to this con job. You have done nothing for four years, and just before the election you turn a bit of soil, put up a few bollards, put up a bit of temporary fencing and say, ‘Oh, we’re starting it’. They are well aware of it. You know what they did not start? They did not start the Craigieburn hospital they promised over four years ago. Nothing has happened with that.

But back to roads, the government have been dragged kicking and screaming, reluctantly, to co-fund and co-help the wonderful commitment by the federal Liberal government to duplicate parts of Mickleham Road. I have to say the funding that has come from the state government in the latest budget does not quite cut it; it is not enough. And they completely ignored in this funding the need for an important pedestrian crossing to get residents and schoolchildren from one side of Mickleham Road over to the other side so they can go to school safely. These kids are still playing Frogger on Mickleham Road, trying to get across in the morning and back after school. They completely ignored Epping Road, a single-lane country road. All the development is happening in Melbourne’s north, and there is nothing in the state budget.

I would like to continue about what they have not done in this term of government. The Kalkallo exits, where it takes residents of Kalkallo over half an hour to get out of their estate so they can go to work: nothing, despite continual asks by the people of Kalkallo through me in this Parliament—nothing for Kalkallo. The Wollert roads: nothing for the Wollert roads, despite, as members sometimes joke about in this chamber, responses to many surveys I have done in that area about needing some support for Kalkallo roads and Wollert roads—nothing in this state budget. And the roundabout at Settlement Road and Dalton Road, where people literally take their lives into their own hands—somebody responded to me on Facebook the other day saying someone is going to die there soon. I know the member for Thomastown went out and did a video on that roundabout and said, ‘We need to do something about this’—do you think? It has been a problem for years and years and years. And what happened in this state budget? Not a cracker, not a cent, for that road. I hope that person’s response on Facebook is inaccurate, that no-one dies or gets injured on that road. But I tell you what, it is not far away, because this government have refused to commit to it.

Today—just today—in Parliament I talked about drop-off zones for schools and the lack of safety around schools and drop-off zones. This is another example, Ms Taylor and the government, of something that you have not done. The government have introduced a program to put smart traffic lights, coordinated traffic lights, across Melbourne. And where have they decided to do that? In the south-east of Melbourne, in the west of Melbourne and in the east of Melbourne—there is not anything for Melbourne’s north, part of the fastest growing corridor anywhere in this country; there is nothing for Melbourne’s north, nothing for Cooper Street and nothing for Plenty Road. Ms Taylor can stand up here and talk about what they have done. There is a longer list of what they have not done when it comes to road safety.

Ms Taylor also talked about the installation of what she called flexible barriers. I think we call them wire rope barriers sometimes as well. Well, let me talk about that. When they did some work on Plenty Road over the last few years, they took down all the wire rope barriers and they replaced them with—and I will use the expression that is most commonly used—the steel Armco that was there originally. So they took down the steel Armco a few years ago and replaced it with the wire rope barriers, and they have just taken down the wire rope barriers and replaced them with steel Armco. And when I asked the question in this place, ‘Can somebody give me a reason why, when you say so much about the effectiveness of wire rope barriers, you took them down and replaced them with the old steel Armco?’, nobody could give me a response, other than to say, ‘That’s the appropriate safety measure’. So which is it? Are wire rope barriers appropriate? I do not think they are. Or is steel Armco appropriate? I do not know, but I cannot get an answer out of this government.

Similarly, I have asked so many times about the speed humps they have put on a major road, Dalton Road, through Epping and Thomastown. When cars go along it, they hit a speed hump with very little warning. The ambulance people are telling me it is hurtful for them. The fire brigade are telling me when they go over them at speed with little warning on this major road and when they get to a fire job they open the cupboards and suddenly the stuff falls out. I have asked time and time again in this place the Minister for Roads and Road Safety and the Minister for Transport Infrastructure about why this has happened. Either they refer me to the other one—to the other minister—or they come back and say, ‘It’s based on strong safety advice’, so naturally I ask, ‘Could you tell me what that safety advice is?’. Well, it does not exist; nobody could tell me what the safety advice was because it does not exist. It was a thought bubble in somebody’s mind. The Minister for Transport Infrastructure oversaw the installation of these speed humps on Dalton Road. They are a dismal failure both for traffic and safety and for cars, and nobody can give me an answer as to why they have done it.

