Tuesday, 2 December 2025

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (01:02): I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, as I do believe it is an example of a bill which the parliamentary process has improved. That ought to go without saying, but I am afraid it is not always true. This legislation covers varied topics, including the long overdue modernisation of our public transport ticketing system, but perhaps more critically, the enhancement of safety and consumer confidence in the commercial passenger vehicle industry – for example, taxis and rideshares. As an opposition, we acknowledge the importance of this bill and the government’s efforts to improve safety across the transport system. So I am happy to note that while we opposed the initial draft of this bill on important privacy grounds, the government’s response and amendments have gone far enough to win our support today.

On the matter of ticketing, no-one could deny the necessity of modernising our legislation. In fact it is shamefully overdue. As the member for Bulleen said in another place in a long and detailed speech on ticketing, the current Myki system is functionally obsolete, and certainly many years if not decades behind other Australian cities, let alone global competitors. The history of Myki is unfortunately a history of government failure, cost blowouts and a persistent inability to deliver a simple, modern ticketing solution for the public. This bill is, we hope, the beginning of a long overdue correction of these failures. The legislative changes update the technical definitions. Specifically, the bill changes the meaning of ‘ticket’ to mean ‘an entitlement to use a public transport service’. This shift is far from cosmetic. It is the legal enabler that allows a credit card or digital wallet, defined as a token, to automatically act as a valid ticket without requiring a dedicated physical Myki card or prior purchase. This legislative step is what finally provides the legal framework for open loop ticketing and is a convenience that should have been afforded to Victorian commuters many years ago. We fully support this move to bring genuine accessibility and convenience to the millions who rely on our network. However, in addressing the Myki changes I want to talk about what happens outside the tram tracks. In some parts of regional Victoria we still have antiquated paper tickets for V/Line. While the high-tech digital upgrade is being rolled out across the Melbourne metropolitan network, the government has provided no clear, detailed transition plan to bring these regional communities into the digital age. Convenience for Melbourne should not mean digital abandonment for the regions, and this gap in the bill’s vision needs to be dealt with operationally by ministers and transport operators.

As a former member of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee I want to quickly pay tribute to that committee and its staff, who in this case saved the government from some admittedly minor errors. It is often a thankless job on SARC, so I think we should acknowledge it when they prove their worth like this.

Now on to the heart of the bill, which are the safety measures for commercial passenger vehicles, or CPVs. They strengthen compliance and enforcement of industry laws by broadening the tools available to the regulator to deal with driver misconduct. The reforms also increase transparency in the industry by requiring relevant and accurate information to be made available to the industry regulator, Safe Transport Victoria. The opposition supports the decision to lift the ban on audio recording. The government is correct that relying on video alone is insufficient, as it could miss critical evidence of verbal assault, sexual harassment without physical contact and fare disputes. This is central to ensuring both driver and passenger safety.

The bill also introduces a new consumer protection idea, the two strikes rule. This requires the cancellation of a driver’s licence if they are found guilty in court of specified offences twice in 10 years. We welcome the definitive nature of this mandatory cancellation for severe breaches. Actions such as refusing service to a passenger with an assistance animal or the dishonest conduct of failing to use the meter leave some of our most vulnerable Victorians stranded or subject to price gouging, and the penalty for such misconduct should be substantial. The measure protects the travelling public and ensures that accreditation is treated not as a right but as a privilege earned by demonstrated integrity and respect for the law.

However, while we supported the principle of safety, we strongly opposed the original mechanism due to its inherent threat to civil liberties. We feared the bill created a potential surveillance state in the hands of both government and private entities. Led by the shadow minister, the member for Nepean, we moved a reasoned amendment in the Legislative Assembly demanding the government publish a comprehensive privacy impact assessment, seek legal advice on the bill’s compatibility with the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 and ensure legislated privacy protection rather than leaving these crucial safeguards to subsequent regulations. Our primary and most profound concern was the process of rule making itself. As originally drafted, the bill allowed the regulator to set the rules for storage, retention and destruction of this highly sensitive private audio data via a mere notice in the Government Gazette. This mechanism was unacceptable. It was an attempt to legislate by stealth, bypassing the necessary scrutiny of this Parliament for fundamental privacy protections. I have spoken at length on numerous bills in this place which have circumvented proper democratic consideration by requiring Parliament to write a blank cheque for secondary regulation. If the state demands the right to record private conversations inside a commercial vehicle, the safeguards governing that data must be fixed in primary law and be subject to democratic accountability, not administrative fiat. We must acknowledge that the audio data recorded belongs to the passenger and the driver involved in that vehicle, not the government and certainly not the booking service provider for its own commercial data mining purposes. We also highlighted the conflict with the Surveillance Devices Act 1999, section 6 of which makes it an offence to record a private conversation you are not party to. While this bill creates a necessary legal carve-out for the safety cameras, the danger lies in the broad designation of private companies or booking service providers as authorised persons with dangerously broad access rights. We sought assurance that this data could not be used by those companies for their own commercial benefit or for unrelated business purposes.

I am pleased to report to the house that persistent opposition from us and various stakeholders appears to have paid off. In the view of our shadow minister, the government amendments we consider today ‘substantially address the core risks raised’. The critical changes are twofold. Firstly, the bill now mandates OVIC oversight. It requires mandatory consultation with the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner when creating the minimum standards for data handling and privacy. This consultation embeds independent oversight from the start, a decisive and necessary layer of protection that was entirely absent in the original draft. This contrasts directly with the old plan to rely solely on the Government Gazette. Furthermore, the standards will be subject to a statutory review every three years. This legislative requirement ensures that the privacy rules must be regularly re-evaluated and futureproofed against rapidly changing technology and evolving security threats, proving this is a truly enduring improvement. Secondly, police access powers have been greatly narrowed. Police can now only access and use recordings in the course of an investigation and other related matters. This more precise language prevents the routine unrestricted trawling or fishing expeditions of private audio data for purposes unrelated to transport safety. Our win here is twofold, restricting police overreach and ensuring booking service providers can now only access the data to assist the regulator or police in specific defined matters, not for their own commercial data purposes.

