Tuesday, 14 November 2023

Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Lizzie Blandthorn:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (15:27): I rise to speak on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. I would firstly like to thank my colleague in the other place Danny O’Brien for the hard work he has done on this bill and for formulating our position on it and also my colleague in the other place Matthew Guy for his input. This bill is a very large omnibus bill. The main element of the bill is an introduction of a legal process for a research trial for driving and medical cannabis use. It provides regulation of e-scooter and bicycle share schemes for local councils; clarifies governance arrangements for various transport agencies, including V/Line; makes various safety reforms, including allowing speed cameras and speed detection services to be used on bikes and e-scooters, and rules around alcohol interlocks; amends rules surrounding the sharing of data from commercial passenger vehicles and the public transport networks with respect to CCTV footage and Myki and travel data; and makes various other technical and consequential amendments.

Clause 56 of the bill grants the minister power to designate a road safety research trial by notice in the Government Gazette. Under the trial the usual rules under the Road Safety Act 1986 would not apply to participants in the trial, which will assess impairments and impacts from any drugs, alcohol or fatigue and inform the methods police could use to assess driving impairment. The trial would be in a closed-circuit, controlled driving environment; however, even off the road the Road Safety Act 1986 still applies in some cases, necessitating these amendments to make the trial exempt.

The government has not yet given further details of where or how the trial will run. I am looking forward to those details. In our view this is a vexed issue. We do not believe it is a simple problem, as some make it out to be. We do see both sides of the argument.

On one hand it is understandable that users of a legally prescribed drug see it as unfair that they are breaking the law by driving with THC in their system, even though they might be entirely free of impairment. In most cases users will only be impaired by medically prescribed cannabis for a couple of hours. The problem is that THC, as we have heard almost every day in this place, can remain in their system for weeks or even months, and it is not legal to drive with any THC in your system. Currently roadside testing is done for alcohol, MDMA, methamphetamine and cannabis. However, unlike for alcohol, the test for THC is a binary test – it either returns a positive result or it returns a negative result. It is certainly concerning to many Victorians that they are taking medical cannabis and are therefore unable to drive, but on the other hand there is the aspect of road safety and the effect of an exemption for medical cannabis users.

If there were simply an exemption, it would be possible for users to use marijuana for recreational purposes and then show their prescription to a police officer to avoid punishment. There is also a risk of impaired driving, be that through driving whilst impaired by either legally prescribed cannabis or recreational cannabis. A recent parliamentary library report on the bill, which includes some of the history of the issue, mentions Victoria Police’s submission to the inquiry on this matter, which says cannabis use remains a significant threat to road safety. It goes on to say that THC is likely to reduce a driver’s ability to have full control of the vehicle. This is because THC slows down reaction times. It distorts perception of speed and distance and reduces concentration. The parliamentary library report goes on to say that this is affirmed by other agencies such as the Transport Accident Commission and VicRoads.

Whether it is excessive alcohol or excessive THC, we know there will be an impairment effect. Because of this the government and the opposition both opposed the Road Safety Amendment (Medical Cannabis) Bill 2023 earlier this year, but I will restate here that we recognise the unfairness that exists in the current situation and that we will keep an open mind on this issue. This bill sets up a process to further examine the issue. We do have a few questions around the detail of the trial, which I am sure will come in later stages, and I am sure those questions that we do have will receive very forthcoming answers from the government.

On the e-scooter and e-bike share part of the bill, the bill seeks to address some issues raised by the e-scooter and e-bike trials the government has been running for some time now in Melbourne and Ballarat. I am a big fan of e-scooters. In fact I used some of my early time as a member for Northern Metropolitan Region to advocate for our e-scooter community in the Victorian Parliament. I worked with our growing e-scooter community and successfully advocated for the rules to be changed to enable the riding of privately owned e-scooters. They were stuck in an e-scooter purgatory whereby it was legal and lawful for you to rent an e-scooter off a big multinational company in Melbourne’s CBD but it was unlawful to ride around on one you had legally bought yourself from somewhere like JB Hi-Fi. I was very happy to see that change, and I am very happy that people with privately owned e-scooters, of which there are over 100,000, are now able to ride them around wherever they like.

E-scooters are a fun way to get around, but they are also an environmentally friendly way to get around. If we look at cars per household and think that that number is an issue, then a good way to reduce that is e-scooter ownership and the use of e-scooters and e-scooter share schemes. Especially if you live around our inner cities and like to get around, want to go to a friend’s place or want to go on a picnic or to visit some friends, e-scooters are a great way to get around. I was pleased to advocate on behalf of people in my community and in my electorate to see that change fulfilled.

One of the issues identified is share scheme scooters being left on footpaths and other places that present a tripping hazard and can pose difficulties for those with a disability. I completely understand those concerns. We have a couple of concerns with the changes, as the bill appears to essentially shift the cost of the issue and all the complexities that come with that to local government. I guess that is a continuation of other areas of government where we have seen a shifting to local government, whether it be waste or whether it be maternal and child health, and all the costs associated with those getting pushed onto local governments in my community. I am looking forward to local governments in my community, including Hume City Council, Merri-bek City Council, Mitchell Shire Council and the Northern Councils Alliance, who have all expressed to me a great interest in submitting to the Economy and Infrastructure Committee inquiry into local government that was put forward by this side of the house – and it was successful in getting that inquiry up. I think it will be important to shine a light on how much more cost shifting is going onto local government.

The government has not provided guidance on those issues of pedestrian safety and clutter on our roadsides and footpaths, and that is reflected by the Municipal Association of Victoria, MAV, which actually came back to the opposition and said:

The proposed approach, which will require each council to assess the positive proposals and negotiate with potential providers individually, seems insufficient and appears to pass the compliance and financial obligations onto local government.

The MAV went on to say:

Without an agreed state or national standard, and consistent approaches between councils there is a risk of a patchwork approach to managing e-scooters across the State.

This is where our concern lies. The MAV also said:

The State should provide a model agreement with standard conditions to guide local governments.

We actually agree with this, and we understand that this might well be the case. With any new technology there will be some impacts and concerns raised by members of the community. E-scooters are a convenient and very fun way to get around, as I was saying, for many people, including many people in my electorate. They are also an environmentally friendly way to decongest our roads rather than adding to the growing traffic.

Many issues raised by those such as the AMA apply to other modes of transport like cycling, as well as activities in general. All modes of transport carry some risk, and the responsible use of e-scooters and e-bikes as well as responsible cycling and driving should be encouraged. Particularly around the time that I was advocating for the e-scooter community, we saw a hell of a lot of fearmongering about accidents, but if you actually deep dive into the data, you will see that the rate is pretty consistent with the rate of accidents in cycling. I think we need to use some common sense. We have great new technology in e-scooters, which, as I said, are a great way to get around the community. Cycling is not for everyone, and e-scooters provide an option for people that may be environmentally conscious or do not want to go and buy a car. Perhaps they live in Richmond or they live in Brunswick or they live in Preston and they want to get around in a different way. E-scooters and e-bikes provide an opportunity for people to do just that.

On bus driver accreditation, part 2 of the bill amends the Bus Safety Act 2009 to implement a revised bus driver accreditation scheme. This is designed to modernise the accreditation process and align it with the process for commercial passenger vehicles like taxis, hire cars and rideshares; provide exemptions for drivers on certain matters; and bring both buses and CPVs under one regulator, Safe Transport Victoria. But in our consultation with industry we learned that the government did not actually consult with the industry on the matter – interesting. That is something that we have become used to with this government. The good people at the Bus Association Victoria actually knew nothing about this when we called them. They knew nothing about it, and we understand that neither the Transport Workers’ Union nor the other unions were involved – interesting; very, very interesting. Usually they are the first ones to know, before anyone else. Usually they get an inside run. It is a failing that the government has not consulted with industry or the drivers. Nonetheless, despite being a little bit grumpy, the Bus Association Victoria did not raise any concerns with these changes. I will leave the opinion of the Bus Association Victoria for other members.