This happens time and time again. This government have failed to do so many things when it comes to roads and road safety. If they were genuinely concerned about road safety in this state, what they could do in adding to this bill today is support Mr Davis’s amendment to establish a road safety committee as a joint house committee so we can oversee appropriate responses to road safety in our state. We lose too many people on our roads. Too many people are injured. The TAC charges people say are excessive—

Mr Melhem interjected.

Mr ONDARCHIE: They are excessive because there has not been an appropriate response, Mr Melhem—through you, Chair—to road safety in this state. A road safety committee as a joint house committee is an appropriate mechanism—I was going to say as a pun ‘an appropriate vehicle’—to ensure appropriate road safety in this state, and the government, if they were genuine about their commitment to road safety in this state, would support this amendment today. Should they fail to do so, we would know once again it is all smoke and mirrors from Dan’s con job, and quite frankly I have had enough.

Ms Taylor: On a point of order, Acting President, he is the Premier. I think we should just be careful when referencing the Premier that we address him appropriately.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): I just remind all members, when referring to a member either in this chamber or in the other place, to use their correct title.

Mr Ondarchie: On the point of order, Acting President, I note the member’s concern about me referring to the Premier as ‘Dan’ and your ruling that he should be referred to as the Premier. Regularly, almost on a daily basis, those opposite refer to the Andrews Labor government. Should they be referring to the Premier’s Labor government instead?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): It is not a point of order.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (14:33): There has been a lot of white noise, a lot of peripheral verbiage around the debate on this bill here today. There has been a lot of sidelining of what I think is the most important part of this bill, which is to give effect to provisions that already exist in road safety legislation through evolutions in technology that enable us as a community—not just us as a Parliament or us as a government but us as a community—to identify and in fact to sanction conduct which, while somebody is in control of a vehicle, compromises the health and safety of themselves or indeed someone else.

I was Parliamentary Secretary for Emergency Services about 481 years ago, and one of the things that I found most profoundly moving was attending memorial services for road trauma support services and indeed other community organisations. It is devastating—it is absolutely devastating—to hear the volume of tragedies and the volume of avoidable distresses that are carried by families, that are carried by people who made the wrong decision: the wrong decision to drive when drunk, the wrong decision to speed, the wrong decision to drive whilst distracted. And that is what these amendments to existing road safety legislation are intended to address directly. This is about making sure that wherever possible we do not leave families—more families—with another empty chair at Christmas time, that we do not leave people wondering whether their loved ones will survive the night because they have been called in from a devastating collision that occurred because somebody was distracted.

This calls to mind the debates that we had, or our predecessors had, in this place when Victoria led the way in introducing mandatory safety belts. That legislation was subject to exactly the same kind of straw man attempts at scapegoating and at duckshoving. I hate to use analogies here, but that is exactly what it was. Go back and have a look at the debates that occurred prior to the introduction of safety belts in Victoria, and you will see that it was exactly the same sorts of issues and sets of excuses being raised as those for why we should not proceed with the legislation in its current form before the chamber. Firstly people say, ‘It’s a revenue-raising exercise’. Secondly people say, ‘It’s an encumbrance’. Thirdly people say, ‘If people are going to do it, they’re going to do it anyway’. I have heard all of those reasons put forward in the chamber today. They were put forward in the other place when the bill came up, and they are not good enough. They are not good enough because when I think about the families of the 232 people who died on Victoria’s roads last year, I think not just about those people who lost their lives but anybody else who was involved in them losing their lives or responsible for that loss of life. I think about the first responders who were on the scene. We have heard people talk about that just this week. First responders who are on the scene see some of the most traumatic things you can possibly imagine. Anyone who has ever been to an SES unit will understand the impact that that has on people who volunteer their time in our communities.

I cannot underscore enough the importance of making sure that we as a Parliament do what we can and do what is reasonable but most of all do what is responsible to make sure that road users throughout the entire state have the best possible opportunity through education, through compliance and through technology not just to make it to their destination safe and sound but to make sure that others do too. This is why we see changes to the number of hours which learner drivers have to undertake before sitting for their licence. This is why we have limitations on the sorts of vehicles which people can drive under certain licensing conditions. This is why we have invested around $34 million as part of a five-year strategy in relation to the rollout of mobile phone and seatbelt offence detection cameras. It is not a revenue-raising exercise. To even suggest that that is the primary motivating factor for this public safety initiative is actually really crass. It is out of respect for those 232 people who lost their lives last year that these initiatives are necessary, including the evidentiary change to the way in which road camera technology can be used to identify and make out offences where people have been driving without safety belts or indeed whilst using their mobile phones.