We also sought detailed and specific responses on notice following the department’s bill briefing, and I am grateful to the shadow minister for passing on these responses. They confirm that the penalties for the misuse or leakage of audio data are appropriately severe: for individuals up to 240 penalty units, which is nearly $50,000, and for corporations up to 1200 penalty units, approximately $245,000. Furthermore, the legislation explicitly pierces the corporate veil by making officers and directors liable if they fail to exercise due diligence, which is a powerful deterrent against negligence at the executive level. We confirmed that the cancellation of accreditation under the two strikes process is not a simple administrative whim. A driver must be found guilty in court for the strike to count, and they retain the right to appeal any final cancellation to VCAT, guaranteeing due process and a fair hearing. Finally, regarding digital inclusion, Safe Transport Victoria confirmed they will maintain the phone line, ensuring that older Victorians and those without access to smartphones can still lodge complaints despite the introduction of mandatory QR codes. That is one which Mr Farnham raised.

This bill was initially a necessary but flawed piece of legislation. It would have created a massive unsupervised database of private Victorian conversations, eroding the trust of the travelling public. Because of the efforts of stakeholders and opposition parties and the response of the minister and his department, the bill is much improved. It provides the regulator and the police with the necessary tools to stop predators and scammers while simultaneously protecting the privacy of the travelling public through mandated independent oversight. In due course we will support the government amendments this evening.

 Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (01:16): I too rise to speak on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. This bill does three major things. Firstly, it will enable the introduction of audio recording into commercial passenger vehicles like taxis and Ubers, on top of the video recording that is already permitted, and it will regulate the collection, storage, use and destruction of the video and audio from those vehicles. Secondly, it will create a two-strikes system for drivers who engage in certain kinds of misconduct, including overcharging offences or refusing to carry people with assistance animals. Thirdly, it will enable the introduction of new forms of public transport ticketing.

On the question of audio and video recordings, the Greens understand the potential benefits that can come from being able to record audio as well as video when it comes to resolving complaints and investigating misconduct. We do hear, and I am sure others in this place do too, from constituents who face unacceptable behaviour on occasion from commercial drivers, including racist or sexist comments, refusals to take valid fares and refusals to carry assistance animals. Many women may have a story about a taxidriver or a commercial driver whose comments have made them uncomfortable when returning home after a night out or who may have developed tactics to protect themselves, such as asking drivers to drop them off a block away from where they actually live so the driver will not learn their home address. This is a lived reality that we should not accept or normalise. Of course the problems can flow in the other direction. In a profession with a high percentage of workers from migrant backgrounds drivers can be subject to racist abuse from passengers, for example, and we should not accept or normalise that sort of behaviour towards drivers either.

With things as they stand, complaints about these kinds of issues can be difficult to resolve with only video evidence, particularly where the conduct is verbal in nature. Audio recordings could help people see justice when these incidents occur, as well as deterring them from happening in the first place. This beneficial outcome must be balanced with the very real privacy implications of recording audio in commercial passenger vehicles. It has always been the case that conversations in a taxi or Uber can be overheard by the driver, but many people still do treat these spaces as fairly private, having conversations with their fellow passengers or via phone that they might not want or expect to leave that vehicle. It will be extremely important that passengers are made aware that video and audio will be recorded. In-vehicle signage will be a crucial aspect of this, but we would urge the government also to consider something like a public awareness campaign or notifications in booking apps.

Even if people are aware that this recording is taking place, it is crucial that the recordings are strictly controlled and only able to be accessed and used by a very limited number of people for very specific purposes. The bill authorises police and the regulator to access recordings for the purpose of investigations. We do expect that the government will have house amendments that will tighten up the purposes for which police can access them. The bill also provides for commercial passenger vehicle companies to assist police and the regulator in those purposes, but it also creates a very general provision which will allow any person specified in writing by the regulator to access the footage for any purpose they specify in writing. This gives the regulator significant power. The bill does not contain real safeguards to ensure that any additional access they authorise is proportional and appropriately balances privacy against other concerns. Because this action can be done by the regulator, the Parliament does not in effect get to weigh those concerns either. I will just note at this point that the practice of putting important rules in regulation rather than legislation is a concerning trend, and one we have seen on a number of topics throughout this Parliament, which I will return to later in my speech.

On the question of the two-strike system for drivers who engage in certain kinds of misconduct, including overcharging or refusing to carry people with assistance animals, again these are issues we have probably been hearing from constituents. It may be one thing for a new or inexperienced driver to make a mistake, but when there are systemic issues that are happening again and again it is appropriate to address them through measures like this. As I have mentioned, the availability of audio recordings will help to ensure that the repeated breaches are actually identified and able to be resolved conclusively and make these systemic issues, we hope, a thing of the past.

On the introduction of new forms of public transport ticketing, that introduction is something we have all been wanting – all PT users – for a very long time. The ability to pay your public transport fare with an Apple iPhone, not just an Android, and with a credit or debit card, as is possible in New South Wales and London and many other jurisdictions around the world, is something that Victorians are eagerly anticipating. But with that comes the introduction of new terminology to regulate these ways of paying fares, primarily because of the requirement for passengers to surrender their tickets to authorised officers in some circumstances if there is an allegation of fare evasion. For some time now, authorised officers have been able to require passengers to surrender their ticket to hold it as evidence, but in a world where your ticket is not a physical piece of paper or plastic but instead some data on your smartphone or your debit card, that potentially becomes a much more onerous requirement. So this bill creates a distinction between ‘tokens’ and ‘state tokens’, where a state token is something that has been issued by the state, like a Myki card, and ‘token’ is a catch-all term that includes those state tokens but also includes, for example, your smartphone or your debit card. In the other place, the minister’s statement of compatibility mentioned that this framework would allow things to be:

… appropriately constrained. For example, the provisions which empower an authorised officer to require a token to be surrendered are limited to State tokens.

