Thursday, 15 May 2025

Business of the house

Standing and sessional orders

Mary-Anne THOMAS (Macedon – Leader of the House, Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services) (10:08): I move:

That:

(1) So much of standing and sessional orders be suspended so as to allow on Tuesday 20 May 2025, following the introduction and motion for the second reading of the Annual Appropriation Bill:

(a) the Minister moving the second reading to retain their right to speak (for 15 minutes) on the question later in the debate;

(b) Jaclyn Symes MLC, Treasurer, under s 52 of the Constitution Act 1975, be permitted to attend the House for the purpose of giving a speech of unlimited duration in relation to the Annual Appropriation Bill.

(2) A message be sent to the Legislative Council informing them that under s 52 of the Constitution Act 1975, approval has been granted for Jaclyn Symes MLC, Treasurer, to attend the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday 20 May to give a speech on the Annual Appropriation Bill.

In moving this motion, I will reflect that I am a person that normally does not really welcome those from the other house into this place. I think that this is the people’s house and that we are the engine of government here in the Legislative Assembly. The house of review does its job, but seriously we are the people on the ground every day responding to the needs of our constituents. However, in this case, I want to make an exception because I do very much look forward to welcoming our Treasurer, a member for Northern Victoria, the Honourable Jaclyn Symes from the other place to come here next Tuesday to deliver the Allan Labor government’s budget for 2025–26. I reflect that this is an event that last happened some 15 years ago when a former Labor Treasurer, the Honourable John Lenders, came to this place to deliver the budget, so it is not without precedent. We look forward, as I said, to welcoming the Treasurer to this place.

She will deliver a much-anticipated budget. One thing you can be sure of is that it will be a Labor budget, and that means it will be grounded in the values of our great movement, which are always about looking to the people of Victoria and the things that matter most to them and ensuring that we are meeting the particular needs of people. At this time, we know that, as a consequence of a range of global events and so on, the cost of living is an issue that is impacting Victorians.

I do look forward to the Honourable Jaclyn Symes from the other place appearing here next Tuesday. Many words have been spilt in the setting up of this motion. The Manager of Opposition Business and I have had many conversations about this – like, a lot of conversations about this – and I need to point out that this is absolutely no reflection on the Manager of Opposition Business, who is just doing her job. But part of her job is managing the massive ego of the member for Brighton, the Shadow Treasurer. The Shadow Treasurer went out to the media the other day saying he wants a time fixed in this motion for him to speak. I am trying to work out on what basis he is desperate to have this time fixed for him to give his reply. I can only think it is because he is going to live stream it on LinkedIn. I do not know, but that is what I have been thinking.

Anyway, we are not doing that, because quite frankly the member for Brighton is the member for Brighton and he will have his time. He can get up here. He can deliver his much-anticipated, in his own mind, response to the budget once it has been delivered. I might say also on this that I have reached an agreement with the Manager of Opposition Business, in a very mature way, that we will find an opportunity for the member for Brighton to deliver his response without it being interrupted. However, I do point out, as I have done to the Manager of Opposition Business, and she is very aware of this, that whether or not the member for Brighton’s speech in reply is interrupted is entirely a matter for those on the other side of the house. If they choose to do a whole lot of performative stunts in the morning, then that may well chew into the time that the member for Brighton has to speak and it might mean that it abuts lunchtime.

But as I said, the decision about how that speech is delivered is one that is wholly in the hands of those on the other side, so there is zero requirement for this motion to deliver anything for the member for Brighton in terms of fixing a time for him, because quite frankly, as I said, it is up to them when he speaks. They could do what others have done. If he was really, really feeling as confident as he would like us all to think, why doesn’t he just stand up straight after the Treasurer? I mean, really, show us what he is made of. He will get the budget. Apparently he is a really smart guy. Can we just be clear: we know that speech is already written, right? We know it is already written. We know it has been practised in front of his mirror already a million times. He has probably already done the video. It is probably ready to go. It is probably at post production as we speak.