On alcohol interlocks, speed detectors, e-scooters and free rego for apprentices, the bill makes a number of changes to various road rules and legislation to reinforce the dangers of drink driving and to target repeat offenders. Drivers who have had an alcohol interlock condition removed from their licence will face a further three years of the zero BAC condition on their licence. This is consistent with the current position of a disqualified drink driver when they return to licensed driving. The bill also clarifies that an exemption to the zero BAC requirement for unlicensed drivers renewing their licence only applies to drivers who have failed to renew an expiring licence and are still within the six-month renewal grace period. Anyone beyond this period will not be eligible for an exemption.

Clause 48 extends the use of speed cameras and speed detectors to all vehicles, which includes scooters and bicycles. Such devices can be used to fine e-scooter and bike riders for breaking the speed limit or to penalise e-scooter riders for travelling faster than the 20-kilometre statewide limit. Clause 47 bans the use of e-scooters on freeways, which is probably sensible. Clause 46 allows police and PSOs to prevent a person who is incapable of driving from driving not only their own vehicle but any other vehicle, regardless of whether it is motorised. Currently when someone is – the term is ‘incapable of driving’, but we will assume that this is from impairment – impaired from either drugs or alcohol or some other issue that may have occurred, police can take the keys effectively and stop them from driving their vehicle. The amendment stops them also from getting into another car or onto a bike or onto an e-scooter or something like that, whether motorised or not. That ensures that both that person and the general community on the roads are safe as well.

Part 7 corrects a problem of the government’s own making. Its free rego for apprentices policy raised concerns that without paying a TAC charge these motorists would not actually be covered by the TAC. This section corrects the anomaly to ensure they are covered, which is quite amusing and quite an unintended consequence, but that happens when you do not look over all the detail and have to come back here and clean it up.

This bill also formalises a number of arrangements relating to transport sector governance and repeals redundant provisions under preceding arrangements. These relate to changes the government has made to transport sector agencies in recent years, including establishing Safe Transport Victoria and converting V/Line from a board-managed state-owned enterprise to a statutory authority with the CEO reporting to the Secretary of Department of Transport and Planning. These were established via transport restructuring orders under the Transport Integration Act 2010. The government has clarified these changes to V/Line will help deliver better regional services and appointed a Labor mate Matt Carrick as the CEO. I think Victorians would question if these services have actually improved.

Despite my electorate being metropolitan – I am a member for Northern Metropolitan Region – due to the government’s inaction on infrastructure many of my constituents actually use V/Line. A growing number of my constituents use a V/Line service. In fact according to recent reports many constituents travelling from Wallan, Kalkallo and Donnybrook regularly have to stand for 50 minutes on packed trains. I have even heard from constituents that service conductors actually have had to stop people boarding and others have had to sit in baggage areas on a V/Line service. Some people that have reached out to me are having to change their work contracts and work arrangements to work from home more because of the delays in V/Line services.

We often see government media releases, including from the new Premier Ms Allan when she was Minister for Transport Infrastructure, boasting that V/Line is the fastest growing rail service in Australia. That is right; it is the fastest growing rail service in Australia. You would think that is because of government efficiency or government investment – you know, ‘How good is this state government?’ That is what it sounds like when the Premier says that V/Line is the fastest growing rail service in Australia. But when you take a deep dive, you can see why it is the fastest growing, because it is no longer just a regional service. We have established suburbs in my electorate like Wallan, Beveridge and Donnybrook that are all covered by V/Line – there is no electrification even planned – and we have got established suburbs in places like Melton and Wyndham Vale that were meant to be part of the Western Rail Plan connecting them to a Metro service that are not. So you have got tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people moving into growth areas across Melbourne that are serviced by V/Line. No wonder it is the fastest growing rail service in Australia, when government inaction has left growth suburbs on a regional train line. That is actually what has happened in Victoria.

Let me remind you – my colleague Trung Luu will be quite interested – the Western Rail Plan, which is now an evolving promise they seem to have backed away from, was promised by the Labor Party at two separate elections. They went to the good people of the western suburbs and they said, ‘We’re going to deliver electrified services to Melton and Wyndham Vale, because we do what we say and we say what we do’ – except for the Western Rail Plan. They also had several Labor candidates, now Labor members, promoting the Western Rail Plan – how good is Labor for the western suburbs! – just like they were all promoting the airport rail link.

This government have failed regarding regional services and they have failed regarding V/Line, especially in its capacity to deal with growth areas and the amount of people moving into these growth areas. I invite people on the government side to come with me to either Wallan station or Donnybrook station and watch the cancellations – watch people get incredibly frustrated because those cancellations mean that even when a V/Line train does rock up it is packed and they cannot get on. This is no way for people in growth areas to live. Young people who move out to the outer suburbs to get a home for themselves and migrant families who move out to the outer suburbs to start a family are forced to deal with government inertia causing mayhem on our rail lines that should have been electrified a long time ago. The state government loves to take the credit for all these investments, but well over 80 per cent of the Regional Rail Revival was actually funded by the former federal Liberal government.

This bill has a range of other amendments, such as to improve clarity and transparency around the sharing of data and the transport sector, including round-trip data informing the State Revenue Office on the commercial passenger vehicle service levy with respect to public transport network data such as CCTV footage and the Myki ticketing system. There are multiple other minor amendments that clarify the right of drivers to a review of decisions under the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017; provide further regulation-making powers under the Marine (Domestic Commercial Vessel National Law Application) Act 2013; formally abolish the infrastructure reference panel under the Road Management Act 2004, which disbanded in 2019 and had not met since 2018, and instead require the minister to consult on codes of practice with relevant ministers, utilities, road authorities and public transport providers; change clauses to use gender-inclusive language; and of course multiple consequential amendments to correct name and agency changes in various acts.

It is worth actually mentioning, while I still have time, that this government has failed dismally on roads across Victoria, especially regional roads and those in my electorate in Melbourne’s north. I contributed to a great edition of the North Central Review last week – a paper that covers my electorate in Wallan and Beveridge – which was basically a huge exposé on the lack of investment in roads. Anyone who has driven up to Wallan – I know Acting President McArthur has, and I hope others that might also be members for Northern Metropolitan have – will know that if you drive along the Northern Highway, on Watson Street or on Old Sydney Road your first requirement is to have a four-wheel drive, and even if you do it might still be damaged. I have seen, at one point, five cars lined up on Watson Street because of potholes on the Northern Highway.

In the state budget that came out in May we saw a $150 million cut to road maintenance. We see a serious lack of investment in our regional roads. We are seeing that play out across the state. Certainly the feedback I get is that people are at breaking point. And let us not forget that it was those on the other side who blocked a parliamentary inquiry we tried to put up this term looking at our regional roads. I will keep fighting for investment in those roads because people are desperate. People in my electorate, in Wallan, after complaining several times to VicRoads, were forced to fill a massive pothole with a garden bed, with a little tree and a sign that said ‘Wallan Botanical Gardens, sponsored by VicRoads’. After weeks of complaining, surprise, surprise, it was removed within 24 hours – funny, that. This is the kind of thing we expect from this government. The opposition is not opposing this bill, but we do have some questions around the cannabis trial for the committee stage.