That is not actually constrained in the text of the bill, which allows that:

… regulating the use of tokens, including specifying the circumstances in which a token, or anything that is claimed to be a token, is to be surrendered …

The government have briefed us, and I thank them for their constructive dialogue on this bill, as we have raised similar privacy concerns and queries around the operation. The government has briefed us that this constraint will be enacted in regulation, and we note the current regulations contain similar constraints. But this speaks to a larger pattern that is quite concerning, which is that police, protective services officers and authorised officers are being given more and more powers over time – a very relevant observation after the debate that we just concluded – with little oversight, and those powers are increasingly being granted through regulation rather than legislation. In this instance, the minister of the day does seem to be using their power to regulate what must be surrendered in a proportionate and judicious manner, but this does not change the fact that the legislation gives this minister and any future minister powers that could be misused. And because those powers exist in regulation rather than legislation, that potential misuse of power would not come before the Parliament for the scrutiny that it deserves before it could be enacted.

In summing up, we have raised a number of matters with the minister’s office, and we have had really constructive dialogue, as I mentioned. We did have concerns about the privacy implications of some aspects of the bill, and I understand that the minister will be addressing many of the topics that we raised in her summing-up contribution to this debate, so we anticipate that we will hear a lot on the confirmation of those matters that we had raised as concerns through the minister’s contribution. We also do have some concerns about the way the bill grants some fairly broad powers to the minister and the regulator to make rules and regulations without parliamentary scrutiny, but overall, and with the improvements that we understand will flow from the house amendments, this bill takes some important steps towards making travel in taxis and rideshares safer for passengers and for drivers and for updating our ticketing system for the 21st century. Bring on Myki for iPhone. I will leave my contribution there.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (01:24): Thank you very much for the opportunity to rise and make a contribution on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. This bill does two big things: it strengthens safety and accountability in the commercial passenger vehicle industry, and it modernises our public transport ticketing system so it is easier and more convenient for every Victorian and indeed visitors alike. This bill is about one thing above all else: safety – safety for women travelling home late at night, safety for older Victorians, safety for people who use assistance animals and safety for drivers who are simply out there doing their job. The Allan Labor government has listened carefully to the taxi and rideshare industry, to passengers, to disability advocates and to those who work with assistance animals. I am happy to say that we know that most drivers do the right thing, and most passengers do too. But we have also seen behaviour that is absolutely unacceptable: rorting at the meter, overcharging, abuse of passengers and in some cases – the most distressing cases in fact – mistreatment of people with a disability and wheelchair users. At the same time we have seen a regulator hamstrung by outdated legislation and slow processes.

This bill updates the law to match modern technology and community expectations by reforming the way security camera images and audio are recorded, accessed and used in commercial passenger vehicles. Security cameras are already a critical tool in deterring misconduct and protecting passengers and drivers. But at the moment, if a regulator wants footage, they often have to physically attend a taxi or depot and spend hours retrieving it, which is inefficient and delays justice.

The bill also strengthens penalties and enforcements across the commercial passenger vehicle industry. All drivers already undergo criminal history, driving record and medical checks before being accredited, but we know that a small minority continue to do the wrong thing. That is why this bill introduces a ‘two strikes and out’ system where if a driver is found guilty of specified offences such as fare overcharging on two separate occasions within a 10-year period, it will be mandatory to cancel their accreditation. Regulations will also allow other forms of misconduct, such as failing to operate a taximeter correctly or refusing an assistance animal, to be brought into this regime. Drivers will have the opportunity to correct their behaviour after the first offence, but repeat offenders will no longer be allowed to operate.

The message is simple: this government will not tolerate driver misconduct. This is backed by a strengthened public care objective. The act will make it crystal clear that discrimination, sexual harassment and other misconduct inconsistent with community standards are unacceptable and may trigger disciplinary action. The regulator will have clear powers to respond by cancelling or suspending accreditation, imposing conditions or requiring further training. Transparency is also being enhanced through changes to the public register. In addition to basic accreditation information, the register will now include relevant court orders, disciplinary actions taken and details of the conduct that led to those actions. That gives the public confidence that dodgy operators are being held to account and acts as a further deterrent against noncompliance.

The bill also improves visibility of drivers’ associations with booking service providers. With more than 90,000 accredited drivers and over 73,000 registered vehicles, we need sound information about who is operating and under which network. Drivers will now be required to notify the regulator whether they accept bookings, whether they are associated with a booking service provider and if so which ones. Booking service providers will in turn have to notify the regulator of all associated drivers. This helps close oversight gaps around independent and small operators, and it allows the regulator to better target compliance and education efforts. To support informed consumer choice, the bill creates a new offence for drivers who use the branding or signage of a booking service provider when they are not authorised or associated with that network. Passengers should be able to rely on the logo on the side of the car as a real indication of oversight and a clear avenue for complaints, not a marketing trick.

These reforms will improve safety, strengthen enforcement, enhance transparency, protect privacy and modernise the way Victorians move around our state so they keep faith with the community’s expectations of a fair, safe and world-class transport system. I commend this bill to the house.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) incorporated the following:

I wish to discuss this bill, the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2025.

This government loves public transport.

In fact, not only do we love public transport but we support public transport.

We advocate for it.

We fund it.

And we build it – much like the recent Metro Tunnel that we funded, built and opened last Sunday.

There are some good stats here about Metro Tunnel patronage that I would like to share.

They are relevant to the bill I will be discussing.

People are loving the Metro Tunnel.

On Sunday the Metro Tunnel commenced operating, and we had some phenomenal numbers.

State Library saw more than 22,000 passengers through its doors – followed by Town Hall station at more than 16,000, Anzac station at around 13,000, Parkville station at around 12,000 and Arden station at more than 8000 passengers.

And next year on Sunday 1 February will be the big switch, when we overhaul Victoria’s entire train network.

On that day, we will fully integrate the Metro Tunnel into the wider network.

We will commence more than 1000 new weekly train services, and we will directly change the way half of passengers on the network move around Melbourne day to day.

To help with this influx of patronage on our network, we need to update and introduce modern ways for people to use our trains.

And that includes updating our ticketing and payment systems for our public transport network.

A modernised public transport ticketing system will be better for commuters and better for the state.

This bill will amend the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act to support the introduction of alternate methods of paying for public transport, enabling the use of debit and credit cards as an alternative to Myki cards.

To enable this change, the bill will introduce new definitions and amend existing definitions relevant to public transport ticketing offences, defences, and evidentiary provisions.

But Victorians can already see and have already had a taste of what this looks like.

