Thursday, 6 March 2025

Northern Victoria Region

Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12:56): (1454) My question is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. On what date will the signalling works for stage 3 of the Shepparton rail line upgrade be completed, and on what date will the rail line be fully operational? In 2021 Jacinta Allan promised that stage 3 of the Shepparton line upgrade would be completed in 2023, allowing nine weekday services to run, but now it is 2025 and there are no new train services to Shepparton because the signalling works are still not complete. This delay has also prevented the operation of the traffic lights at the rail crossing on Wyndham Street that were installed five years ago but have never been turned on. The government recently announced that it is adding new weekend services on four regional rail lines, but Shepparton has missed out again because the signalling work has not been completed to allow new trains to run. The patience of Shepparton residents has run out. The government must urgently finish the signalling works, turn on the traffic lights and get extra trains running on the Shepparton line.

David Davis: President, just on a point of order, and on rulings and ministerial responses regarding Infrastructure Victoria: under the administrative orders, the Treasurer is responsible for Infrastructure Victoria. Mr Bourman quite correctly asked her a question today about a road matter in the current Infrastructure Victoria report, which was released on Tuesday. On the same day in the same report there is material about energy, and I asked a question of the minister on Tuesday about the same report and in the same way about the impact of those energy matters on the Victorian economy, but the minister, the Treasurer, did not want to answer that. She said, ‘Oh no, it’s the responsibility of the energy minister.’ However, we are left in a very difficult position because the Infrastructure Victoria body, its reports and all of its activities, are ultimately the responsibility of the Treasurer under the administrative orders. In that sense, we have seen an example of the same report treated differently on two occasions this week. There is an issue of consistency, and I think the administrative orders are quite clear: they are the Treasurer’s responsibility.

Harriet Shing: Further to the point of order, President, I also note that in the course of question time this week I have been asked about the Infrastructure Victoria report as it relates to the Suburban Rail Loop, where it would seem to indicate that the opposition is able to ask a question of the direct portfolio holder as it relates to a matter that is set out in the Infrastructure Victoria report. It would seem to me that there appears to be a different-courses-for-different-horses arrangement going on. I think if we are going to go down this path, Mr Davis, taking the benefit of asking a portfolio minister directly about a matter in an Infrastructure Victoria report has been something that has been acceptable to the opposition, and therefore it would appear that what you are saying now is not consistent with that position.

David Davis: Further to the point of order, President, it might be that you ask a portfolio minister matters around some of the things in the Infrastructure Victoria report. There is nothing wrong with that. Some of them might be background figures, for example, or you might even ask them about their input or their department’s input –

Harriet Shing: No, that is not what you asked me.

David Davis: I am giving some examples here. However, ultimately the administrative orders do stand, and the Premier has allocated Infrastructure Victoria to the Treasurer. I would put to you that Infrastructure Victoria is a matter for questions to the Treasurer, without ruling out other options.

The PRESIDENT: I think that I did say during question time that you have every right, and any member has every right, to ask a minister a question and the minister has a right to indicate that it may not fall inside their responsibility. But in saying that, I think both points Mr Davis and Minister Shing made have some weight to them. I think the best thing to do is to take it into consideration. That is why I was a bit surprised by Mr Bourman’s preamble, because I think Minister Shing’s point is that she did do that in her endeavours to respond to a question in relation to that Infrastructure Australia report. Like I said, I think we should put weight on both contributions, take it into consideration and get back to the house, if people are happy that.

Sitting suspended 1:02 pm until 2:06 pm.