Thursday, 5 March 2020

Responses

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (17:45): The member for Broadmeadows raised a matter regarding an update on the progress of delivering both an airport rail link and the Suburban Rail Loop. As the member for Broadmeadows well knows, Broadmeadows is identified as a critically important part of our delivery of the Suburban Rail Loop, being identified as one of the sites for our regional super-stations, which will be the interface between the suburban network and the regional network. Of course we are continuing to work very closely with our colleagues in the federal government on the delivery of an airport rail link, and we are very much focused on ensuring that any airport rail link that is delivered for Victoria meets the criteria of providing a connection through Sunshine to ensure that there are more services provided to the west, opening up opportunities for regional connections and primarily also delivering an airport rail connection. I welcome the ongoing advocacy of the member for Broadmeadows on this matter.

Speaker, you indicated the members that I should respond to, but can I also on behalf of the Minister for Public Transport respond to the matter raised by the member for Lowan regarding the Overland train service, because unfortunately the member for Lowan did not accurately represent the situation that confronts potential passengers of the Overland service. The situation is that some time ago the South Australian government decided to withdraw their funding for this service, and given that the South Australian government were the primary funder of this service and that the majority of users of this service were South Australians, we were obviously very disappointed to see the South Australian government make this decision.

In order to assess the impact of that decision by the South Australian Liberal government we did decide to take the opportunity to extend the support from the Victorian government for a period of time. However, if my memory serves me correctly, given the South Australian government funded this service—I think it was somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters of the funding for the Overland train service that came from the South Australian government—you can understand why the Victorian government would like to focus its funds on going towards Victorian services, which is why the Minister for Public Transport is considering this. I should also say that the Minister for Public Transport recently wrote to the South Australian government urging them to reinstate their funding. They have since refused. Let me be clear so the member for Lowan does not misrepresent the position of the Victorian government: the South Australian government, who were the majority funder of the Overland service, of which the majority of passengers were South Australians, have decided to withdraw funding.

I think it is only fair, and I think Victorian taxpayers and Victorian passengers would think it is only fair, that the Victorian government should put the interests of the Victorian community first. I understand that the Liberal and National parties may want to prioritise the South Australian community—that is a matter for them to explain to their communities, why they choose to prioritise South Australians over Victorians. I honestly cannot understand that position, but that is a matter for them to explain. We will put Victorians first, which is why we are considering our position on this. I am confident that the member for Lowan and other Liberal-National party members will accurately represent this matter to their rep communities. It would be a great shame if they continued to deceive their communities. I live in hope that members of the Liberal and National parties provide an accurate representation to their communities rather than deception, but from the group of people that closed country train lines and cut funding to V/Line, can I say to you, Speaker, what can you expect from a group of people who cut services to country communities? That is a matter for them to explain. I am here to speak on behalf of the Victorian government, and I have put the position of the Victorian government.

The member for Hawthorn—the fantastic member for Hawthorn—has raised a very important matter.

Mr M O’Brien interjected.

Ms ALLAN: I am grateful for the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition, because you know why the member for Hawthorn was motivated to raise this matter tonight—he was deeply concerned that the local member, the member for Malvern, was failing to represent his community. He was deeply concerned on behalf of his community. I think there is a touch of arrogance from the member for Malvern, who seems to think that the impact of the Toorak Road level crossing only exists around the constellation of the electorate of Malvern. Well, he is wrong. The Toorak Road level crossing and the congestion that that level crossing generates impacts on the neighbouring electorate of the member for Hawthorn, and as we know, for so many people who use the Monash Freeway day in, day out, when those boom gates are down on the Toorak Road level crossing the knock-on effects go through the Monash Freeway and have an impact right across the road network. Now, the member for Malvern might want to ignore that. Again, it is up to him to explain to his local community—

Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, the minister has spent her time responding to the adjournment debate attacking me, but she should be factual in her comments. If she is to be factual, she should note the fact that I raised the very matter of the closure of Talbot Crescent, which was originally supposed to be done temporarily, then permanently and now temporarily again—

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Ms ALLAN: As so often is the case with the poor old Leader of the Opposition, he has been a bit premature in getting to his feet and highlighting his deficiencies as a local member of Parliament, because the member for Hawthorn has quite rightfully raised the issues, not only about the congestion that is caused by the Toorak Road level crossing but also how there is further work that needs to be done. Like so much of the work we do on removing level crossings, we do not just focus on removing that level crossing. We look at what other works need to happen in that local area to improve transport connections. That is why, yes, as part of the removal of the level crossing at Toorak Road we have had to temporarily close Talbot Crescent at the Toorak Road end. There is still access for the community at the Glenferrie Road end, but can I also point out that the detailed plans that have been available for quite some time on the Level Crossing Removal Project website clearly outline how we will permanently reopen Talbot Crescent at Toorak Road.

Now, I am also aware that Stonnington council have decided that they would like to see Talbot Crescent permanently closed. As the member for Hawthorn has pointed out quite clearly in his contribution this evening, they did this without consulting the Glen Iris Gladiators football club. The motion that was put forward in the Stonnington council chambers to consider a permanent closure of Talbot Crescent was put forward by a councillor who is a previous member of the Liberal Party. But I appreciate that the member for Hawthorn is a very fair minded fellow and he is prepared to stand up and support the football club—a big club with 700 junior players, and many of them use the Talbot Crescent intersection at Toorak Road to get to and from games for training. They understand, and the member for Hawthorn is prepared to give them a voice. The local member may not; the member for Malvern is choosing not to give them a voice, but the member for Hawthorn is. He understands the impact that this would have on the football club.

What then happened, I am pleased to advise, is that the Glen Iris Gladiators contacted my office, and we were very pleased to assist the club. We wrote to the Glen Iris Gladiators indicating that we will rebuild the Talbot Crescent-Toorak Road intersection. We also had the opportunity to point out that this was always the intent as part of this program. Indeed the plans for this have been available on the website and in community newsletters that have been circulating for over a year. We have not changed our position on this for some time. Look, it is up to the member for Malvern to explain to the club and its 700 players and other members in the community why he chooses to take the side of the Liberal councillors on Stonnington council. That is up to him to explain. I do think it is extraordinary that he is choosing that rather than the local club, but it is great to see the member for Hawthorn standing up for the local community and supporting the football club.

I would suggest that we do need to get in and understand and take the advice of our expert engineers on what is the right outcome in each of these locations. It is good to see the member for Hawthorn is an evidence-driven politician and an evidence-driven advocate for his community, clearly unlike the member for Malvern. The member for Malvern is choosing to play politics on a level crossing that is going to be removed six months ahead of schedule—and that will relieve congestion in a great way in that local area. I thank the member for Hawthorn for raising that matter this evening.

Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, to aid the member for Hawthorn, he also raised a question about the sporting facilities at Sir Zelman Cowen Park and whether the government would support that. The minister has refused to answer that part of the member for Hawthorn’s adjournment debate matter. I invite her to do so, because I have been advocating for that for the Gladiators. So has the member for Hawthorn. It would be great to get a positive answer from you right now, Minister. Right now.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition can resume his seat. There is no point of order. The minister to continue responding to the issues raised.

Ms ALLAN: Thank you, Speaker. The remaining seven members—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister has the call.

Ms ALLAN: Mission accomplished. How many of your numbers have you got here tonight?

The remaining seven members raised matters for various ministers, and they will be referred for their action and response.

The SPEAKER: The house now stands adjourned.

House adjourned 5.57 pm until Tuesday, 17 March.