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (15:56): I will be very, very quick. I might sum up Mr Mulholland’s comments about regional roads as ‘In the city we drive on the left of the road; in the country we drive on what is left of the road.’ It is appalling. I do a lot of country kilometres. It does not matter whether you go north, east, west or south; it is getting dangerous. But that is not what I want to talk about today. I am going to confine my brief comments to new section 99C, the road safety trial to do with drugs. My understanding is that this is not new, that it has been done before. To put it in context, in 2023 to date we have lost 258 lives. For the whole of 2022 we lost 213 lives. That is a 21.1 per cent increase to date, and there is still a month and a half to go. We can have our beliefs on recreational drugs and medicinal drugs too, but I just do not think this is sending the right message at a time when our road toll is going up not by a little bit, not by a statistically irrelevant amount, but by a lot – 20 per cent. That is getting close to a quarter. I will be opposing that part in the committee stage.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:58): I rise to make a contribution on this bill, the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. It is an omnibus bill that seeks to amend a range of acts. I will go through the main points of what the bill is seeking to amend. The purpose of this bill is to amend the following acts: the Road Safety Act 1986, the Road Management Act 2004, the Transport Accident Act 1986, the Bus Safety Act 2009, the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017, the Marine (Domestic Commercial Vessel National Law Application) Act 2013, the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 and the Transport Integration Act 2010.

I acknowledge Mr Bourman’s contribution and his concern around road safety. I think that everyone in this chamber would share concerns around road safety. The government continues to work on driving down – pardon the pun – driver behaviour that is unsafe and that can lead to the causes of the increased road toll, accidents and the like. That is of concern to the government, and we are continuing to work hard on bringing the road toll down.

The purpose of the bill, however – back to the bill – is to do a range of things. It will enable research trials to support evidence-based road safety policy, particularly in relation to medicinal cannabis trials, and the government is currently undertaking a trial in regard to that. That is a bit of a tricky area, because worldwide I guess what we have got to try and figure out is – and this is from what I understand, and this is what the trial is about – how do you measure fatigue or impairment? They are things that are quite tricky. There is a lot of good work being done in that space to analyse that and to look at that and also to establish a legislative framework for local government authorities to manage issues in relation to vehicle-sharing schemes, such as for e-scooters. I have had some inquiries from constituents around this. When we talk about e-scooters, there are also e-bikes. Some of these can be quite powerful, and there are enduring questions around how they use the roads, what parts they can use and cannot use and the like. There are some questions that I know constituents have raised with me around some of the larger e-bikes. People are taking them on trains – is that allowed? Obviously when you have a trial around these sorts of things, that is where you can figure those sorts of things out and look at what is happening around the world perhaps.

Then we are, importantly: implementing important bus driver reforms, making changes to commercial passenger vehicle laws in relation to information sharing, enabling Safe Transport Victoria to designate waters for the purpose of the national standard for commercial vehicles, and clarifying that persons exempt from paying the transport accident charge to the TAC are still fully covered for traffic accidents – that goes to our recent announcements around apprentices not having to pay rego. Currently if you are an eligible apprentice, you get your rego for free, which is a very welcome initiative, but we just need to clarify that apprentices are still covered by the TAC as road users when they are on the road. Of course the TAC is the connection there. If you are paying registration, there is a connection there so that if you have an accident the TAC covers you, so we just need to clarify that.

In terms of other changes, they will: reform the process for determining the disclosure and use of information in relation to the public transport network, support the efficient administration and regulation of the transport sector through a number of other improvements to the operation of transport law – as you can see, it is an omnibus bill that seeks to do a range of things. Like I said, there are a lot of changes to various acts and pieces of legislation, but I might just focus on the one for the moment about the cannabis trial overview, which I think people will have a lot of interest in, because it is an area that, for example, people who may be taking medicinal cannabis still feel concerned about – if they are pulled over and tested for drugs, because cannabis is still currently illegal, what that might mean for them as a road user. Effectively this is what the trial will look at, nutting out some of these issues.

In terms of road safety, Victoria has always had a strong track record in leading life-saving road safety policies and initiatives. In 1970 we led the world in becoming the first jurisdiction to introduce mandatory seatbelts, for example. In 1976 we were the first state to introduce random breath testing. In the late 1980s Victoria again was a world leader in introducing speed cameras. In 2004 Victoria was the first state to introduce mandatory roadside drug tests. It 2008 Victoria introduced its graduated licensing system. As you can see, there are a number of things that we have done over many decades, and we will continue to act to improve road safety and bring down the road toll. These initiatives have been found time and again to have saved countless Victorian lives.

I can remark, and I have made this contribution in this place in another context in another debate, that as the chair of the motorcycle community engagement panel during motorcycle safety awareness month I had the pleasure and the privilege of going down to Anglesea to look at the latest ANCAP safety testing and some of the safety initiatives that are being looked at. Vehicle manufacturers want to achieve a 5-star safety rating. Some of the vehicle technology that is available from a safety perspective is quite amazing. For example, if you were parked on the side of the road and you went to open your door but there was a cyclist coming, there would be a mechanism that would actually override you and prevent you from opening the door until that cyclist, whether it was a motorcyclist or someone riding a pushbike, had actually passed you. There are vehicles available now that would detect that, but the next step is that it would prevent you from opening the door and potentially save that person from injury. There are a number of people who ride bicycles who have been what they call ‘doored’ – where someone has not seen them and unwittingly opened the door – and not only does it injure that person, but they can be knocked under a moving car.

That is just one example of some of the safety mechanisms that are being looked at and assessed under the ANCAP system. Also evasive action for cars – if you do not see a motorcyclist and you try to turn across it, it would take evasive action and take over the steering. These are all impressive safety improvements. Again, motorcyclists – whilst they are a very small proportion of our road users and licence-holders, they are disproportionately represented in the road toll. That is something this government is very much aware of, and we will continue to look at ways that we can improve safety and prevent harm to people on our roads.

As I was saying, the strong record that we have has continued this year with a suite of reforms targeting driver distraction and seatbelt wearing. These offences come into effect in April, and further road safety initiatives are enabled through this bill as well. One of the key reforms in this bill will enable the minister to designate road safety research trials. This then gets to the point about what is happening in this space for cannabis. It could be for the purpose of informing the development of methods used by police officers to assess whether someone is impaired by drugs, alcohol or fatigue. That is the key point: what is impairment and what does it look like? I have made the point in here in the context of another debate about being fatigued. I know when we have been in here doing lengthy debates late into the night, I am tired and the next day I am fatigued. I often worry about driving home but also the next day. It takes me a day or two to recover from a really late night like that, and I am fatigued on the road. I know that I would be distracted. I am not affected by drugs or alcohol, but fatigue is a very real concern. We continue the work in this space to look at all ways and any ways that we can assist road users to continue to operate their vehicles in a safe way and protect road users from injury or harm.

This amendment, in terms of this bill, will be important. It will enable the government to run world-leading research trials, not just relating to medicinal cannabis but also in other areas where there is scope for research, to support the ongoing work and address some of the most difficult challenges that road users face in this safety space, ultimately to make our roads safer for all road users. I was just mentioning fatigue. The bill particularly talks about detecting fatigue at the roadside and also detecting impairment at the roadside for both illicit drugs and prescribed medications. Some vehicles already have fitted to them the ability to detect if you are not paying attention to the road – so if you are moving your head from side to side or you are distracted. Some people might be reaching for their coffee cup in the middle of the console or, unfortunately, reaching for their phone, which they should not be reaching for. The car could detect you moving your head or not looking at the road dead ahead, and it would issue some kind of warning. Even a vibrating steering wheel is one example I was told about the other day. If you are distracted and veering off the road, the steering wheel can vibrate. So there are already a range of technologies available to help you when you are operating your vehicle. But as I said, this world-first, world-leading research at the roadside can help detect impairment for both illicit drugs and prescribed medications. This amendment is crucial to these sorts of reforms, because it allows for the process that can change how the Road Safety Act and its regulations apply to trial participants – that is, specified provisions of the act or regulations, and how they might apply, or might not apply, to trial participants in any very particular form.