I, for one, am very much looking forward to welcoming our Treasurer, a member for Northern Victoria. I might say, as the member for Macedon, that she is an upper house member representing our district, an extremely, extraordinarily hardworking member both as a local representative and indeed as the Treasurer. I am reminded that when the Treasurer was appointed to her role, the member for Brighton took it upon himself to say that it was outrageous that our state was being led by two out-of-towners. He derided the Premier and the Treasurer as out-of-towners, because apparently regional Victorians are not able to lead the state. That tells you everything about what the Liberals think about country Victorians. No wonder the member for Ovens Valley is sitting here shaking his head, because he knows full well what the Liberals really think of country Victorians. The member for Brighton told us they are out-of-towners, and as a consequence not worthy of holding leadership positions in this state.

That is absolutely shameful. I very much look forward to welcoming the Treasurer to this place next Tuesday to deliver an Allan Labor government budget – a budget that will, as I said at the very beginning, be founded in the values that drive our great movement, because we know what we believe in. We know why we are here, we know who we represent and we know what Victorians need, and that is what our budget will respond to. I commend the motion to the house.

Bridget VALLENCE (Evelyn) (10:15): What a performance there. I mean, talk about trying to perform –

Tim McCurdy interjected.

Bridget VALLENCE: Poor performance. Talk about being performative – I think the Leader of the House outdid herself there. At the outset, in her remarks in relation to this motion that she has brought before the Assembly in order to bring the Treasurer, Jaclyn Symes MLC, from the Legislative Council into the Assembly to deliver a budget, the Leader of the House said that this, the Assembly, is the people’s house and she is reluctant to have anyone from the Council come into the people’s house. Clearly she does not think Jaclyn Symes is a person of the people. I have to agree with her on that point: Jaclyn Symes is not a person for the people. This Treasurer is clearly not one of the Victorian people. She is totally out of touch with the Victorian people. In the last budget debt was skyrocketing to $188 billion. I hate to see what it is going to be in next week’s budget. There will be cuts to services, cuts to jobs and cuts to public sector workers. I mean, this Labor government has forgotten its core constituency, the workers, and has the highest taxes in the country.

This is a motion that says so much about this desperate and tired Labor government. Whilst we accept that there have been some very rare occasions in the past when such motions have been introduced, they are extremely unusual. They are unusual because they demonstrate to us that neither the Premier nor any of her ministers on this front bench in the Assembly are willing to put their hand up to introduce what we all know will be a horror budget next week. Not the Premier and not a single minister in this place, in the Assembly, wants to take part in this horror show. Instead, the Premier is going to drag down Jaclyn Symes from the upper house – and probably drag down Jaclyn Symes’s reputation in doing so – drag down the Treasurer here to take all of the blame, to cop all of the heat and all of the flack for the horror show of a budget that we will be seeing next week. You can kind of almost feel sorry for the Treasurer, almost.

But we ask ourselves: why isn’t the Premier having the guts to introduce the budget herself? Is it because she does not know much about economics and economic principles, or is it because she does not want to be speaking on what she knows is going to be a dismal, devastating, horror budget? It is going to be brutal on Victorians this budget. We all know it. This Treasurer has already foreshadowed cuts – cuts to jobs and cuts to public sector workers. There are many throughout the public service across all sectors and all portfolios who are very, very nervous. You have got to ask: why doesn’t the Premier stand up and deliver the budget to all Victorians? Why won’t the Premier be accountable to Victorians for her budget? This ultimately will be her budget. What is the Premier afraid of? More debt, more taxes, more cuts to services and more cuts to jobs. It is pretty weak. It is pretty weak that the Premier cannot do that herself in this chamber. I would have thought she would love the opportunity, but clearly not.

You would think that surely the Premier would show leadership in this time of economic uncertainty and take the challenge full on, stand at the dispatch box, stand right here before us and deliver this budget that this government is responsible for, look Victorians in the eye and talk about how she is leading Victoria to the highest debt in the country, the highest taxes in the country and job cuts that we know are coming. As Premier she is ultimately responsible for every decision in her government, in this tired Allan Labor government. That is why the Premier should be the one delivering the budget, not dragging the Treasurer from the Council. As the Leader of the House said, she is not really one of the people. We know that.