The TAC has run numerous campaigns on this. Throughout Eastern Victoria and throughout Gippsland, wherever I drive, inevitably there is a billboard that says, ‘On your phone? You’re driving blind’. Signs are really important. Signs are good. But the deterrent effect of not only the introduction of new technology but awareness about that technology being able to undertake the making out of offences is in and of itself important, because as we know, the way in which behaviour can be influenced or indeed improved goes to a range of factors. It goes to education, it goes to the carrot-and-stick approach of encouraging people to do the right thing, it goes to positive messaging around encouraging people to do the right thing and it goes to education and driver training awareness. But there also need to be penalties for that behaviour, which if left unchecked is vastly over-represented in a number of serious injuries, fatalities and collisions across this state.

Year to date in Victoria we have seen 91 people lose their lives. That is two more than yesterday. That is two more chairs around tables that are empty. That in and of itself, just that change from yesterday, should be enough to prompt people in this place to support this bill, which enables the use of technology to improve public safety. Our roads are not an inherently safe place to be. We have just finished discussing earlier this week the way in which heavy vehicles are vastly over-represented in the number and range of fatalities that occur in a workplace setting. Drivers of vehicles, including heavy vehicles, account for more than 30 per cent of fatalities—people doing their jobs. And you know what? Distraction, speed, fatigue or being under the influence are top drivers of the irresponsible conduct on our roads that leads to serious injuries and collisions.

This is not new. The Monash University Accident Research Centre has been publishing research on this sort of issue for many, many years. This is not a controversy. It is only a controversy where people seek in fact to return to the days when safety belts were not considered an appropriate, reasonable or convenient way to manage road safety issues in the 1970s in Victoria. Well, now they are universally accepted, and now there are penalties for being in a car and not wearing a safety belt whilst driving or having control of that vehicle or indeed, as Mr Ondarchie pointed to in his contribution, having a child unrestrained in the back seat of a car. These things are now uncontroversial.

The existence of penalties is an important part of making sure that compliance occurs. It is not so that state coffers can be lined, it is so that people have chairs and highchairs in their homes that are not empty. It is about making sure that as technology improves and as we have an education phase, which is in fact an important part of introducing any change to legislation, we are clear on what is driving this particular raft of improvements and we are using technology to the best extent possible to improve the way in which people use our roads, the way in which people interface with our roads, including as pedestrians, and the way in which we do everything we can to move towards zero. And Towards Zero was in fact the name of the campaign that was at the heart of our road safety policies—the name of the framework created to drive a better understanding of the risks for road users across this state.

When I first came to this place in 2014 I was part of a range of regional round tables and discussions, including as they relate to wire rope safety barriers and the impact that they can have on reducing fatalities and the way in which they can actually, through their very existence, prevent people from going off the road either to kill themselves or indeed to plough into an oncoming vehicle; the way in which lighting, visibility and changes to road design can improve the safety of those environments; education about driving at dawn and driving at dusk; signage around wildlife and animals; bypasses; and the sorts of challenges associated with improving through upgrades, maintenance and resurfacing all of our regional and road networks.

I know firsthand that there is a lot to do in the space of improving our road network. I know firsthand with the many tens of thousands of kilometres that I drive every year that there is a lot to do to make sure that council roads are in a fit state, that state roads are in a fit state, that federal roads are in a fit state and that the interface between these three levels of responsibility for our road network is adequately managed and is managed well, because at the heart of this, no matter what road you are driving on, you should be protected by a legal framework that condemns behaviour and applies punishments and sanctions to behaviour which endangers life and safety on our roads. In regional road terms, 53 people, representing 59 per cent of fatalities, died on our rural roads. These are vast stretches of road that often require people to concentrate really, really hard for long periods of time. There is a reason why we have the rest and revive programs staffed by our extraordinary SES volunteers, which involve having a cuppa, stopping, stretching and breaking that focus on the road in order to be able to return to the wheel refreshed and indeed more in control of a piece of extremely heavy machinery.

When I think about the work that is yet to be done, I think about the fact that we need to make sure that as our roads become busier we are doing more and that as the way in which our roads are used becomes more diverse we are doing more. This is where technology can be the great equaliser for making sure that everybody is aware of their obligations to drive safely and that everybody is aware that seatbelts must be worn and that, in the event that they are not, at its lightest the price for that is an infringement; at its worst it is taking someone else’s life. At its worst it is being responsible for someone else dying, to say nothing of what might happen if you are permanently injured as well and to say nothing of what might happen if you cause reckless endangerment through negligible and careless driving that ends up before the courts when in fact you should have known better, when in fact you should have not driven distracted and when in fact you should have had a safety belt on.