In the context of a closed-circuit medicinal cannabis trial that was announced by the Allan Labor government earlier this year, this will enable trial participants to drive in a controlled environment after taking their prescribed medicinal cannabis, without the fear of breaking the law, whilst participating in valuable research to inform Victoria’s approach to drug driving and medicinal cannabis use into the future.

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, also known as THC, is the primary compound in cannabis, which is capable of producing intoxicating and impairing effects. Some forms of medicinal cannabis contain THC. Depending on the prescribing medical practitioner, some forms of medicinal cannabis oil contain the THC, and some do not. Depending on what the condition is that the person is requiring treatment for, the doctor may prescribe something that has THC in it, and that can produce intoxicating effects. But likewise, some prescription medications for pain relief also can make road users drowsy. So it is important that we gather information from the trial to inform our response going forward.

Under the current presence-based drug driving laws, any detectable amount of THC constitutes an offence under the Road Safety Act, including if it results from taking prescribed medicinal cannabis – so again, prescribed by a GP for a particular purpose in regard to pain management and the like and those sorts of things. The current regime is about detection of THC; it cannot and does not measure impairment.

The Allan Labor government has acknowledged the challenges with balancing individual health and driving needs with road safety outcomes, and we are committed to establishing an evidence-based policy position on medicinal cannabis and safe driving. A closed-circuit track trial will provide valuable information while also mitigating possible risks to all road users on the public road network. The proposed closed-circuit track trial and other ongoing road safety research initiatives are intended to provide the research required to work through this problem without increasing road safety risks. These are unknowns, and we think it is a good and appropriate mechanism to have a trial. It is a closed-circuit track – not on open roads – because we do not know how different people might react or perform under different circumstances.

Some of the circumstances that someone might find themselves driving in, which you would hope and likely expect that the trial would analyse, could include if someone is driving at night in the dark, if someone is driving during heavy rain or a storm or if somebody has been awake for a period of time and is sleep deprived as well as being on THC. These will all be invaluable things that I hope the trial will evaluate and then look at how they impact driver response times and whether someone is distracted by those sorts of things. Again, it has got to be about safety, and we want to make sure not only that the driver is safe and their driving performance is not impaired but also that other road users are going to be safe as well.

The proposed medicinal cannabis trial will be developed and implemented by independent research organisations with governance provided by the Department of Transport and Planning, road safety partners and experts and health professionals, as is appropriate. I know the clock is about to beat me. With about 30 seconds on the clock, there is a lot more that I could say about this trial and also about the other reforms that are contained in the bill, but I will not have time to do that. I know many of my colleagues will also be speaking on this bill, and I look forward to their contributions. Having said that, I will conclude my contribution there and commend this bill to the house.

Matthew BACH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:13): Like Ms Terpstra, I also commend this bill to the house. It was some time ago now, wasn’t it, that we were last talking about these broad issues. I think when we were discussing a bill put forward by Mr Limbrick, we said, on this side of the house, ‘Look, we do honestly and earnestly empathise with the range of issues that are put forward. People are prescribed medical cannabis, and at the moment the rules are so unfair.’ We talked about that at the time, but we said that, because at the same time we cared deeply about road safety and did not really see a clear way forward, we were not in a position to support what was being put forward. However, today’s bill is a little different, and so I am pleased that we are in a position to support it.

I think that we must be really mindful as our rules change – certainly around medical cannabis – of seeking, as best we can, to enable those people who are experiencing pain and a range of medical conditions to go about their lives as best they can. We have understood for some time the issues at play. In your contribution just before, Acting President Terpstra, and in the contributions of others, we have heard about these sorts of issues and that, in particular when it comes to medicinal cannabis, THC stays in your system for some time. Therefore you may well not be impaired in any way, but you could be booked.

In effect, the rules as they stand at the moment stop people who are legitimately prescribed a painkilling medication, first and foremost, from going about their daily lives. We understand why that is the case, and until now we have supported that because we care desperately about road safety. It is good to see the government responding to increasing community concerns about the current state of play with innovative ways we could go forward to seek to make sure that those people who are entirely legitimately prescribed medicinal cannabis can go about their lives.

I have had a thing or two to say recently about drug law reform, and I received some feedback about the things that I have had to say about drug law reform. I note that some other Australian jurisdictions, notably Canberra, are moving in a different direction more broadly when it comes to drug law reform and law reform when it comes to cannabis and the personal use of cannabis. I note that, I think in my final week in this place, next week we will be debating a bill from the Legalise Cannabis Party to legalise cannabis, which, as I have said previously, I support. Erroneously, some people who have provided me with uninvited feedback have put it to me that this position of mine is a left-wing position. I was thinking to myself as I was reading some of my emails about this matter that the people in the past, in particular in the late 20th century, who were the strongest advocates of drug law reform and in particular the decriminalisation of cannabis, potentially even other drugs, were in fact neoliberals, and we hear neoliberalism attacked in this place and elsewhere on a daily basis.

I have talked about my love for the economist Milton Friedman on many occasions.

Melina Bath: Good old Milton.

Matthew BACH: Good old Milton – a wonderful economist. I thought to myself that I am sure when I was reading my copy of Capitalism and Freedom, which is so dog-eared that it is hard to turn the pages, I vaguely remember him saying something about drug law reform. And he did. I looked it up; I took it off my bookshelf. And he said this in response to queries about what would occur if you were to engage in meaningful drug law reform:

I see America with half the number of prisons, half the number of prisoners, 10,000 fewer homicides a year, inner cities in which there is a chance for these poor people to live without being afraid for their lives … citizens who might be respectable who are now addicts not being subject to becoming criminals in order to get their drug, being able to get drugs for which they are sure of the quality. You know, the same thing happened under prohibition of alcohol as is happening now.

That is the position of Milton Friedman, the famous neoliberal economist. So I am glad that in this small respect today we are acknowledging the real challenges of people who are experiencing pain and who need medicinal cannabis. Dr Friedman – indeed Professor Friedman – went on, and I thought this was interesting as an adherent also of Mill. He said:

… the case for prohibiting drugs is exactly as strong and as weak as the case for prohibiting people from overeating.

That is what Milton Friedman said.

We all know that overeating causes more deaths than drugs do.

Well, that is true.

If it’s in principle okay for the government to say, ‘You must not consume drugs because they’ll do you harm,’ why isn’t it all right to say, ‘You must not eat too much because you will do harm’? Why isn’t it all right to say, ‘You must not try to go in for skydiving because you’re likely to die’? Why isn’t it all right to say, ‘Oh, skiing, that’s no good, that’s a very dangerous sport, you’ll hurt yourself’?

I think it is an interesting conversation. It is obviously a conversation that this chamber is going to have to grapple with in my absence next year. My understanding is that we will debate the bill put forward by the Legalise Cannabis Party next week, and then potentially at some point next year we will have debates and discussions about this.

Now, these issues are really challenging, because if we are to make changes – as, for example, changes have recently been made to our rules regarding public drunkenness – it is absolutely essential that the police have the tools they need and also that if we are going to talk about a health response, that that health response is there, is funded and is ready to go. Previously I have met with the head of the Police Association Victoria, and to me, as he has done in public, he criticised the government for what he has called ‘policy by media release’. So it is well and good to make changes, and I advocate changes now, as I did in my very first speech in this place, when it comes to our drug laws. But we cannot simply make changes without putting in the hard work beforehand to make sure that those changes will actually lead to better outcomes for the poor, vulnerable and disadvantaged Victorians who overwhelmingly find themselves addicted to various substances or addicted to alcohol – or having a problematic relationship with alcohol – who therefore perhaps will rub up against the forces of law and order, as is the case under our new public drunkenness laws, but also vulnerable and disadvantaged Victorians who use various other illegal drugs.