One of the first acts of this Treasurer has been to introduce a new emergency services levy on all Victorians. The Premier is dragging the Treasurer from the Legislative Council. I guess if this motion gets through and the Treasurer does come to deliver her budget speech in this chamber, perhaps while the Treasurer is down here she can explain in the people’s house why one of her first acts of Treasurer was to introduce this terrible, devastating emergency services levy, this emergency services tax on all Victorians, hurting farmers in the worst possible time, in a time of drought, the farmers who put food on our table. It is hurting renters through increases for residences and hurting manufacturers who make the products here in Victoria by a 64 per cent increase to the emergency services tax for them. It is 189 per cent increase, the emergency services tax for farmers. Seriously, this is all that Labor treasurers do. All that Labor treasurers know how to do is spend more of Victorians’ money and tax them more for the privilege. It is disgraceful.

You would think that the number one priority as Treasurer would be to put more money back in the pockets of Victorians, but we all know that next week we are expecting to see more taxes under this Allan and Andrews Labor government. Remember back in 2014 when the promise from the then Premier, the promise from this Labor government, was no more taxes. That was a 2014 election promise, no more taxes. Well, 10 long years later they have introduced 60 new taxes, hurting Victorians, causing a cost-of-living crisis for Victorians. It is absolutely shameful. I know that what every member on this side of the chamber, the Liberals and the Nationals, wants to see for Victorians is lower taxes. We want a government that cuts waste, that is financially competent, that spends Victorians’ money wisely and provides tax relief to Victorians at a time that they need it. But what Labor treasurers do, all they do, is race to impose. It is very lazy. All they do is say, ‘Goodness me, we want to spend, spend, spend – spend more money than we actually have, spend well beyond our means,’ and expect businesses to cop the heat for it. They tax businesses more, which makes it harder for businesses to operate and employ people, and their simple and lazy answer is to tax Victorians more.

Under the Allan Labor government they have had a record tax haul. It will be interesting when the Treasurer does come down to give her budget speech that already before the budget speech we know that Victorians are paying a hefty price with the Labor government hiking taxes in a cost-of-living crisis, collecting a record $31.4 billion in taxes last year, the highest amount ever assessed in a financial year by the State Revenue Office. That is the highest amount the SRO has ever collected in taxes. It is a record tax haul under this Labor government. The government has pocketed $9.6 billion in payroll tax, $1.3 billion more than the year before; an additional $1.1 billion under the COVID debt levy payroll tax; and a massive $10.8 billion in taxes imposed on Victorians already under financial strain. Property owners and rental providers paid the government $5.9 billion in land tax in 2023–24, an increase of over half a billion dollars from the year before, plus an additional $1.2 billion in COVID debt levy land tax holding, totalling over $7 billion going into government coffers.

The revenue from the fire services property levy increased by $47 million. That increased when it was the fire services levy, and now the Labor government wants to introduce a whole new tax called the emergency services levy. It is trying to pull the wool over Victorians’ eyes by telling the SES that it will provide more money for the volunteer SES services. They have not quarantined this. They have no intention of quarantining the emergency services levy for volunteers and for frontline emergency services workers. They anticipate taking $2.1 billion additional from this tax, and the Treasurer’s departmental officials have said that this will not be quarantined for volunteers. They have said they cannot say how much money our CFA and SES volunteers will get. But what they have confirmed is that it will go to inner-city, back-office public service agencies that have never been funded through a tax or a levy before. It is quite shameful.

I went through that record tax haul under this Allan Labor government. And yet, despite the record tax haul, in the December midyear budget update the Labor government shows that it is still running at a $3.9 billion deficit. They cannot manage money, and Victorians are paying the price.

What does the Treasurer, on her first day, do? It will be interesting to see if she has the guts and the gumption to refer to the emergency services tax in her budget speech, because as I mentioned before, one of her first disgraceful acts as Treasurer was to whack our farmers with a 189 per cent increase. We are going to lose these farms. I have the privilege of representing the Yarra Ranges and Yarra Valley. We have wonderful farmers out there, some of the finest producers that produce for our domestic market, some of the finest produce that we export. Our cherries, our strawberries, our apples, our wines – which everyone love – come from the Yarra Valley. But a lot of these farms have already said they do not think they will survive. That will be on the shoulders of this Labor government. That will be the legacy of this disgraceful, devastating, financially incompetent Labor government.

