2016-11-23
Ms DUNN (Eastern Metropolitan) — It is always a delight to speak just before question time — I think that really guarantees a three-part contribution in relation to this matter!
I rise this morning to speak on the Road Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2016. This bill is a patchwork of loophole closing, planning amendment fudging and laudable road safety protections. It is a cornucopia of sensible amendments and unexplained liabilities with a whiff of the mythology of car as king. The fact that it is all thrown together gives the impression that the government wants to get through some embarrassing guff on the back of important community protections regarding miniature motorcycles and alcohol interlock devices.
I am delighted now to go through some of the key issues, firstly the issue of miniature motorcycle legislation. The Greens wholeheartedly support a ban on miniature motorcycles on roads and road-related areas. The tragic death of Andrea Lehane from injuries sustained when she was hit by a reckless rider on a monkey bike at Carrum Downs shopping centre was a wake-up call, showing that more needs to be done to keep these recreational vehicles off our roads, footpaths, public driveways and car parks. Why a dedicated bill to this end could not be introduced sooner after Andrea Lehane's death is questionable. Instead it has been thrown in with a lot of unrelated guff.
The provisions in this bill make it an offence to ride a miniaturised motorcycle on roads or road-related areas. The rider will face court and be penalised up to $3109, and the monkey bike will be confiscated and may be destroyed. If a monkey bike is found in a public area, it will be confiscated and will be considered abandoned after 30 days. It may be disposed of through crushing.
It will still be legal to ride a miniaturised motorcycle on the confines of private property, as it is for motocross bikes, quad bikes and other recreational vehicles. That is as it should be. Without this bill Victoria Police only have the power to issue fines to offenders for riding an unregistered vehicle on public roads and road-related areas, which may extend to a fine for speeding or reckless driving in some cases. That is insufficient, because some riders of miniaturised motorcycles do not have a drivers licence to lose in the first place. The penalties in this bill will therefore further deter those without a licence from riding miniaturised motorcycles in public areas. However, this bill's proposed restrictions on miniaturised motorcycles have some major shortcomings.
Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.
Ms DUNN (Eastern Metropolitan) — Picking up where I left off before question time, my contribution was drawing attention to the element of this bill that focuses on miniature motorcycles or monkey bikes. The Greens are concerned that the bill's proposed restrictions on miniature motorcycles have some major shortcomings.
It has taken the Law Institute of Victoria, which has advised that it was not consulted on the preparation of this bill, to draw the government's attention to the fact that the bill impacts the rights of injured people to compensation arising from the use of miniature motorcycles on roads and road-related areas. This is a gaping hole. If a bystander were hit by a miniature motorcycle, the changes under this bill imply they may not be eligible for medical care funded by the Transport Accident Commission (TAC). This issue needs to be clarified and addressed by the minister, and I will quote for the house the concerns the Law Institute of Victoria has:
Our expert members, who practise in this field, are concerned about the potential impact of the bill on the rights of injured persons to compensation arising out of the use of a 'mini bike' on a road or road-related area.
And mini-bike is in quotation marks.
In particular, clarity and certainty are required about whether the bill will exclude 'mini bikes' from the definition of 'motor vehicle' in the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic.) and the Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic.). If so, this may unintentionally affect the compensation rights and entitlements of persons injured as a result of the use of a 'mini-bike' on a road or road-related area.
They are important issues that the law institute has raised, so I would hope that the minister can address those issues in summing up, or I will certainly explore them in committee of the whole.
I now turn to the leasing of land for the CityLink-Tullamarine widening project. This project is symptomatic of a road lobby thinking of this government and the opposition. The Tulla is jammed. What do we do? We spend another $1.28 billion to build more lanes. The wider road induces more demand, and then it is jammed again. This is what has happened on the Monash Freeway and the Eastern Freeway, and it always ends in traffic jams. I have been driving on the Monash Freeway my entire driving life. I have seen that freeway expand by many lanes over those decades and can report to the house it takes me longer now to drive on that road than it ever has taken because it is always congested — so, build more lanes; get more traffic.
Albert Einstein defined 'insanity' as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The CityLink-Tulla widening is functionally insane. It will just lead to more traffic and more congestion. The $1.28 billion that has been wasted on it could meet half the budget for an airport train. With an airport train, a critical and modern transport link, Melbourne could finally catch up to other cities — cities such as London, Paris, Tokyo, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Brisbane, Sydney and soon Perth. It might come as a surprise to some members that the following cities also have rail links to an airport: Casablanca, Bangkok, Padang, Medan, Vladivostok, and Izmir in Turkey. Turpan, a town in the Xinjiang region in China, which does not even register in the top 200 cities by population in China, has airport rail. Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia, will have airport rail in 2017. When it comes to airport rail, Melbourne is coming dead last.
But does this government or its coalition predecessor do something about building an airport rail service? That is just held out as a pie-in-the-sky promise for the 2030s or the 2040s or the 2050s; it is vapour infrastructure. The Greens have long advocated for airport rail. It is doable. We could do this. It just takes will and funds and diverting both from the ceaseless pursuit of more lanes and more roads. This leasing of land is just another indicator of the sweetie-pie deal done between Transurban, VicRoads and the state government. The CityLink-Tulla widening will not relieve traffic congestion over the medium or long term — that I can guarantee you.
What it will do is destroy the lungs of the children at Strathmore Secondary College. Transurban and VicRoads have deserted those students by putting an off-ramp less than 5 metres from their classrooms. The pollution levels are too high, but Transurban and the government are in denial over it. They do not care. The pursuit of profits from tolls is more important than the education and health and wellbeing of children. Students will be spending their recess and lunch times with diesel particulates flowing down from the off-ramp. We do not know how bad the PM2.5 levels are — the measure of the finest particles, which are of course the most damaging — because neither Transurban nor VicRoads have measured them properly in situ.
The consultation process over the alignment of the off-ramp was a sham. VicRoads would not consider any request from the school community regarding alignment. Instead Transurban and VicRoads have teamed up to provide hush money in the form of $2.76 million — funds that should have been forthcoming anyway to help replace the demountable classrooms. Double glazing and insulation will not help the students when they are outside playing cricket, netball or footy or just being outside in their school grounds.
The Greens support the amendments targeting other issues, such as validity of licences issued by overseas jurisdictions and the range of amendments proposed by the bill in relation to alcohol interlock laws. We are concerned that the issues raised by the Law Institute of Victoria have not been clarified. We hope the minister will address these matters in summing up, otherwise we will raise them in committee of the whole. The Greens support this bill.