New, modern readers have been installed at barrier gates across the rail network and on select bus and tram routes.

We are changing the way in which Victorians and visitors interact with our public transport ticketing system.

Tap-and-go ticketing is just around the corner.

From next year, the new readers will soon be able to support tap-and-go technology across our public transport network.

The new tap-and-go technology will enable customers to use alternative methods to tap onto ticket readers, giving passengers easier access to our public transport network.

Alternative methods can include debit and credit cards in addition to the current Myki smartcards and mobile Myki.

But we need this bill to enable that to happen.

Passing this bill will enable all Victorians and visitors to be able to choose what method of payment they can use to touch on and touch off at a train station or on a bus or tram.

Technology is continually changing.

So, this bill allows for new types of methods to tap on to be prescribed or provided for as new methods of payment emerge.

This means next year debit and credit cards can be used to tap on.

And it opens up the possibility of using other methods such as QR codes, which are a feature in other cities around the world.

The bill also provides powers to make regulations and publish notices on matters related to ticketing.

But don’t worry, passengers will continue to be able to use our Myki products to travel on public transport.

Victorians want greater options for validating their entitlement to travel on public transport, whether it is a physical card or digital payment on their phone or smartwatch.

And it’s not just Victorians that will benefit from these changes.

Anyone who visits Victoria and wants to use public transport will no longer need to purchase a Myki smartcard to travel on public transport.

This will make travel on our public transport network so much easier.

The government understands that it needs to take this opportunity now to modernise Victoria’s public transport ticketing system.

Otherwise, we risk falling behind the rest of the world when it comes to public transport ticketing technology.

A modernised ticketing system will bring Victoria in line with the public’s expectation that this government continues to find ways to deliver a world-class public transport system.

Conclusion

We are committed to improving public transport for this state, whether that is building the new Metro Tunnel, removing level crossings, providing free PT for seniors, under-18s and carers, or improving our ticketing system in Victoria.

What we have had over the past 11 years is a significant amount of investment, as evidenced from what I just mentioned.

As our communities grow and need to get around the city for work, education or social activities, we know the Victorian community expects our public transport network to keep pace with technological advancements and to be accessible.

Victorians want convenience and flexibility.

This government is listening to what Victorians want.

Victorians want to be able to use different methods – such as credit and debit cards – to pay for public transport services rather than always having to carry a Myki smartcard.

And this government is listening to what Victorians want.

The ticketing amendments in the bill provide flexibility for Victoria’s ticketing system to progress, evolve and mature in the future.

It represents the Victorian government’s continued commitment to improving access to our transport network and ensures we are delivering for our communities.

These are important investments – investments that secure the future for Victoria and allow us to have a world-class city with a world-class public transport system.

I commend this bill to the house.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) incorporated the following:

President, I rise to speak on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2025.

And in doing so I would like to first thank the transport minister in the other place for all the work she has done in her capacity as the Minister for Public and Active Transport.

The Allan Labor government has passed some of the strongest reforms and changes to our public and active transport system.

And none compare quite as much as our changes to the rideshare space and to the regulations surrounding gig economy drivers in Victoria.

This includes the introduction of the minimum standards of pay and conditions for gig economy workers such as rideshare drivers.

This bill continues on that reform agenda by taking on new changes to our transport legislation to ensure that passengers and drivers can continue to have a safe experience and to ensure that commuters are treated fairly.

President, this bill contains a wide set of reforms aimed at improving commuter safety and services while providing overall support for the industry.

It is aimed at improving industry outcomes, which carry with them safer working environments and safer passenger experiences for those on public transport.

President, this bill aims to achieve three primary objectives through the suite of reforms proposed.

It aims to strengthen commercial passenger and vehicle industry laws by way of improving industry transparency to address fare overcharging and other driver misconduct through amendments to the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017.

The bill will improve the efficient administration of driver accreditation by repealing old and outdated offences applicable to people who fail to sign a paper certificate of driver accreditation issued by Safe Transport Victoria under the Bus Safety Act 2009.

And finally, the bill supports the introduction of account-based ticketing technology in Victoria by amending the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983, which will enable passengers to use new methods as a valid means to use public transport services.

As we know, President, consultation is a means to strengthen legislation by speaking to core industry groups and helping shape these bills to be more effective.

In that spirit, this government has consulted with Safe Transport Victoria and the public transport ticketing team regarding the ticketing changes.

The government will also consult with the Ombudsman and other industry representatives, as well as the Transport Workers’ Union.

As many in this chamber would know, I served as secretary of the Transport Workers’ Union and served as its national president before being elected to this chamber, and therefore this bill is very important to me.

President, I would like to go through and explain in greater detail what is being proposed by this legislation.

First, this bill will amend the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017 to strengthen compliance and enforcement of the commercial passenger vehicle industry laws.

It seeks to improve transparency in the industry through a series of amendments which will help achieve our objectives.

This includes reforms to recording and the access, use, and disclosure of data, images, and audio from commercial passenger vehicles, such as trains, trams, and buses.

It also introduces a two-strike policy for specified offences.

This would require the regulator to cancel a driver’s accreditation if they are found guilty of any of the specified offences on two separate occasions within a 10-year period.

It will also require drivers and booking services providers to notify the regulator of the booking service provider that a driver is associated with in these matters and whether the driver is a small provider.

It also introduces a new offence for drivers who use a commercial passenger vehicle to display signage associated with a booking service provider if that driver is not associated with that particular provider.

And it also requires Safe Transport Victoria to publish disciplinary actions taken against industry participants on their public register.

President, this bill strengthens the public care objective applicable to drivers in order to better reflect the standards and expectations of the community in relation to the industry.

The bill will also clarify that the regulator can take disciplinary action against drivers for services provided that are inconsistent with the public care objective.

It amends the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017 and the Bus Safety Act 2009 to repeal the outdated offences applicable to those who fail to sign a paper certificate of a driver accreditation issued to them by Safe Transport Victoria.

It also amends the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 to introduce new definitions and amend existing definitions and provides for powers to make regulations and publish notices for the purpose of supporting new technology being introduced.

This is most clearly for the introduction of account-based ticketing technology across Victoria.