So, as you have said, Acting President Terpstra, and others before you, I welcome this bill coming before the house. I note the range of concerns that Mr Mulholland expressed, and I agree with him entirely, and those of other members of the coalition in the other place. But nonetheless I think, given we on this side of the house have expressed the views that we have on the previous bill, that it is right and proper that we welcome this bill but also that we look forward to upcoming debates – broader debates and frankly even more substantive debates – for the future of our state that will occur not only next week but also in our sitting weeks next year.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:22): I rise to speak on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. This bill delivers several reforms to our transport legislation, from technical amendments that improve the effectiveness of our transport legislation to introducing the legislative framework to begin researching technology to facilitate reforming certain safety parameters.

I want to begin by noting that I care deeply about the transport industry. In fact I am from the industry. I started on the shop floor more than three decades ago in fact, and I got my first start as a baggage handler 37 years ago. I spent 11 years at Ansett Australia. It was a great time, and I met some great people there, such as the Captain, Bill and Deano. The transport industry has a lot of heart and does a lot of good, and it is keeping our state running. I have a keen interest in legislation that affects our transport system and legislation that ensures our transport network is effective and safe. We all have a responsibility in this place to act diligently and to ensure that the laws that we make here protect workers. That is why today I want to discuss the reforms that we are proposing in that spirit.

This bill will enable research and subsequent trials to support the investigation of evidence-based road safety policies specifically regarding medicinal cannabis and medicinal cannabis testing. We have come a long way since the backward thinking of the war on drugs. We are a modern state. I recognise that this place has two democratically elected members of the Legalise Cannabis Party, the two members Mr Ettershank and Ms Payne, who are dedicated to legalising cannabis – and we know that ‍– but also to educating and bringing light to many issues facing our state and to ideas that I had never considered before my life. For instance, I have sat down in this chamber during many contributions in Parliament and have learned a lot about the hemp industry. I have also learned about hemp through my participation as a member of the Economy and Infrastructure Committee, in particular through the investigation into the hemp industry. Earlier this year we discussed a similar bill from Legalise Cannabis that was introduced by my colleague Mr Ettershank, the Road Safety Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2023, and during that conversation we undertook to conduct more research into the area. Minister Shing said at the time:

… this is a really complex area. Careful thought and consideration of this issue has been undertaken for some time now, and it is also necessary and appropriate that that work continue. We want it to be put to good use in this conversation about public health, about access to treatment and about making and keeping our road environments safe.

That is what we have done and we will continue to do. This legislation will support a world-leading trial to assess the effects of medicinal cannabis on road and driving behaviour. As announced last month, we will be running a closed-circuit trial to investigate when individuals who use medicinal cannabis, which contains THC, can drive safely. This is an important next step, and it is important for me personally. I know Ms Payne cares. Mr Ettershank has spent a lot of his life in industrial relations all around our country, in training and industrial officer roles. He was on the waterfront in 1998, and he has worked at the ACTU, the ASU and United Voice, including with my friend Senator Tony Sheldon in Queensland. I know Mr Ettershank cares about workers safety. That is why it is important we conduct this trial and get it right, so that we can look forward to the day when people who are using medicinal cannabis for their health can participate in our society fully, as members equally, by using our roads. The trial will be developed and monitored by an independent research organisation with the Department of Transport and Planning, road safety partners, experts and health professionals overseeing it from the governance and logistical perspective. Comprehensive design work will create a controlled driving environment for the trial. It will be physically separated from public roads, and there will be important safety considerations for workers – in this case, the research staff and the participants.

This bill will also establish a state legislative framework for local city and shire councils to manage vehicle-sharing schemes, specifically the issues that they present in relation to amenity and accessibility. Additionally, the bill will update and clarify the Road Safety Act 1986 to provide improved road safety outcomes for all Victorians; and it will support the reform and reorganisation of our transport sector agencies and regulation schemes, with the intention of establishing a more efficient transport sector administration and regulation. The bill will amend the following acts: the Bus Safety Act 2009, the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017, the Marine (Domestic Commercial Vessel National Law Application) Act 2013, the Road Management Act 2004, the Road Safety Act 1986, the Sentencing Act 1991, the Transport Accident Act 1986, the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 and the Transport Integration Act 2010.

Seven years ago the then Andrews Labor government – this side of the chamber – made history by being the first government in Australia to legalise prescription-based use of medical cannabis. Medical cannabis is a net positive for our state. It is playing an increasing role as a therapeutic option, with a documented increase of more than 700 per cent in the number of patients prescribed medical cannabis in our state in just the last two years. We did it because we listened to health experts, and with this legislation we are listening to experts again. Users of medical cannabis almost uniformly report positive outcomes from taking medicinal cannabis for a range of conditions, from anxiety to treating side effects of chemo. However, many medical cannabis users face major issues due to the cannabinoid’s ability to stay in the bloodstream for long periods of time after they have consumed cannabis. Medicinal cannabis users are unable to use their vehicles without the fear of returning a positive on a blood test for the presence of drugs.

If we can develop technology to measure the level of cannabis in their system, then drivers who use medicinal cannabis can return to the roads without fear of penalisation. This will be done by giving powers to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety Minister Horne in the other place to establish this road safety research trial. We do not know what we do not know, and this trial will show us how to get to the place where we know more. These research trials will not stop just at medicinal cannabis impairment but will address several other road safety-related trials. These trials will be flexible and adaptive. They will study the effectiveness of a range of policy programs and technologies. This will ultimately provide the Minister for Roads and Road Safety with a library of information on how to best legislate reforms that deliver the best outcomes for all Victorians. Evidence-based reform is the best way to move Victoria forward in key ways that affect our lives. This power will be delivered through an amendment to the Road Safety Act 1986, along with several other provisions, to allow for the trial to be performed with the utmost ease.

The bill will also find a solution for a problem that many city councils have been facing as we change the ways that people move around this great city, that being the issue that vehicle-sharing schemes pose to amenity and accessibility. In our inner-city suburbs e-scooters and electric bikes are now a familiar part of the landscape. This mode of transport offers a viable and green alternative to commuting or travelling by car. Their adoption has been widely popular, with the average day in Victoria seeing 8600 trips made with e-scooters. E-scooters are effective in helping Melburnians get around town cheaply and sustainably when public transport is not an option – and I like them a lot. I remember fondly my time at the Transport Workers’ Union national council in the Northern Territory scootering around the city on an electric Neuron bike. They are effective and cheap. They also help ease traffic congestion on our roads, an issue that many transport workers face on the job, and a very frustrating one. However, the introduction of e-scooters and electric bikes has created issues surrounding accessibility of public areas, and we are going to address this through reforms that deliver a legal framework for local councils to address the negative effects of vehicle-sharing schemes.

With this model local councils can best determine what their local community needs and create by-laws to that effect. This means that we can avoid statewide policies that, despite working well in the cities of Yarra or Melbourne, are not effective and are counter-productive in a city like Boroondara in my community of Southern Metro. This will be implemented through amendments made to the Road Safety Act 1986, specifically introducing part 7C, which outlines the legal requisites for operating a vehicle-sharing scheme and the powers local councils have in the authorisation process for vehicle-sharing schemes. It outlines the penalties for failing to abide by the rules set out by the relevant local councils. This is an important step forward towards promoting accessibility in our inner-city suburbs while maintaining the benefits we get from these vehicle-sharing schemes. The bill also addresses inefficiencies in the organisation and function of Victoria’s network of transport sector administration and regulation bodies. This will overall improve the function of transport bodies in the state of Victoria. It will align regulatory schemes and bring the standard of Victoria’s transport sector industry up to best practice.