There will always be people who say, ‘Raise the speed limits, because everybody’s safe, because people know what they’re doing, because country roads deserve kilometre speed limits that in fact allow people to get to their destinations’—I don’t know—‘5 or 10 minutes earlier’. We know that speed kills. We know that driving whilst distracted kills. We know that driving whilst under the influence kills. We know that driving whilst fatigued kills. We also know that deterrence and detection go hand in hand. There is a direct correlation between these things being in play and people in fact doing the right thing. And you know what? If that means that you slow down because you can see a fixed speed camera up ahead, then that means that in fact maybe you are doing the very thing that you should have been doing in the first place—that you should not have been speeding and that maybe you will take that opportunity to check yourself and to understand that there is a responsibility to play by the rules and that the rules have not been magically conjured out of thin air. They are there for a reason. The rules as they relate to not using mobile phones are there for a reason. The rules around safety belts are there for a reason. That is why it is so critical that we can engage with technology to make sure that that message is abundantly clear.

After the initial education period, after we work through that transition period of three months, in early 2023, next year, we will be in a position to make sure that every Victorian is under no illusion about the fact that the road rules apply to them for good reason and to make sure that we do not have more empty chairs around tables than is currently the case. I commend this bill to the house.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (14:48): I rise to speak on the Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, and in rising I have to say that this government should be embarrassed at the amount of money they actually spend on roads. They might believe that big projects like the West Gate Tunnel Project are great line items that actually say that they are spending money on roads, but they actually do not. If you look at the detail and the little roads that need to be fixed, here in Victoria we drive around on the most dismal, disgusting road infrastructure in probably the whole of Australia. And you should know—you guys go over to Europe on your little trips and you know when you come back here that the roads are horrible.

Ms Symes: On a point of order, Acting President, Dr Cumming is reflecting on members in this chamber, implying that we are using our position as government members to take ‘little trips’, and frankly that is really offensive because it is untrue. Can you just come back to the motion and maybe be a little bit more factual? I do not mean to be too sensitive about it, and I usually let you go, but you really are straying into being nitpicking and offensive just for fun, and it is not very funny.

Mr Ondarchie: On the point of order, Acting President, Dr Cumming had been on her feet on this matter for, at the time, about 60 seconds, and she did not name anybody in this chamber. She made a general comment. She could have been reflecting on anybody in this chamber, so it is not quite valid, and we should allow her to continue.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): Thank you, Mr Ondarchie. I would ask the member to come back to the substance of the bill and resume debate, please, and constrain her comments to the bill.

Dr CUMMING: Thank you, Acting President. I appreciate that. The government obviously does not like to hear that we have the worst roads in Victoria—

Ms Symes: Because it’s not true.

Dr CUMMING: No, it is true. You obviously do not drive around on the roads, into the little potholes, the roads that do not have lines painted on them—

Members interjecting.

Dr CUMMING: No, I drive rurally all the time. I drive on the roads here in Victoria, government, and they are the worst.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): Dr Cumming, through the Chair. Your comments should come through the Chair, please. Could members cease interjecting so Dr Cumming can be heard in silence, but, please, through the Chair.

Dr CUMMING: Not a problem, Acting President. Yes, we have the worst roads. At the end of the day, do not believe me; believe our constituents, believe the councils that actually complain to you as well as apply for grants to get money for their local roads. You obviously do not drive around, because if you drove around you would see the amount of unsealed roads in regional Victoria.

Ms Symes interjected.

Dr CUMMING: You obviously do not, because if you drove around regional Victoria, the amount of unsealed roads is dismal, pathetic. We all know, because every regional council complains to us that the way that this government deals with bad roads is to actually lower the speed limit rather than fixing the roads, and we know this. We see this. We drive around on these bad roads.

Ms Symes interjected.