This will enable public transport commuters to use new methods as a valid entitlement to use public transport services.

That would allow for not just your Myki card but also for contactless payment debit and credit cards.

This is a big change which I know many Victorians are excited to see.

As we upgrade more and more ticketing gates across the network, it’s key that we bring our system up in line with other modern cities around the world, and even across Australia.

This is one of the bigger changes which will help modernise our public transport network so that commuters can start using their debit and credit cards for contactless payments through the ticketing gates.

President, the crux of this legislation is modernising not just how commuters ticket and pay for their journeys – though that is extremely important – it is more centred on how we can ensure both drivers and passengers can have a more safe and protected journey and experience in our public transport system.

And that begins with strengthening the ways we protect passengers on these vehicles and with reforms to ensure wider industry compliance.

The public care objective is a provision in the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017, which reads as follows:

The public care objective is the objective that the services provided by drivers of commercial passenger vehicles –

be provided to persons using those services and to other persons, particularly children and other vulnerable persons –

with safety; and

with comfort, amenity and convenience; and

be provided in a manner that is not fraudulent or dishonest.

President, this objective is the baseline expectation from the public in the care they should expect aboard a commercial passenger vehicle.

What this bill seeks to do is to strengthen the upholding of this principle.

It allows for the regulator to take disciplinary action against drivers that do not comply with this safety principle.

This is to ensure that the principle, which ensures that passengers are treated with respect and that their safety and comfort is placed in priority, is upheld and enforced by drivers.

And when that is deliberately breached, and the clause on fraudulent and dishonest behaviour is broken, then disciplinary action should be taken immediately by the regulators.

This way, we can ensure that there is a proper disciplinary process in place and that drivers and passengers alike are looked after.

President, this bill also includes provisions to improve transparency to address the issue of overcharging on fares and other misconduct from some drivers, contained within the suite of reforms presented to the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017.

Back in 2023, this Labor government updated the regulations across Victoria so that drivers in these industries could no longer negotiate a price with customers above a regulated maximum fare.

It meant that drivers had to use their meters for trips from ranks or when hailed on the streets.

Those changes made sure that drivers were to always use to the meter to calculate the maximum regulated fare for unbooked trips, particularly for periods of high demand as to remove any confusion and give more certainty to passengers.

Now, the Allan Labor government is building on that reform, with a new suite of regulatory reforms to tighten down against this behaviour in commercial passenger vehicles.

This begins with the ‘two strikes and you’re out’ policy that the regulator will be empowered to enforce under this bill.

It allows for the regulators to cancel the accreditation of these drivers if they are found guilty of breaching these offences twice within a 10-year period.

That is a definitive step to stamp out these offences and ensure fair compliance and adherence by drivers across Victoria, and ensures passengers are not being scammed or ripped off.

Collectively, these changes make it easier for passengers to report driver misconduct and mandate increased reporting of incidents by taxi companies, all while introducing harsher penalties for noncompliance and requiring enhanced driver accreditation and training.

The bill also reforms the bounds under which recordings, data, and audio can be collected and the privacy associated with that.

Safe Transport Victoria is also obligated under this bill to publish any and all disciplinary actions taken against a driver who has committed these offences and put them up on the public registry.

President, these are considered reforms which are designed to uphold the fundamental principles under the public care objectives and to stamp out unfair behaviour in the system to ensure that passengers have a fair, safe, and comfortable experience.

They are being put together through consultation with industry groups and departments to ensure that they are effective and can do well in reducing the number of these reported incidents.

It means that whether you’re on public transport, such as buses, trams, and trains, or if you’re in a private setting, such as with a taxi or a rideshare service, then you can rest assured that the drivers there are looking after your needs and that if overcharging, or other offences, come about, then they will be dealt with swiftly.

This information will be available to all passengers, with reforms in this bill to include the need for mandatory QR codes in both taxis and rideshare vehicles such as Uber, linking passengers through to information on their rights and, if needed, how to report a complaint to the regulator.

The rideshare industry, and the taxi industry, support some of the most vulnerable Victorians having access to basic amenities and essential services, and as such it is crucial we make sure that they have as safe an experience as possible.

The Allan Labor government is facilitating this with the introduction of the two-strike policy and the wide distribution and easy access of passengers’ rights and entitlements in each vehicle.

They will, of course, be supported by the reforms made to recordings in these vehicles.

More specifically, this bill contains new updates to the rules around the use and storage of data from cameras, which will give carers the option to access live, in-vehicle camera vision, if this is offered by the taxi or rideshare company.

The reforms in the bill will also require that cameras in rank or hailed taxis record audio in addition to visuals, and it will also make it easier for operators to access footage so they can investigate complaints should they be reported via the QR codes that will be mandated into each vehicle.

That means for passengers, if you are a victim of these illegal charges, not only can you easily report the behaviour but the operators and the regulators will have a much wider set of information and can more easily gather data that can corroborate what happened.

And drivers with an established pattern of behaviour will be held accountable.

President, these are straightforward reforms designed to keep a more orderly environment for passengers, ensuring that commuters can feel safe when accessing commercial passenger vehicles.

The reforms contained in this bill will deliver significant improvements for passengers on public transport such as buses, trams, and trains, and will also strengthen the rights of those in the taxi and rideshare industry by improving compliance and enforcement.

These changes give passengers more ways to report illegal behaviour, more easily, and with more ways to verify wrongdoing with the new access to cameras, audio recordings and the easy-access QR codes.

Most drivers, President, are doing the right thing.

And they have nothing to worry about under these changes.

They are designed to protect the rights and safety of passengers, and it gives them more ways to report illegal behaviour, should it take place.

The vast majority of drivers, who comply with and follow the law, will not be impacted by these reforms.

It is passengers who will be empowered by these changes and who will feel more safe with these new reporting systems and these reforms which make it easier to confirm their reports.

President, I would like to spend just another few moments to highlight again the importance of another part of this legislation amendment.

I briefly touched on changes which would allow for account-based ticketing on public transport, namely the new system which allows for these readers at gates to allow for the use of contactless card payments from your credit or debit cards.

This is something which brings us in line with all the other major capital cities in Australia and with other major modern cities of the world.

