Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021

June 23, 2021

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (14:55): I rise today to speak to the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021.

I do not plan to speak for too long on this bill, largely because most of the changes within it are straightforward and reasonably uncontroversial. As Minister Carroll said in his second-reading speech, many of the provisions of the bill are aimed at reducing regulation. Election commitments are also being honoured, and there are generally some good changes in the area of road safety. From the point of Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party, we agree and are comfortable with each of those aspects of the bill.

I will now concentrate purely on those few aspects of the bill that are the most problematic for us. I will also shortly circulate some amendments which in our view will hopefully add or prompt some further really important changes in the area of road safety itself.

A section of the bill that we find troubling is the one on the bus accreditation.

We are concerned about three things there primarily. These are the inconsistency in interstate arrangements that disadvantage Victorian bus operators, the concerns of key stakeholders that the nominated start date of March 2022 for the commencement of the changes is too early, and the way in which various accreditation and registration requirements are being extended well beyond the major bus operators to much smaller concerns, including groups such as schools, aged-care services, Scouting organisations, veterans’ groups and the like.

I recognise that other members have expressed similar concerns on those fronts, so Mr (Stuart) Grimley and I look forward to hearing further discussion on the various amendments that other parties will be moving in order to try to enhance those specific parts of the bill.

Given that Mr Grimley and I are regional members, we also want to echo the concerns raised by Ms (Steph) Ryan in the Assembly in relation to VicTrack and the facilitation of the new 99-year crown land leases for that organisation. That is a bad idea in our view, particularly in northern Victoria.

There have been a number of problems in relation to this VicTrack leasing in the past, especially in locking land away and blocking the possibility of it being used for community projects. As Ms Ryan said, that has been particularly true in and around places like Stanhope, Colbinabbin, Violet Town and Benalla in my electorate. We do, however, remain concerned at the prospect that the relevant changes in the bill could give rise to even more evidence of this kind of poor use of crown land in the future.

In relation to road safety, I would like to put forward my amendments. This may actually be an opportune moment to circulate them.

Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party amendments circulated by Ms MAXWELL pursuant to standing orders.

Ms MAXWELL: Through these amendments I am seeking to expand the legislative changes that we passed in the Parliament last year to give Victoria Police officers the power to immediately suspend licences for hit-and-run incidents and other forms of dangerous driving.

Those changes were made as part of the Road Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. My amendments today are intended to achieve two central objectives: they would remove the need to prove intent in relation to section 85I(2) of the Road Safety Act 1986; and they would also add a small set of other key offences to section 85I(4)—namely, culpable driving, dangerous driving causing death or serious injury, failing to stop and failing to render assistance.

Members will recall the very poignant debate in here on that previous bill in the very, very early hours of one morning in March 2020. It was a highly moving occasion during which we especially honoured the very brave advocacy of Chloe Dickman, after a horrific motor vehicle assault on her, and of Jeynelle Dean-Hayes, following the death of her son Tyler Dean in a hit-and-run accident.

Jeynelle and her husband, Josh Hayes, were with us here in the Parliament throughout the entire consideration of that bill from 9:00 in the evening until the wee, wee hours. After that debate I was contacted by someone who works in a very senior capacity on these incidents and indeed is one of the state’s most experienced and foremost experts in this field.

They told me that were flaws in the bill and there were accordingly a few outstanding issues that needed to be tightened within the legislation. Jeynelle and Josh also separately received the same advice.

I subsequently contacted the office of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services on numerous occasions and had a few conversations with her advisers. But there has unfortunately still been no tangible progress of any kind, and I will have a bit more to say about that in a moment.

The purpose of moving these amendments now is obviously to try to have the (Legislative) Council pass them in order to make that progress and to strengthen the relevant laws. However, even if the amendments do not have the numbers to pass, I raise them as a means of alerting all other MLCs to these problems and indeed to require members of the government to consider and respond to them. Now, I perfectly accept that there may be disagreement in the Council on whether the amendments are needed or not. That is one thing. Frankly, though, I have quite a few other things to say about the government’s approach to this particular matter.

I will preface these remarks by saying that I appreciate the access and the levels of consultation and co-operation that our party enjoys with almost all ministers’ offices. In fact it has been a pleasure to work with many of those offices. However, in this instance I have to say that I am extremely frustrated, disappointed and even angry at the approach of the police minister’s office.

Very regrettably, Jeynelle and Josh and their family, who were among the inspirations behind the original bill after all, have been left to wait for over a year even for some sort of advice or decision about these outstanding issues. Since their last conversation with a ministerial adviser in, I think, the first half of 2020, they have been hoping to hear something from the government about this, yet there has been nothing. They have been left on tenterhooks, often sick with worry and concern, as if they have not endured enough already with the loss of their beautiful son. To the best of my knowledge no-one from the police minister’s office has bothered to pick up the phone, to send an email or even to communicate with them in any form at all—not even once in that entire time.

Multiple phone calls and emails from my office, including from me, have also repeatedly gone unanswered by that minister’s office on these issues. None of this has been anywhere near good enough. In fact it has been appalling. I hope the relevant people in that office who are listening at the moment urgently think about and reflect on that and try to conceptualise and contemplate the serious impact it has had on Jeynelle and Josh in particular.

Otherwise for now I will largely leave my contribution there. As I said at the start of my speech, Mr Grimley and I support the overwhelming majority of the bill. However, we do look forward to the imminent more detailed discussion and consideration of the various amendments proposed to the bill, including our own. In the meantime, I thank the house.