Dr CUMMING: Go for it. Absolutely pretend that there is not a bad road here in Victoria and you spend enough money on the roads, because you do not. You do not. I can actually give you examples of intersections that have been on VicRoads’s books to be fixed or upgraded for 30-plus years. There are old Melways, probably here in our library. If you pulled one out, you would actually see the lines that are meant to be built, such as in Ashley Street under the Tottenham railway station. There is meant to be a north–south link—not there—two lanes, but it needs to be four lanes underneath. There is actually the infrastructure there. The actual railway bridge has just got a pile of dirt where the other two lanes are meant to be, but it has been sitting there, as well as a road reserve, right down Ashley Street, that has never been touched. How about all the roads from Werribee all the way around to Sunbury that need upgrading that are single lanes and that really need two lanes each way—no, not there. Go to Williamstown, go to Altona and then drive around regional Victoria; there are roads everywhere that this government does not spend money on—not sealed.

But let us talk about just the little primary schools in my area that I have raised in this place. It is 70 kilometres an hour past the special school in Ballarat Road. I have requested that it actually be seen as a school and the limit go down to 40 kilometres, which it is meant to—not touched by this government. St Monica’s in Footscray: it is 60 kilometres when you go past St Monica’s in the morning, and there have been deaths of children there, but does this government do anything about it when I raise it in this place? Oh, no. Kids of the west, do not worry—or the roads of the west, forget about it. Unmarked roads, not sealed, intersections that need upgrading, do not worry; we have the most cameras in the west—safety cameras, revenue-raising cameras.

The government just a moment ago touched on heavy vehicles. We have the most heavy vehicles going through our city, and if you know anything about heavy vehicles you know that they have got a huge amount of blind spots. In Europe, how they tackle this is that when they are in built-up areas or residential areas heavy vehicles do not have the same speed limit as cars. So if it is 60, the car can do 60 but the truck has to do 40. If it is 50, the truck has to do 30, and they have signs that show ‘50’ and ‘30’ because everybody knows that trucks have multiple blind spots and should not be travelling at the same speed as a car. But have you ever done anything about that? No. And that safety data from Europe has been there forever.

We talk about bikes and pedestrians. In Europe if you hit a bike it is your fault, if you are in a vehicle. With pedestrians here it is the driver’s fault, but no, not with bikes. Has this government ever done anything about that? No, not at all, and we continue to have people being killed on bikes.

Let me go into the bill—why not? This bill makes amendments to the Transport Accident Act 1986 in relation to the payment of benefits under the act. It also amends the Road Safety Act 1986 to support the implementation of new camera technology to detect distracted drivers and seatbelt offenders. Last year 232 people lost their lives on Victorian roads. Any life lost on our roads is tragic, and I believe every measure should be taken to minimise the number of lost lives and the many more who are seriously injured. I assumed that any changes to the act would aim to reduce the toll. There are many different causes: drink driving—one in five drivers killed has a blood alcohol reading of more than .05; not wearing a seatbelt—last year 31 deaths were because of not wearing a seatbelt; speed, which is still one of the biggest factors; running off the road, which causes more than 40 per cent of deaths; and we also know that drivers are four times more likely to crash when using a phone.

But we also have to look beyond the driver. A large-scale Monash University study revealed that the major causes of serious injuries on Victorian roads are the actual roads themselves. Each crash was examined in forensic detail, with research nurses interviewing drivers or their family following their admission to the Alfred or the Royal Melbourne Hospital. Crash investigation teams also inspected the scene of each crash and the vehicles involved. Impact speed has been shown to be a significant factor in injury severity, with serious injuries more common in crashes that occur on lower quality roads with higher posted speed limits. The report also said that it was critical to create safe roads by matching speed limits to the road infrastructure and highlighted the need for safe vehicles and safe roads.

So what are we doing to create safe roads? Well, in this year’s budget maintaining Victorian road networks statewide gets $119 million. Metropolitan road upgrades get $6.5 million and regional roads get $13.2 million. Now, before everyone goes, ‘Wait one moment, didn’t you just say $119 million? Then you only pointed out roughly $19 million. Where’s the other $100 million?’, well, the other $100 million obviously goes towards the big government projects, such as the Calder or the Monash or the West Gate Tunnel Project, not towards our little roads. Only $19 million—and you should be disgusted, Victorians, because most local councils spend more on their roads than this whole state government is spending on all of our roads. That is why when you drive around they are so rubbish, with potholes and no line markings and rubbish on the side of the roads and rubbish on our roads.

What is really concerning is the rate of progress that has been made on a number of existing road projects. Regional road upgrades from 2017–18 are still not complete—over 10 per cent of the total investment allocated to this year’s budget, and they will not be completed until 2023. Regional road upgrades in 2021–22 had no expenditure in last year’s budget and less than $3 million allocated this year—$3 million for regional roads. If we are really going to address the number of people dying and being injured on our roads, more has to be done to maintain our roads and improve our roads.