To this day, we are one of the few major metropolitan public transport systems that only accept our ticket card of choice, the Myki card, as the only valid ticket.

If you were to travel to Sydney, you would be just as able to pay for your journey on the trains or the metro with your credit card or with the contactless tap of your phone should it be loaded with your card.

This is just a more convenient and modern way to travel around on the network, instead of fumbling around for a Myki card each journey.

This will allow for our public transport network to open up, when it is ready, for the use of contactless payments to make sure each journey is convenient, easy, and accessible for all Victorians.

President, this is a comprehensive bill with reforms for the transport industry from public transport to taxis and rideshare drivers.

But at its core, it’s about keeping passengers safe and ensuring that they have the means to not just report bad behaviour but to ensure that drivers who break the law and the rights of passengers are dealt with proportionately.

With its substance, this bill will go a long way toward strengthening compliance and enforcement within the transport industry, and for that, President, I commend this bill to the chamber.

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (01:29): Thank you to people in the chamber and across the other place for their work as part of a broader engagement with stakeholders and the industry around what it is that these commercial passenger vehicle industry reforms will achieve. We have heard a fair bit of discourse in the chamber this evening about the intended impact and operation of these reforms. We do want to make sure that we are prioritising safety for people when they are travelling in taxi and rideshare vehicles, and that is what this bill delivers, which again the Leader of the Opposition outlined in her contribution. That also contemplates and addresses improved safety for the disability community; for women and non-binary people, as Ms Copsey also pointed out; for the elderly; and also for those most likely to be vulnerable to discrimination. I also want to make it really clear that the bill is intended to protect drivers and passengers. Again, it is about striking that balance, and I do want to go in the sum-up to a number of the areas that Ms Copsey touched on in her contribution just to put beyond doubt any of the issues of concern that have been raised, which have, frankly, been the subject of some really constructive and productive discussions between the minister’s office and the Greens and indeed other members around this chamber. It is about cracking down on poor behaviour, and it is also about making sure that the act reflects the current evolution of technology and what the community expects by way of a response – quick engagement and demonstrated action by the industry and the regulator when poor behaviour has occurred.

There are security camera and audio reforms. They have been covered in some detail in the course of contributions. This is about reforming the recording, access, use and disclosure of data, and that includes images and audio. This will mean that we have got a more efficient and effective system of investigation by permitting security cameras and other approved audio recording devices installed to capture audio recordings. Again, a significant number of the cameras actually do have that audio capability. We are talking about an activation of that audio capability in the technology that already exists and a streamlining access process for security camera and audio recording data that does enable the police to examine and access that footage. That is the subject of a house amendment which I will move at the end of my sum-up, which then will hopefully be able to acquit some of the concerns, questions and suggestions that have been raised in the course of this debate. Streamlining that access is really important, but we also want to make sure that we have got flexibility for other authorised purposes to be set by the regulator. Again, the intention is that regulations would be made to enable booking service providers to use camera footage and also audio to manage complaints that are made about drivers. Faith in the industry, that industry confidence, is a particularly important part of this legislation and these reforms.

Minimum standards are also really important in relation to the way in which information is collected, possessed, transmitted, disclosed or destroyed. This comes to the privacy concerns and the questions which Ms Copsey raised and which I think Mrs McArthur raised in her contribution as well. This is about making sure that in protecting privacy we are requiring booking service providers to comply with minimum standards. The Safe Transport Victoria and Victoria Police partnerships, which already exist, would of course be subject to privacy standards in the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014. These are critical changes that do enable us to address those problematic behaviours, and again, the examples which have been given in the course of tonight’s debate do clearly indicate that there is a need to address these issues and to address them in a way that is fit for purpose.

We also want to make sure that we are addressing some of the areas for vulnerability around overcharging, for example. In the absence of audio, that can be something that is very, very difficult to establish. Making sure that we can have investigations conducted swiftly is something which is facilitated and improved by way of access to that information. The presence of a recording and an awareness that that is happening is in and of itself a really significant deterrent to poor behaviour.

There are strengthened reporting requirements to enable the regulator to have a better understanding of the players, the operators and the actors in the industry and also to make sure that we are in a position to crack down on taxidrivers who are potentially falsely using signage or booking providers that they are not associated with. That is a really important component of the reforms, which will also require an annual notification to Safe Transport Victoria of the booking service provider a driver is associated with and whether a driver is a small booking service provider, amongst other reporting requirements. Enforcement reforms have been touched on by multiple speakers this evening, so I do not intend to go through them in any exhaustive detail. But this is about making sure that we do have a system of enforcement where the ‘two strikes and out’ system enables a commercial passenger vehicle driver to be kicked out for being guilty of two or more specific offences. This is also about making sure we are strengthening the public care objective applicable to drivers, and the bill puts beyond doubt any question that Safe Transport Victoria can publish information about those disciplinary actions taken against industry participants on their public register. This is a significant measure around transparency and disclosure of poor behaviour, which in and of itself has a deterrent effect as well.

Ticketing reforms are important, and these have been touched on by previous speakers. We do want to make sure that the ticketing system does actually make it easier and more convenient to travel around our ever-expanding networks. The ticketing amendments will allow passengers to use those multiple methods to obtain and prove an entitlement to travel, and people will continue to be able to access state-issued products like Myki smart cards to travel on public transport. But we also want to make sure that legislation is accommodating those rapid evolutions in tech to enable passengers to use other physical and digital options, such as credit and debit cards and QR codes, to validate an entitlement to travel. This is about making sure that we do have a modernised ticketing system.

Just turning briefly to the discussion that has been had with the opposition and the crossbench around the privacy elements of the bill in relation to commercial passenger vehicle reforms, I intend to circulate amendments, which I might do now, given the lateness of the hour, to enable people to perhaps have a look at them.

These amendments, which will be the subject of any questions that people might have or indeed might not have, given that level of detail that I can provide now in this sum-up, are about making sure that we do have the purpose set out in the way in which that information can be accessed and that the purpose is limited to the investigation of commercial passenger vehicle incidents and the investigation and prosecution of crimes. This is about making sure we are strengthening this important legislation and requiring the regulator to consult with the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner before publishing standards and to review the standards every three years to ensure they are keeping up with modern privacy concerns and changes in technology.