Now on to transport restructuring orders, or TROs. TROs can be used to create new transport sector agencies, alter the constitution and membership of transport agencies and modify the application of transport legislation. Yet governments cannot abolish transport agencies using a TRO. This can lead to a bloated administration in government. This bill seeks to rectify that and gives the government the power to abolish transport agencies. This will make our transport sector more flexible. Many reforms that have changed the face of not just Victorian public transport but Victorian life in general have been achieved through the implementation of a transport restructuring order. For example, two years ago a transport restructuring order facilitated the restructuring of V/Line, converting it from a corporation with a board to a single-member corporation. As a result we could include V/Line projects in our Big Build project and so much more. It only makes sense that we should empower the government to slim down government and make it more efficient.

Additionally, the bill seeks to provide more transparency on how and why information is shared in the transport industry. This update to information sharing will be introduced to ensure the public have the confidence in how and why information is being shared in the public sector – information that has been shared to make our system run efficiently, particularly in the public transport system. This can range from the use of closed-circuit cameras to trip information retained via Myki use. Currently the power to use this information is with the minister. This bill seeks to extend the situations that agencies can access such information and to restructure the minister’s involvement in the information-sharing process. Additionally, updates to the legislation will be made to allow for the State Revenue Office to access certain information relating to the commercial passenger vehicle service levy through Safe Transport Victoria. This is to ensure that the state revenue schemes are applied evenly across commercial passenger vehicles. Whilst this provision exists in some part already, this bill clarifies the explicit power of Safe Transport Victoria to share commercially sensitive trip data with the State Revenue Office. Again, this will ensure the function and efficacy of the commercial passenger vehicle service levy.

One of the aspects of the bill that I take a lot of interest in is in relation to bus driver accreditation. I worked very closely with the public transport industry in Victoria, specifically our amazing workforce of bus drivers. During that time I was lucky enough to speak to many bus drivers across Victoria and to listen to what they needed to improve their working conditions and then deliver for them. It was the work of the bus drivers in the Transport Workers’ Union that resulted in all Victorian buses requiring a safety screen for the protection of the driver. I am glad that I am still able to advocate for transport workers, but now from Spring Street, and I will continue that today. I am proud that this bill will improve the working conditions of our public transport bus drivers. The bill adjusts bus driver accreditation requirements to be fit for purpose and modern, facilitating a smooth transport system. A similar reform was delivered six years ago when we modernised the commercial passenger vehicle accreditation scheme. This bill seeks to bring Victorian bus accreditation into the future and in line with commercial passenger vehicle regulation.

Victoria has a history to be proud of. We have led the nation for over 50 years in life-saving road safety policies. In 1970, for instance, we led the world to become the first jurisdiction to introduce mandatory seatbelts. In 1976 we were the first state to introduce random breath testing. In the late 1980s Victoria again led the world by introducing speed cameras. In 2004 Victoria was the first state to introduce mandatory roadside drug testing, and in 2008 we introduced its graduated licensing system. These initiatives have been found time and time again to have saved countless Victorian lines. This strong record has continued this year with a suite of reforms under the Allan Labor government targeting driver distraction and seatbelt wearing offences, and further road safety programs have been established because of this bill. We will get on with it and deliver. I recognise the considerable interest in this bill, so I am looking forward to hearing from my community about how we can deliver the best outcome. That is something that we all should be excited about, because as Minister Horne said, the new laws will enhance our understanding of how medicinal cannabis affects driving behaviour, informing future reform. Let us get it done.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (16:36): I am pleased to rise this afternoon and make a contribution on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 and concur with my colleague Mr Mulholland that the Nationals and the Liberals will not be opposing this bill. It really is quite a thick bill. It is an omnibus bill that contains many elements. I will touch on just a few of most interest to the people in my Eastern Victoria electorate. The bill certainly looks at the legal process – and we have heard this in quite a lot of detail – about a research trial of driving and medicinal cannabis use, and I will touch on that. It provides regulation around e-scooters and bicycles in their share schemes with local councils and the problems that are occurring with those. It aligns bus driver accreditation with commercial passenger vehicle drivers. It clarifies the governance arrangements for various transport agencies, including V/Line, and I know that is a particular interest of my Eastern Victoria Region constituents. It also makes reforms around speed cameras and speed detection devices to be used on bikes and e-scooters, and it also looks at the rules around alcohol interlocks and makes various other amendments.

I would like to take my contribution to the topic of medicinal cannabis, noting that it was I think in the 58th Parliament that the government brought through the use of medicinal cannabis noting its very important use as a prescribed drug to support those people who have significant pain from serious cancers and conditions – nausea and the like that can often happen during chemotherapy – and also those who have epilepsy and other severe conditions with seizures. There is a demonstrated improvement in quality of life and pain management for those coping with those very serious conditions. Indeed in terms of the assessment of driving while under the influence of a drug, certainly it is the only legally prescribed drug that is screened either by a swab or by a blood test. Those users, if they are found with medicinal cannabis – or THC, which is the psychoactive component of cannabis ‍– in their blood, it is either an on or an off. Either you either have it in your blood and therefore can be charged or you do not. But the important detail is around the effect it has on the body of the driver when in charge of a car, and that can only be for a short period of time – a matter of hours. However, THC can actually be in the blood system for anywhere up to 24 hours. Therefore somebody can be driving completely, I will say, safely and completely aware of their actions but still record that particular drug in their system.

We know and we have heard from you, Acting President Terpstra, about the introduction of safety measures in terms of seatbelts and blood alcohol limits that have been introduced in Victoria in years past and the importance of those. We also note that there is no blood alcohol percentage test available for more serious drugs such as methamphetamines and also MDMA. So the context around this analysis and this trial I think is an important one. Of course the devil is always in the detail, and it is up to the government to refine this, but certainly proposing an off-road research trial in a safe environment to test those sorts of impediments or test drivers under the influence I think would be a better outcome for all motorists and safer for all Victorians. So we certainly are not in opposition to that. Again, it is always in the detail, and like all members of the community, we would like to be kept abreast of how those trials will be conducted and of the method behind those trials but also of the reports and the responses from those trials. There needs to be transparency from the government in pushing this and conducting those trials.

Indeed, we have seen very recently the tragedy of a road toll that is at a 15-year high, with 258 lives lost on Victorian roads this year. That is 258 families and communities that have been absolutely traumatised by these losses. There is not one figure, there is not one issue; there are multiple issues that lead to crashes – not accidents, they are crashes and they are fatalities. Alcohol can be involved, certainly drugs can be involved, and fatigue and driver distraction. There is always a need to be mindful in any situation that we are to keep our eyes on the road and not be distracted. Speed is also an element that is of concern, as is not driving to the road conditions. But may I also say in this house that our road conditions – the condition of our roads – even on a fine, calm, mild day are absolutely appalling in this state, and we have seen the government cut road maintenance funding again and again.

If you want to look at road tolls, we can also see that unfortunately of those 258 deaths on our Victorian roads, there is an over-representation of rural deaths – 153 of those deaths occurred on rural roads. We used to have a saying, and it still holds true: if you want to save country lives, fix country roads. That has never been more true than it is today. I implore the government to look at its road maintenance funding and increase it back to a reasonable standard – not just a line that occurs in a media release – and help fix those country roads. I know there have been, through lobbying in my own small way, some small interventions, particularly in the Walhalla district and others, where there have been improvements to road safety – barriers and the like – but really it needs a whole-of-government response to put this down. It is a multipronged issue, but we cannot continue to see an increase and an exponential rise in deaths on our roads, which are tragedies for families and communities.