Have we got the balance right in terms of fines? The penalty for using a mobile phone is four demerit points. It is $545. However, it also results in a court order, which could be a penalty of up to $29 000. The penalty for failing to wear a seatbelt or not wearing one properly is three demerit points, which is $364. All fines actually need to be reviewed, and so does our demerit point system. Our demerit point system is archaic and continues to penalise people for a 12-month period where it should be longer. The amount of points over a 12-month period is not good enough.

If penalty notices had been issued over the last three months, from the trial period for these new cameras the revenue would be $9 million. So in three months this government could have raised $9 million. This government stands to gain a large amount of money by introducing this. Is it really about road safety, or is it simply revenue raising?

The government also need to be reminded that the money they will collect from these cameras needs to be spent on our roads. Victorians work hard to earn a living. They balance their budget, they put food on the table, they clothe their family, they pay rent, they pay their mortgage. They pay enough taxes to this government, and this government has to realise that the money they collect needs to be spent wisely. It needs to be spent on our roads.

The government has overspent on nearly every project—not by a couple of thousand dollars but by billions. That is our money, our hardworking Victorians’ money, that they continue to waste by not being able to balance a budget and by not being able to deliver a project.

For me, as I have said, this government need to have a serious look at the amount of money they are proposing to gain from this but also how they are going to spend the money on the roads. They should hang their heads in shame at the amount of money they spend on Victorian roads with the quality of our roads, the amount of unsealed roads that we have, the amount of intersections that need to be upgraded that have not been upgraded, the amount of signage that is lacking and the amount of flashing lights and safety measures that money could be spent on. These are the technologies that the community want you to spend money on—making sure that our schools, our public areas and pedestrian traffic are safe. This government should be embarrassed about the state of the roads in Victoria. They need to spend more money on our roads, especially in the west.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Instruction to committee

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp) (15:04): I have considered the amendments proposed by Mr Davis, set DD106C, and in my view these amendments are not within the scope of the bill. Therefore an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 15.07 is required.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (15:04): I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee that they have the power to consider amendments and new clauses to amend the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 to provide for the establishment of a road safety committee as a joint house committee under that act.

House divided on motion:

Motion agreed to.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (15:12)

Mr ONDARCHIE: I have some questions on clause 1, but I would like to immediately move to my amendment. I move:

1. Clause 1, page 2, line 6, omit “purposes.” and insert “purposes; and”.

2. Clause 1, page 2, after line 6 insert—

“(c) to amend the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 to provide for the establishment of a Road Safety Committee as a Joint House Committee.”.

I have spoken to the amendment already in my second-reading debate speech.

Ms PULFORD: I just indicate that the government will not be supporting this amendment. There are processes at the commencement of every Parliament, indeed through the life of any Parliament, where the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 is considered by members along with the establishment of committees for the term of the Parliament, and then through the course of the Parliament references and on occasions other committees are established. There is a time and a place to be doing that. Of course there are few areas of public policy more impactful to people in the Victorian community than safety on the roads that they travel on each and every day, but we do not believe that this legislation is the vehicle by which the opposition ought to be prosecuting this. It is available to them to introduce such a measure by any number of other mechanisms through the Parliament.

Ms MAXWELL: I note that the amendments propose to reinstate the Road Safety Committee. We know committee work is very important, particularly in this Parliament, and work done by the Road Safety Committee and subsequent committees have over time delivered reforms that have improved road safety, including compulsory seatbelts, random breath testing, roadworthies et cetera. In lieu of a standalone committee, inquiries into road safety matters can be conducted by the Economy and Infrastructure Committee. While we are not supporting the coalition’s amendments today to reinstate a standalone committee, we do hope the referrals will continue to be made on road safety issues to the existing committee.

Mr DAVIS: I understand Ms Maxwell’s point, but with the greatest of respect it is not the same as a joint committee. The joint committees actually have the authority across the Parliament to bring in support from all parties and all parts of the Parliament, across both chambers. That is why the coalition has been steadfastly pursuing the reinstatement of a proper joint road safety committee that has the authority and the breadth across the Parliament. That is why we think, given the long history in the state and given the challenges we currently face with road safety, that there really must be a reinstatement of a joint committee across the Parliament devoted to road safety.