The bill itself already, as people would be aware, contained provisions for minimum standards determined by the regulator around that data, but these are further mechanisms to strengthen the way in which that information and its collection, possession or storage are managed. Around the ‘two strikes’ rule I just want to address that in relation to the matters Ms Copsey raised. In regulation 19(1A) a driver must ensure there is a fare calculation device, so a taxi meter is operational and used. In regulation 19(3) a driver must ensure a fare calculation device such as a taxi meter is stopped immediately at the end of the commercial passenger vehicle service. In regulation 22 there is a requirement to provide a receipt with required information. Really importantly, and to a point that Ms Copsey raised, in regulation 26 there is a requirement not to refuse assistance animals. This goes very squarely to one of the objectives of the bill – namely, to remove and reduce those areas of vulnerability, particularly for people living with disability or indeed for the elderly, as I mentioned earlier.

Safeguards to detect and investigate unauthorised use of camera and audio data – all authorised persons are required to comply with those minimum standards, as I mentioned earlier. There are some really significant penalties as they relate to any breach or failure to comply, so as many as 1200 penalty units for a body corporate. There is a power established for the regulator by notice published in the Government Gazette to determine those minimum standards, and they might relate to collection, possession, transmission, disclosure or destruction of an image, audio recording or other data obtained from the use of a security camera or audio recording device installed in a commercial passenger vehicle. Those minimum standards will be broadly based on the information privacy principles contained in the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014, and in most cases we expect the standards not only to mirror the information privacy principles but to be narrower and more specific. Those standards are expected to include matters like an authorised person, so who is permitted to access camera footage and audio, and that the standard should require the authorised person to restrict access to camera footage and audio and nominate which staff, for example, if it is a body corporate, are able to access that information. And the authorised person needs to keep records to which employees and staff have access. Again, that is an important measure, I think, Ms Copsey, to go to one of the areas of concern or interest that you raised.

Capacity to notify the regulator is another important component of this, whereby the authorised person would be required to notify the regulator if there were any substantive changes in circumstances. There is also the collection and the way in which information is collected and the keeping of records when data is accessed or downloaded from a security camera installed in a commercial passenger vehicle, including records about who collected the data, when it was collected and where it was stored, and a requirement to notify the regulator if data is unlawfully collected, such as by a person not authorised or nominated. In relation to possession, how data is stored and secured by the authorised person, the standard will require that an authorised person must securely store the data such that it is only accessible to nominated staff, including requirements relating to the encryption of data, and the standard would specify the period of time data must be kept.

We heard examples earlier from contributions in the chamber about that concern or trepidation about the way in which information might be gathered or used, particularly for women and particularly for people in vulnerable circumstances, whereby a geographic location might be disclosed in a way that might cause fear, intimidation or another unintended consequence. For transmission and disclosure, how this information is shared or given to another party, under the standard it would be required that when the authorised person provides that data to another party, if they are permitted to do so, they do so in a specified manner such that the data is sufficiently encrypted – this is, again, another important measure of protection that is germane to this bill – and that records are kept if data is provided to a third party, including details of how and when data was disclosed.

On to the point about destruction, how that information is destroyed also includes the way in which an authorised person would need to follow any specified procedures, so ensuring that data cannot be readily recovered. There are standards around the keeping of records about when data was destroyed, by whom and the manner of destruction and requiring an authorised person to keep records of any time that data is accessed, including by whom, when it was accessed and the purpose for which it was accessed, and Safe Transport Victoria has powers to require persons to provide these records to it. New regulations can require mandatory reporting as a notifiable incident, such as where a data breach or unauthorised use has occurred, or require reporting at regular intervals, and the frequency of audits is ultimately up to the discretion of Safe Transport Victoria as an independent regulator. Our expectation is that the regulator will audit regularly and adjust based on their intelligence, and that that is an iterative and ongoing exercise.

In relation to authorised persons, Ms Copsey, that goes to clause 16 and new section 271. We are considering making booking service providers authorised persons – in other words, companies that run taxis and rideshare. In Victoria it is only unbooked taxis that currently must have a camera installed. This is being done so that booking service providers can quickly respond to disputes that may not reach the threshold for being investigated by police or that might take an extended period of time to investigate by a regulator. Complaints such as a customer claiming they were overcharged or a driver complaint about racial abuse could be dealt with efficiently and appropriate action taken if taxi operators can view the footage or access the audio. It is in the interest of the regulator of course to make sure that there is a limitation on the use of authorisations as much as possible. The government, for avoidance of any doubt, is not contemplating other authorisations.

Around review of the minimum standards, that is set out and referred to in the house amendment. It is not only best practice but it is also about our expectation that the review take place every three years and that that will be published, again in the interest of transparency, Ms Copsey, and the matters that you raised in your contribution.

Now on to state tokens. The existing regulation – that is, regulation 21 of the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) (Ticketing) Regulations 2017 – limits when a ticket needs to be surrendered.

The PRESIDENT: Minister, your time has expired.

Harriet SHING:(By leave) I am nearly done. I am just getting through the detail, which I understand is important for people to put onto the record. Following passage of this bill, the regulations will be updated to ensure that mobile phones and bank cards do not need to be surrendered as part of a ticket offence investigation. In relation to, Ms Copsey, your query about the breadth of clause 27 of the bill, while it mentions ‘token’ and not merely ‘state token’, a state token is a subset of a token, so clause 27 needs to refer to ‘token’ and not ‘state token’ because the regulations need to specify what is not required to be surrendered – specifically, tokens. Tokens that are not state tokens will not be required to be surrendered.

On the computer system issue in the question that was raised around clause 27(d), that clause does not create a centralised concession database. It is an enabling provision designed to futureproof the public transport ticketing system in the event that a platform for validating concession entitlements is developed and ensures that the process of validating concession is undertaken lawfully. And for avoidance of doubt, section 221 of the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act deals with the use and disclosure of public transport movement information, and this framework would extend to the use and disclosure of information relating to concessions. It is also a framework that enables regulations to be made regarding use and disclosure of such information or the minister to issue a direction regarding use and disclosure, and it would be an offence for entities to use or disclose information contrary to this framework. Authorised persons would only be able to access data if the regulation or minister’s direction authorises the use for an authorised purpose, and this ensures that the right protections are in place if and when a concession entitlement is developed.