The other part that I would like to take us to is the clarification of the sector governance and data use in terms of V/Line. If it was just so simple to fix V/Line by changing up the governance arrangement, I would run around with my hands in the air, applauding the government. However, we have seen over a period of time – and I will give you an example – the deterioration of our V/Line services, and many Victorians absolutely count on having a reliable and punctual service. We see in Gippsland that it just is not the case. The punctuality target across Victoria for V/Line is 92 per cent, so 92 per cent of the time train should – that is the V/Line punctuality target – arrive on time. What we see from the performance data in Gippsland is that – we will go back in time and then to the present day – in 2014, when the then Liberal and Nationals government was in Parliament, the punctuality was at 87.5 per cent. These are not my figures; these are V/Line figures. You can look them up. The government inherited 87.5 per cent. It was not 92 per cent; there was still a way to go. There were still improvements that needed to be made. We move forward nine years, and we see that the average punctuality target to date – so the year to date – is 79.9 per cent, so less than 80 per cent of trains arrive on time. There was one time when we scanned these in my office, because we are always interested in looking for good service. In January this year, 2023, the government met its punctuality targets. But, guess what, it was the only month when there were no trains arriving. The punctuality target was met when there were no V/Line trains. It was actually a bus service, a coach service, that was delivered. The other thing that we have seen over time by this Labor government is the tweaking of the timetable. In Gippsland we had 62 services, but what the government did was they actually increased the length of the journey. They increased the time allowable for that service to arrive, which in effect enabled punctuality to be there when it was not actually there.

We see the regional revival issue as well. We know that my colleague in the federal sphere Darren Chester, at the time when he was minister for transport, provided some very significant funding, over half a billion dollars, back in the day when $1 billion was worth something. The government have been claiming that ever since. We do not really mind where the money comes from, but we want to see those improvements and we want to see better punctuality targets. I know that the bill looks at changing from a V/Line service, where there is a board-managed, CEO-based, state-owned enterprise, to a statutory authority. On 16 June 2021, the then Minister for Public Transport the Honourable Ben Carroll said:

… we want to ensure that we have a strong V/Line to match that investment.

Move on 2½ years, and we have got still today 79.7 per cent punctuality in Gippsland. That is not a strong V/Line to match this investment outcome. A gentleman, Mr Carrick, has been the CEO. He has not delivered in this context. Let us hope that moving to a statutory body will actually produce some better results for the people in country Victoria.

In finishing off, there are a couple of other things that I want to touch on. I want to discuss the topic of e-scooters. You will be aware that country MPs often stay in Melbourne when they are down here, because it is too far to drive home – 2 hours to drive home – during a sitting week. We walk around the streets et cetera, having a look around and enjoying a little bit of Melbourne life now that it has opened up after being completely closed down during the COVID lockdowns. What you do have to watch out for is the occurrence of e-scooters that are left fair smack in the middle of the pavement. I do not want us to turn into a nanny state by any stretch, but I also do not want to see additional people going into emergency departments because they have tripped and fallen over e-scooters that have just been left willy-nilly.

It would be interesting to understand how that is going to be worked through. I see that the bill provides no real guidance at this stage, so it might be a question that we have for the government about how operators of these e-scooters and councils will address concerns about footpath clutter, pedestrian hazards and also in relation to dumping. A while ago there was an article in the newspaper around the poor Yarra River, which ended up becoming like a natural habitat for new aquatic life because there were so many e-scooters and bikes dumped into it. Now, that is not an outcome that any of us want, so we want to understand how that is going to be worked through. Certainly I know that the AMA has raised concerns about the lack of regulation in relation to these electronic mobility scooters and about incidents at emergency departments increasing.

In finalising my contribution, in relation to the bus accreditation I understand that neither the bus industry nor the Transport Workers’ Union were consulted on these changes. It is disappointing, and I hope that the government will now provide that level of consultation to assure the bus industry, a very important industry for many, many Victorians, that level of clarity. Other than a plea for a greater level of service and punctuality on the Gippsland line, I hope to see this pass through the house.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:52): I rise to make a contribution to the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. This omnibus bill includes a significant number of legislative changes that I will not canvass. Instead I would like to single out the aspect of this bill that responds to the work of Legalise Cannabis Victoria in this Parliament: the creation of a closed-circuit research track trial in medicinal cannabis and driving. This trial is a step forward for medicinal cannabis patients to safely get on the road in Victoria. It is a slow step, but it is a step. Daily we get calls from medicinal cannabis patients who continue to be impacted by the current road laws, and I do look forward to seeing the outcome of this trial in due process.

In relation to this bill, it advances the preceding work of the medicinal cannabis and safe driving working group that was established in 2019. Their 2020–21 report recommended an assessment of driving behaviour of medicinal cannabis patients. Most notably, this trial is a direct response to the Road Safety Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2023 we introduced earlier this year. That bill was adjourned upon a commitment from this government to address the unfair treatment of medicinal cannabis patients. It is good to see this commitment being delivered on, but it is a slow process and thousands of medicinal cannabis patients in Victoria will continue to be discriminated against under the current driving laws. They are treated differently to every other patient prescribed a medicine in Victoria, irrespective of how impairing those other medications may be.

It must be said that we expect this trial to have a similar outcome to the dozens of studies – replicated many times over, internationally and domestically – that demonstrate medicinal cannabis patients can drive safely. There is nothing about this driving trial that is necessarily unique. While this government works to replicate existing research, thousands of medicinal cannabis patients must wait until the end of 2024 for their chance to legally drive. Victoria was the first state to legalise medicinal cannabis in 2016, and ever since then patients have had to wait for equal treatment on our roads. I appreciate that both sides of the chamber today have raised this valid point. The fact is that we have medicinal cannabis, that it has been legal since 2016 and that we need to find a pathway forward for these patients, because there is no reason why a patient should be treated any differently based on their medical choices.

We hear from patients, many patients, about how bitterly disappointed they are by yet another delay in getting back to normal life. These patients are prescribed medicine by their doctor, manage their use so they do not drive impaired and yet they face the risk of losing their licence and being fined or detained just because of the way medicinal cannabis can be detected in the body for days and in some cases weeks after it was ever capable of having an impairing effect. It is the young mother with chronic pain doing the morning school drop-offs for her kids. It is the tradie with a bad back on his way to a job site. It is the cancer patient driving to her doctor’s appointment. They all take a legally prescribed medication, never drive while impaired and yet they all live in fear of losing their licences under our current driving laws. We will always advocate that absolutely no-one should be driving impaired, but people who have been prescribed a medicine and can drive safely should be allowed to drive. This is how we treat every other single prescription medication in Victoria except medicinal cannabis, and it is time for this to be corrected.

I understand from the debate in the Legislative Assembly that many members of the opposition had an appetite for further detail on this trial – who it would include, how participants are able to travel to and from the trial and where it will be. I can assure you that this is an appetite we share, and we look forward to working alongside government in co-designing all elements of this process.

I thank the minister and her staff for their ongoing dialogue on this issue. Legalise Cannabis Victoria lends its support to this bill whilst pushing government to get out of the slow lane and have this trial finalised as quickly as possible. There should be no barriers for medicinal cannabis patients who can safely get on the road.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (16:57): Thank you for the opportunity to rise and contribute to the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 and further add to this state’s long and proud history of progressive law reform and reform that enables Victorians to move around our state safely. This bill before us seeks to amend a range of current legislation that will enable research to be undertaken to support evidence-based road policies, implement reforms for bus drivers and make changes to vehicle sharing platforms like e-scooter and e-bike platforms and more administrative changes to ensure the safe operation of all facets of transport within our state.

This bill will be making this package of reforms by amending a whole range of transport-related bills such as the Road Safety Act 1986, the Road Management Act 2004, the Transport Accident Act 1986, the Bus Safety Act 2009, the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017, the Marine (Domestic Commercial Vessel National Law Application) Act 2013, the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 and the Transport Integration Act 2010.