Committee divided on amendments:

Amendments negatived.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Minister, the bill refers directly to AI technology, artificial intelligence technology. Now, I know the government has a report about AI technology, and whilst requests have been made for information as to the frequency of death benefits paid to individuals convicted of murder da da da, we have not seen that report yet. Where is it?

Ms PULFORD: I thank Mr Ondarchie for his question and his interest in this report and I assume its contents, as well as its location, and I can indicate to Mr Ondarchie that the distracted driver pilot report was procured by the Department of Justice and Community Safety. The Department of Justice and Community Safety has advised that the report contains commercially sensitive information about the technology which it is not permitted to disclose. The Department of Transport recommends that any parties interested in gaining access to the final report from the pilot should make a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. That will then enable commercially sensitive information in the report to be identified and redacted as needed so that parties interested in perusing the rest of the contents of the report are able to do so in a way that is sensitive to those commercial matters.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Minister, I am going to ask something that I suspect is not commercially sensitive. The bill relates to compensation paid to cyclists who suffer harm as a result of opening car doors. Can you give us some data on the prevalence or the number of cyclists that have been injured or otherwise as a result of car-dooring incidents?

Ms PULFORD: Some members may recall an upper house committee undertook an inquiry into the prevalence of car-dooring. Some of us would have been around. Indeed I had the opportunity to participate in that inquiry, and we heard some incredible evidence from people who had experienced car-dooring, including, as I recall, public evidence presented by family members who had lost loved ones and indeed a long-time cyclist who had suffered profound, life-changing injuries as a result of car-dooring. That report, if this is of interest to members, would be available from the papers office, no doubt, and I would encourage people to have a look at that. But in response to your question, Mr Ondarchie, there are on average 70 car-dooring accidents each year. It is estimated that 25 per cent are by passengers opening a door or leaving a car door open.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Thanks, Minister. That is some information we were looking for. Regarding the amendment to the Transport Accident Act 1986 relating to death benefits being paid to individuals convicted of murder, manslaughter and culpable driving, what is the frequency of death benefits that have been paid to individuals in the past?

Ms PULFORD: Sorry, Mr Ondarchie, in total or in circumstances such as the provision envisages?

Mr ONDARCHIE: In total is fine.

Ms PULFORD: In total. Death benefits annually—

Mr ONDARCHIE: As a result of—

Ms PULFORD: Yes. Mr Ondarchie, that information is not available immediately to hand, though we are tracking it down and will endeavour to get it to you by the end of this committee stage if it is able to be ascertained quickly. If it is not, we will take that on notice and come back to you.

Mr ONDARCHIE: One of the things we are concerned about is the removal of death benefits to individuals charged with culpable driving, which includes negligence behind the wheel. Whilst these cases are rare, does the fact that you will change the bill in this way create a level of inconsistency, where under certain circumstances no-one can get those benefits?

Ms PULFORD: It is a very narrow change that is proposed by the bill for very specific and quite horrific circumstances. It is proposed to deprive persons of benefits in circumstances where they have been convicted of causing the death. There is one recent circumstance of a person convicted of a relevant offence killing their partner in a transport accident. There are two circumstances in the past where the new child homicide provisions might have applied. There are not any cases to date of a dependent child killing a parent and being entitled to benefits. However, should this circumstance occur, currently the dependent child is not excluded from benefits, and the amendment addresses these potential circumstances.

Mr ONDARCHIE: I want to pursue that just a little further if I can. Should this bill pass, we understand that death benefits will no longer be paid to partners in these very tragic circumstances—this is a tragedy all round, no matter which way we do it. In terms of the death benefits, if they are not going to be paid to the partners, will they be paid to the next of kin?

Ms PULFORD: I thank Mr Ondarchie for this question. It is an important question. I think the scenario that perhaps you are envisaging in asking it, and certainly the scenario that the drafters have contemplated, is where one parent is killed by another but the children are surviving and the parent that is not deceased has been convicted of an offence on that very short list of very, very serious offences. In that event the compensation would flow to the next of kin.

Mr QUILTY: I have some significant concerns about the rules around what you can touch in your vehicle under these changes. I think most people acknowledge that texting while driving is dangerous, but there seems to be a gap between that and what is actually being enforced here, which is that you cannot touch any device anywhere, anytime. So if you have your phone with a navigation app on it in a cradle fixed to your dashboard, is that allowed under these changes?