I hope, Ms Copsey, that that addresses some of the matters which I know have been the subject of extensive, exhaustive discussion between the Greens and the minister and also that that addresses a number of the areas, Mrs McArthur, that the opposition has raised. We do want to make sure that we are improving access to the transport network but also making sure that we are making and keeping people safe and prioritising accessibility. We are modernising the legislation. That is what these technological reforms and acknowledgement of the rapid pace of the evolution of technology are all about, and we also want to make sure that we are cracking down on poor behaviour and developing deterrent mechanisms as a consequence of that greater measure of transparency. This bill reflects the concerns and priorities of the community. Making real changes to make a meaningful difference to Victorians’ lives is also about making sure that we are not only developing but preserving confidence in the public transport system, including commercial passenger vehicles, across the board. On that basis, I commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Clause 1 (01:49)

David LIMBRICK: I thank the house for indulging me at this very late hour. I would normally go to the minister’s advisers on this, but this was only brought to my attention late this afternoon, so I think it is appropriate to ask it in committee of the whole. My question is around clause 7 and the public care objective, in particular subclause (1), where it says:

… without discrimination, sexual harassment or other conduct that is inconsistent with community standards of acceptable conduct …

It was brought to my attention that there is actually a rideshare service for women and by women that has women drivers and women customers.

Harriet Shing interjected.

David LIMBRICK: Shebah, yes, that is right. That is correct. And that necessarily requires discrimination on the basis of sex. How can a business like this continue to operate with this objective in place, because it says ‘without discrimination’, but Shebah or other businesses like that necessarily discriminate based on sex?

Harriet SHING: Discrimination is an element of consideration of unintended consequence that ordinarily considers the way in which the impact of legislation or changes might be experienced by consumers, in this case passengers of a commercial passenger vehicle situation. It is necessary and has been tested in numerous situations to acknowledge that there will be specific businesses that cater to the concerns, needs and user experiences of particular groups. It might be that there are exemptions created and sustained by the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 in the allocation of goods and services, and the exemptions that might apply there. Women’s safety is an area where, again, in the commercial passenger vehicle industry, we have heard from numerous speakers in this place and elsewhere that that is a really big concern, that a woman getting into a taxi with somebody who they do not know is. And I know this. I cannot see how everybody else in this chamber who has gotten into a taxi with somebody they do not know late at night would not then have apprehension about the safety of that arrangement. That is not something that is unique to taxi and rideshare vehicles; it is in the accessing of any good or service that might then create a situation of actual or perceived vulnerability. This is something which will apply to the industry as a whole. It is about the changes which are contemplated to assist with ensuring accessibility; addressing the importance of safety; deterring bad behaviour, which in and of itself has often been the reason for establishing these businesses in the first place; and making sure we do have those minimum standards that apply in the provision of those goods and services.

There is not within the scope of contemplation of this bill, I would suggest, an opportunity to perhaps reprosecute the entire basis by which a women’s-only taxi and commercial passenger vehicle enterprise can operate. This is about making clear how, in the operation of those services, we make sure that these changes do not create any unintended consequences that cause in and of themselves disadvantage.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for that answer, but I do not feel that it really satisfies my concern, because what we are inserting here is we are saying ‘without discrimination’. And yet in this particular case where we have a rideshare service by women for women, the safety is brought about by the discrimination itself, by saying only women can use this service. Therefore are we saying that they would need an exemption in order to continue operation? How are they going to continue operation? That is my concern. What I am concerned about is that when this becomes law, this company will all of a sudden be in breach because they are blatantly discriminating based on sex. I think that it sounds like, from the minister’s point of view, you think this is a good thing to have this sort of service for women. I think it is a good thing too, but I want to make sure that they do not go out of business because of this bill. How do we make sure that they stay in business?

Harriet SHING: Just to be really clear, discrimination is unlawful on a number of grounds unless there is an exemption that is granted. Discrimination includes discrimination of the type contemplated by the operation of a commercial passenger vehicle service that provides services to women. An exemption can be sought and can be granted; that has occurred in this instance. The commercial passenger vehicle operation that is operating continues to be able to operate where that exemption from the Equal Opportunity Act requirements around discrimination in the provision of goods or services is maintained.

David LIMBRICK: If I am hearing the minister correctly, there is already an exemption in place in this particular instance that we are talking about and that exemption would continue to operate under this new bill, and therefore there would be no change to their operations effectively.

Harriet SHING: Yes. This is not intended to displace any exemptions that have been provided in accordance with the Equal Opportunity Act and the exemptions based on discrimination for specific purposes.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 (01:56)

Harriet SHING: I move:

1.   Clause 16, page 13, lines 12 and 13, omit “the purpose of carrying out the police officer’s duties;” and insert –

“(i) the purpose of investigating or prosecuting an offence; or

(ii) the purpose of investigating an incident in relation to a commercial passenger vehicle service;

Note

See section 56 of the Victoria Police Act 2013 in relation to the execution of process and warrants.”.

Katherine COPSEY: I just put on the record the Greens will be supporting this house amendment. We welcome the government’s constructive engagement with all sides of the chamber, it sounds like, on the privacy concerns raised in relation to this bill. We will be supporting this amendment because it puts in place more safeguards for how data will be used by narrowing the circumstances when police can access the footage.

Bev McARTHUR: We support the government’s amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Harriet SHING: I move:

2.   Clause 16, page 14, after line 11 insert –

“(1A)   Before the regulator publishes a notice under subsection (1), the regulator must consult with the Information Commissioner appointed under section 6C of the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

(1B)   The regulator must cause a review of the minimum standards published in a notice under subsection (1) to be undertaken every 3 years from the date of the first notice being published.”.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will be supporting this amendment. It will provide more oversight of the regulations via consultation with the information commissioner and via the regular reviews.

Bev McARTHUR: The opposition also supports the amendment.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 17 to 32 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments.

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (01:58): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (01:58): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council has agreed to the bill with amendments.