That is what Labor treasurers do. Labor treasurers just tax more. Victorians are going to be slugged with this massive tax – over $600 million just in the next year. In their sneaky way, they are going to ask councils to collect this tax, and they know that councils will cop the heat. When people see their rates notices skyrocket, when manufacturers, farmers and renters see their taxes increase on their rates notices, they will contact their councils and councils will have to deal with a state tax that is going to hurt all Victorians.

This Labor government has been totally disingenuous when it comes to this being a volunteer fund. They have told volunteers that they will be exempt from this emergency services tax, and nothing could be further from the truth. The Department of Treasury and Finance officials confirmed that volunteers will still have to pay this tax up-front. They are asking volunteers to do this work and they are still demanding volunteers pay this up-front and then fill out some paperwork for a rebate later. I mean, what guarantee do you think they are going to get that the State Revenue Office will actually get around to refunding these hardworking volunteers? These volunteers go to the danger and protect our communities 365 days of the year. We owe them a debt of gratitude, and what does the Labor government give them? It whacks them with a massive tax. It is absolutely disgraceful. It is going to destroy our state.

It will also be interesting to see the Treasurer when she comes into this chamber to deliver her budget speech – we can ask her about her cut squad. Remember back in February the Treasurer announced she was going to cut 3000 public sector jobs – 3000 Victorians she is going to sack – so it will be interesting to see how much more she has to say about that, when the Treasurer comes to the people’s house. As the Leader of the House said, this is the people’s house, and we know that this Treasurer is not a woman of the people.

She is out of touch with the people, and it will be interesting to see if she has the temerity to come and tell all Victorians in the Assembly how many public sector workers she is going to put out of a job. These job cuts are coming from, we already know, the Victorian Fisheries Authority. They were out on the steps of Parliament protesting against this disgraceful Labor government this morning. The Victorian Fisheries has been decimated by job cuts, and we know that that is going to have consequences. We are very concerned about what will happen and potential illegal activity that may happen when it comes to fishing because these Victorian Fisheries officers are being cut, being slashed by this Labor government. Where else is she going to be cutting these jobs?

I actually feel sorry for the Minister for Finance, who is not in the chamber at the moment. We have got the Premier, who is dragging down the Treasurer from the Legislative Council to come in and give her budget reply. I look across at a number of ministers who sit here in this chamber already, but the Premier either has not been able to find any one of the ministers who sit in this chamber that she has the confidence in or is too scared to give them the platform for them to be the Treasurer here. Why isn’t the Deputy Premier the Treasurer? Is it because the Premier is too worried about giving him more of a platform, too worried about the Deputy Premier having too much of a platform and actually showing her up on his economic credentials, which the Premier clearly lacks?

Why is the Minister for Finance not the Treasurer? Deputy Speaker, you may recall – I am not sure if you were in the seat at the time – that we had the Minister for Finance come in here yesterday. I feel sorry for the Minister for Finance because I do think that he thought he would be the Treasurer when the former Treasurer Tim Pallas resigned. I think everyone anticipated that the current Minister for Finance Danny Pearson would actually be the Treasurer and he would be having his time in the sun, that he would be delivering this budget. I can only imagine the Minister for Finance is probably a little bit relieved that he does not have to deliver this horror budget next week. But we did have the Minister for Finance come in here yesterday, and he regaled us with his knowledge about the WorkCover scheme, told us how he had saved the WorkCover scheme – although it was broken under his watch – and about the methodical work and dedication. WorkCover was working, and how dare we question anything about the WorkCover scheme that he admitted was fundamentally broken under his watch, that he admitted was financially unsustainable last year.