Ms PULFORD: I think perhaps this question is beyond the scope of the bill and is something that is not impacted by this bill. There are no changes proposed to the current rules about what you can and cannot do with your phone in your vehicle. Can I perhaps offer you a briefing from the department on the way those current uses of devices interact with the current road safety laws as a way forward? My short answer is that the bill does not have an effect on that.

Mr QUILTY: All right, I will accept that. But it seems to me the bill does have an effect on that, because while we might have had theoretically a bunch of laws about what is happening in the car, up until now there has been no real way to enforce them. Now suddenly we will have cameras peering into cars seeing what people are doing. I think at the least we need a lot of education around what is actually allowed and not allowed to be done while you are driving, because I think there are a lot of ordinary behaviours that people do in their cars, especially on country roads but also everywhere, that are potentially illegal that people do not even know about.

Ms PULFORD: I think that is not an unreasonable comment. In the evidence around the relationship between driver distraction and fatal and serious crashes on slower roads in urban settings and on faster roads in rural settings, the one thing that is common is that those kinds of distractions can be incredibly dangerous. I would perhaps take as a comment and a suggestion your comments on the need for us all to make sure that people are aware of the current rules and arrangements as they stand. As is always the case with passage of legislation in this place and the commencement of new penalties and new measures in road safety, there is always an element of both free media and also various campaigns making sure the community are aware and that they learn or are reminded of what their obligations are. But I think it is an important suggestion.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 38 agreed to.

Clause 39 (15:36)

Mr ONDARCHIE: Minister, I draw your attention to clause 39, line 28, which is titled ‘Division 14—Road Legislation Amendment Act 2022’. Is that correct?

Ms PULFORD: Yes, it is there.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Is that correct?

Ms PULFORD: Is it correct that it is there at this point on this page?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, I might be able to answer this question for you.

Mr ONDARCHIE: I have not finished my question yet.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You asked a question about the title.

Mr ONDARCHIE: I asked it of the minister.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have the explanation from the Clerk.

Mr ONDARCHIE: I did not realise you were answering on behalf of the minister. Sorry, Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am not answering on behalf of the minister; I am just making a clarification that the clerks have advised me of.

Ms PULFORD: I am not entirely sure what your question is yet.

Mr ONDARCHIE: I was asking if that title is correct.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Ondarchie, there is an error in the title in the bill. It should be the Road Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2022. The Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel (OCPC) are aware of this, and they have drawn it to the Clerk’s attention. The Clerk will make a correction after we have passed the third reading.

Mr Rich-Phillips: On a point of order, Deputy President, given this error was notified by OCPC, what is the standard practice for advising the house of that error? You have given us advice now because Mr Ondarchie has asked a question which has highlighted the error. In the absence of Mr Ondarchie’s question, how would the house be notified of the error and when?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will just get some advice from the clerks because I have only just found out about this now.

Mr Rich-Phillips, I am advised that the normal process is that after the third reading the President will read a letter from the Clerk advising that he will make a clerical amendment. The reason it is done at that point is that there is no amendment to be made until there is actually a bill passed.

Ms PULFORD: Just on that, I want to thank you for your assistance on that procedural process, Deputy President, and our Clerk as well. The government has no intention of changing the name of this legislation, so it is good to know that it is going to be sorted out through a pretty standard process.

Clause agreed to; clause 40 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources) (15:42): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources) (15:42): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

With the house’s indulgence and with your indulgence for just a moment, Deputy President, I missed the opportunity to make a couple of comments in summing up. I just want to recognise the significant contribution of Jeynelle Dean-Hayes in her advocacy on behalf of her late son, Tyler Dean, assisted by Minister Neville and assisted by Ms Maxwell in particular on some elements of this legislation. I think we can all be very proud of the work that, as a Parliament, has been done in providing an outcome for Jeynelle. I am advised by Ms Maxwell that today is indeed Jeynelle’s birthday. I am sure a day like a birthday is an incredibly hard day for her, but perhaps this will give her some comfort and some peace that we have been able to have this bill concluded for her today.

The PRESIDENT: The question is:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

House divided on question:

Question agreed to.

Read third time.

The 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.

Clerk’s amendments

The PRESIDENT (15:50): Under standing order 14.33, I have received a report from the Clerk of the Legislative Council informing the house that he has made a correction in the Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. The report is as follows:

Under Standing Order 14.33, I have made a correction in the Road Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, listed as follows:

In Clause 39, line 28, I have inserted ‘Safety’ after ‘Road’ in the new Division heading to be inserted into the Transport Accident Act 1986.