Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2025
I speak on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. According to the Minister's second reading speech:
The bill is the result of a periodic review of the transport legislation to ensure Acts remain fit for purpose.
It includes wide-ranging amendments to seven transport-related Acts. Among other things:
The bill will improve efficiency and effectiveness of administrative processes … clarify the effect of existing provisions to ensure consistent interpretation and application; ensure consistency with Commonwealth legislation; remove unnecessary statutory entities …
That all sounds very administrative. However, as we have come to expect from this Government and occasionally from this Minister, there is something we must be vigilant about. Things are being snuck into bills that barely rate a mention in Government briefs to bills or in statements of public interest. Sure enough, that is what we have got before us today. I note that the Hon. Natalie Ward has already pointed that out. This bill is being sold as a miscellaneous bill. In the Minister's second reading speech, immediately after saying that the bill is all administrative and the result of a periodic review, he states that the bill implements an election commitment made by Labor to "remove roadworks speed limits where there are no roadworks underway and it is safe to do so". The Government made much of this in the media last week. It announced:
The Minns Labor Government has introduced legislation which will pave the way to deliver on its election commitment to remove worksite speed limits outside construction speed hours where it is safe to do so.
There is zero detail around how this will happen. We are instead told to rely on a yet to be seen standard that all road authorities and contractors will need to comply with for the installation, maintenance and removal of roadworks speed limits. A media release from the Minister for Roads on 10 September says, "These arrangements are in place in Victoria and South Australia." I had a look at the Transport Victoria website and the South Australian Government website. The Transport Victoria website states:
The temporary speed limit applies even if you can't see roadworks being carried out.
…
There can still be dangers around work zones even when there's nobody working on the road.
These dangers can include:
narrow lane widths
barriers close to traffic lanes
deep trenches
loose gravel on the road
…
Some dangers are easy to spot during the day, but much harder to see at night. Driving at a slower speed gives you more time to see the danger and avoid a crash.
I understand there are potential rules around the removal of speed limit signs at construction zones, but it is not a standard that applies everywhere. This is where potential confusion lies. I also had a look at what was happening in South Australia. When I googled, for both Victoria and South Australia a Facebook page came up with the announcement of this policy. The comments on the page indicated that none of the drivers in either Victoria or South Australia had any idea whether it existed in those States. They were, of course, grumbling about the speed limits in construction zones when there are no workers there. It seemed that none of the drivers, in fact, knew what was going on in Victoria or South Australia. The website of the RAA in South Australia states:
The reason some reduced speed limit signs are left out long after roadworkers have gone home is to keep you and others safe.
Driving on newly sealed surfaces, gravel shoulders or roads with no line markings requires extra concentration and can hinder a motorists' ability to safely control their vehicle … newly laid road surfaces can take a few months to settle—especially on country roads used by big trucks.
… If the surface hasn't settled, it can make skidding more likely.
he Greens would not necessarily oppose a measure to take away reduced speed limit signs if construction workers deem it safe, which I am sure the standard would set out. However, including that in a miscellaneous transport bill, given these types of changes to our road and transport laws have been debated in the past by both Houses of this Parliament quite intensely—believe it or not—disrespects our legislative role in this place. Having said that, it is in the bill, and The Greens will not oppose it.
Turning to other aspects of the bill—I will not cover everything—I note that the bill also makes changes to the Community Improvement Districts Act 2025 to ensure that only one person per business or commercial enterprise can vote in a community improvement district ballot. That Act, which passed earlier this year, provides that business landowners get one vote regardless of how many parcels of land they own. The same principle should apply to the number of businesses owned, so the bill amends the Act to ensure that it is clear that there is only one vote per business. Another amendment to the Community Improvement Districts Act puts beyond doubt that where a decision has been made to include government land in a community improvement district, that land is deemed to be business land for the purposes of the Act. The bill also clarifies the meaning of "government land" so that it does not include land owned by the Commonwealth. We are told that is necessary because the Australian Constitution does not allow a community improvement district—or any levy, for that matter—to be imposed on the Commonwealth. Those changes seem reasonable to The Greens.
Schedule 5.2 to the bill proposes to amend the strict liability offence prescribed in section 135 of the Marine Pollution Act regarding the requirement for ships to carry garbage record books. The amendment is necessary to align with changes being made to Commonwealth legislation, following a change to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. I note that the Legislation Review Committee, in examining the bill, has stated that this change may impact individual rights by restricting the exception to the offence and could result in more people being at risk of committing the offence. However, as the committee also noted, strict liability offences are not uncommon in regulatory settings to encourage compliance, and the maximum penalty is monetary, not custodial. The Greens are fine with those changes too. The other changes proposed by the bill truly are administrative in nature, and The Greens raise no issues with them. But we again put on record that it is concerning that this Government is slipping provisions into miscellaneous bills and regulations. We wish to make that point, but, in this instance it is not concerning enough for The Greens to vote against the bill. The Greens support the bill before the House.