While the effects of alcohol on driver impairment are well known, the effects of other drugs on fatigue and impairment are less well understood. I have spoken on these matters a number of times in this place, and like those last times I affirm the Allan Labor government’s commitment to making our roads safer for all road users. We need to ensure that this government’s decisions are based on robust evidence. This requires research and trials on the effects of drugs and alcohol, including the combination of drugs and alcohol and fatigue on driving. To allow such research trials to be lawfully conducted, the bill proposes to empower the Minister for Roads and Road Safety to designate road safety research trials. This will allow participants in these trials to undertake behaviours which would otherwise be unlawful under the current road laws. The Minister for Roads and Road Safety will be required to consult with affected ministers before declaring a road safety research trial. This will ensure a coordinated, collaborative approach to road safety enforcement.

This bill will also ensure that the existing three-year zero blood alcohol concentration requirement, or BAC as it is known, for all drink drivers is applied from the time the alcohol interlock licensing condition is removed. This will avoid circumstances where repeat or high-risk offenders are not subject to zero BAC requirements simply because the length of period of the alcohol interlock condition has been applied.

This bill will also improve the management of e-scooter and other vehicle-sharing schemes. Currently local councils, outside of a few trial sites, do not have a mechanism to influence how such schemes might operate within their municipalities. You must only recall the oBikes littering our footpaths a few years ago to understand the problem that councils face with these types of schemes. This bill aims to address this problem by requiring operators of vehicle-sharing schemes for e-scooters or bicycles to have an authorising agreement in place with local councils. Under the proposed framework councils will be supported by guidance from the Department of Transport and Planning on what to include in the contents of such agreements.

One of the key reforms and most significant reforms in this bill will allow the relevant minister to designate specific road safety research trials. These trials could be for the purpose of determining to what degree it is safe for someone to drive a vehicle when a combination of drugs, alcohol and fatigue are impairing the driver. It could also be for the purpose of informing the development of methods used by police officers to assess whether someone is impaired by drugs, alcohol and/or fatigue so that we can better protect Victorian road users.

No-one deserves to die on the road, and the changes we are making will ensure that we can further understand driving impairment and its critical impact on ensuring Victorians stay safe on our roads. This amendment before us is both important and exciting as it enables the government to run world-leading research trials, not just relating to medicinal cannabis but also other areas where there is scope for additional research to support ongoing work to address some of the most difficult challenges in the road safety space. The Allan Labor government is committed to making our roads safer for all road users. As an example, this could include detecting fatigue at the roadside and detecting impairment at the roadside for both illicit drugs and prescribed medications.

In the context of the closed-circuit medicinal cannabis trial that was announced by the Allan Labor government earlier this year, this will enable trial participants to drive in a controlled environment after taking their prescribed medicinal cannabis without fear of breaking the law while participating in the valuable research to inform Victoria’s approach to drug driving and medicinal cannabis into the future. THC, which is the primary compound in cannabis, is capable of producing intoxicating and impairing effects. Some forms of medicinal cannabis contain THC and may have a negative effect on a driver’s ability. Ensuring that the government knows about these effects and the science behind them will be crucial in informing future decisions about Victoria’s road rules. Under current, present-space drug driving laws, any detectable amount of THC constitutes an offence against the Road Safety Act, including if it has resulted from taking prescribed medicinal cannabis. This is why these research trials are so important, so we can further understand what the effects are of cannabis impairment when driving, so the road safety laws can reflect the scientific evidence. Medicinal cannabis can be detected in a roadside presence test regardless of whether the driver is in fact impaired. That is why these changes need to be made to ensure that impairment is known and backed up by the evidence.

The Allan Labor government has acknowledged the challenges with balancing individual health and driving needs with road safety outcomes for the entire community. We are committed to establishing an evidence-based policy position on medicinal cannabis that includes safe driving for all Victorians. A closed-circuit track trial will provide valuable information while also mitigating possible risk to all road users on the road and on public road networks. The proposed closed-circuit track trial and other ongoing road safety research initiatives are intended to provide the research required through this complex problem without increasing the risk on Victorian roads. The proposed trial will look at the level of driving impairment as well as evaluate driver performance. It will be conducted in a controlled driving environment that is physically separated from our public roads – that is really important for our members here to know – with safety conditions and considerations for all participants and research staff of the utmost priority. This amendment is crucial to these sorts of reforms because it allows for a process that can change how the Road Safety Act and its regulations apply to trial participants – such as learning how THC contained in medicinal cannabis impacts driving performance in different patient cohorts and under different circumstances and how this translates into risks on the road, and the relationship between THC concentrations, driving performance and road safety risk – to aid potential regulatory reform. Progressing this reform is important, because we understand that medicinal cannabis is playing an increased role as a therapeutic option for individuals with certain health conditions who have a genuine driving need.

In December 2020 you may recall the Victorian government established the medicinal cannabis and safe driving working group, made up of senior representatives across the government’s road safety partnership as well as health professionals and road safety and academic experts. Despite a vast amount of research on THC and driving, the working group heard that research on medicinal cannabis and driving is currently limited and therefore no definitive conclusions on safety implications can be made at this stage. Whilst a strong proven relationship exists between BAC impairment and crash risk, which informs our drink-driving legislation – we all know it is as the .05 BAC – no similar relationship has been established for THC that is in fact universally accepted. That is why it is essential that the impairing effect of medicinal cannabis on driving behaviour is investigated in a fully controlled environment to understand the effects of medicinal cannabis on driving before considering any changes to legislation. Can I acknowledge my colleagues on this bench, the Legalise Cannabis Victoria Party, thank them for their steadfast advocacy on this issue and join them in showing my support for the changes contained in this bill.

Another element of this bill is changes to the regulations for the use of the electronic scooters. Electronic scooters, or e-scooters, have become increasingly popular on our roads and shared paths, with the uptake and popularity rising across Melbourne. This government has undertaken a trial to allow e-scooters on our roads and determine if they are to be a safe part of our mobility system. The safety of road users is of course quite central to that trial. The Allan Labor government has introduced appropriate road rules to regulate their safe use, and the trial has found that e-scooters can be safely used when the rules are followed. If you just go into our bustling Melbourne CBD, you will see no shortage of people zipping around on e-scooters. I am sure that perhaps – I am having a bit of a guess here – many in this place may have hopped on them once or twice. Can I also remind users of the importance of using their helmets when zipping around town.

I have got to say these scooters provide a valuable and very fun service to the public, but it is important that operators work closely with local government to determine the nature of their service. Too many scooters or e-bikes – well, they lead to clutter, like what we saw with the oBike hire scheme, where the City of Melbourne could not stop the provider degrading local amenity with too many of them finding a home at the bottom of the Yarra River. For this reason the bill requires sharing scheme operators to have an agreement with local councils authorising them to operate a sharing scheme in their areas, which will see a combination of local council and community being approached for their schemes to be implemented. This creates a flexible system of regulation that can operate differently in different parts of Victoria; you see, inner Melbourne areas have different needs to regional communities and our rural shires. This allows communities to have a say in how the scheme operates near them and to cater to specific community needs. This will allow local government to prevent vehicle-sharing schemes from operating at all if that is in fact what the community wants. Local government can simply decline to make any authorising agreement with any operator. This gives the power to the people to decide whether these services are something the community wants and allow greater consultation between our local shires and councils and Victorians. The system will also make it possible to require sharing scheme operators to have sufficient insurance for riders and third parties, including pedestrians. We have seen just far too many accidents on our roads – and a big shout-out to our trauma medical professionals.

Can I just say that with this bill before us we will see that local councils will be able to require this insurance as a condition of their authorising agreement and the Department of Transport and Planning will provide guidance to councils which will assist them with making these decisions. The Allan Labor government is firmly committed to providing safe and viable transport options all around the state in all sorts of ways, and this bill reflects just that. I finish by commending this bill to the chamber.

Lee TARLAMIS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:09): I move:

That debate on this bill be adjourned until the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until next day of meeting.