It was quite the show. I think it was a bit of a, ‘Look at me, I could have been the Treasurer. I’m already in the Assembly,’ and we would not have to move this motion. The Minister for Finance was basically putting on this grand show for his colleagues in a final attempt to hopefully be able to deliver the budget, because the Premier will not do it, and if we do not get the Treasurer coming from the Council, he would be able to come in off the bench. You would only need to ask him. The Minister for Finance would be able to recite the budget from cover to cover, I am sure. I have seen it in the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. I am sure he would love the opportunity to do it in here in a budget speech. He would regale us with Keynesian economic theories, and to be honest it would have been quite the show. I would have quite liked to watch that.

I think the Premier should just relent and let the Minister for Finance have his moment, don’t you agree? I think that the Premier should just let the Minister for Finance have his opportunity to deliver the budget here in the chamber. It is such a shame that the Premier has overlooked the Minister for Finance, because I quite like the Minister for Finance. He is a nice guy, and unfortunately the Premier totally overlooked him for the role. Clearly no-one else on these benches had the requisite credentials to be the Treasurer in this Assembly, and that is why we have this motion before the house today. On this side of the house we care about fairness. We believe in a fair go all round, and we consider that it is only fair, if the Treasurer wants to be here in this place at a set time, on a set day, then as a matter of fairness that same courtesy should be provided to the Shadow Treasurer for his budget reply.

The Leader of the House has agreed – I do appreciate the Leader of the House putting on the record our agreement – that the budget reply will occur on 27 May, and it will occur in the morning. The Leader of the House has given me an undertaking that it will happen on 27 May, in the morning and with no interruption, but unfortunately has flatly refused to include these details in her motion.

To ensure all Victorians get to hear the truth about Labor’s horror budget and what an alternative Battin Liberals and Nationals government can offer, we will move an amendment to this motion to allow the same courtesy to be afforded to the Shadow Treasurer to deliver his budget reply without interruption. Without further ado I move:

That the motion be amended as follows –

After paragraph (1), insert ‘(1A) So much of standing and sessional orders be suspended so as to allow that, once the lead speaker for the Opposition has begun to speak on the second reading of the Annual Appropriation Bill, any interruptions of business are delayed until the speech has concluded.’

I move that amendment, and I commend that amendment, because it is in the spirit of running this chamber appropriately. It is simple and easy for everyone. It will make a lot of sense to amend this motion to include that. I think it is important for the Treasurer to have the opportunity to come in and provide her budget speech without interruption, and it is the same for the Shadow Treasurer. It is in the spirit, as I say, of this Parliament and for the benefit of the Victorian people that we all serve in this Parliament to ensure that the Shadow Treasurer is afforded the same.

I do understand that the Presiding Officers have arranged a function in Queen’s Hall at a very similar time to when we expect the budget reply to be handed down. I think that might be an oversight or potentially a scheduling issue that the Presiding Officers may want to contemplate, because I think Victorians deserve to hear from the Treasurer, and Victorians equally deserve to hear from the alternative Treasurer. This government likes to talk a big game about integrity, about decency and about fairness. They will be showing none of those things if they do not come in and sit in this chamber and listen to what the Shadow Treasurer has to say about Labor’s dismal, devastating and horror budget. It really should not be a big deal. We know at the Commonwealth level the Shadow Treasurer is always afforded a set time and day to deliver their budget reply. Why can that not happen here in Victoria? It is very, very simple. I commend the amendment to the house.

Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (10:38): I rise to speak in favour of the unamended motion that the Leader of the House has proposed today, but I want to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Evelyn, who I think could give some lessons to US Senator Cory Booker in filibustering to get 23 minutes out of that. I listened very carefully. It was not clear to me until about minute 19 that the opposition are in fact not going to support the motion but move an amendment.

I want to come back to the member for Evelyn’s contribution and her suggestion that somebody on the floor of this house could just deliver the budget. The reality is that, notwithstanding the fine work of the Australian Republican Movement, Victoria is a subsovereign jurisdiction that is part of a constitutional monarchy, and the king’s vice-regal representative Professor Margaret Gardner, the Governor of Victoria, has commissioned Jaclyn Symes MLC to be the Treasurer of Victoria. Section 52 of Victoria’s Constitution Act 1975, which is alluded to in the Leader of the House’s motion, makes very clear that any responsible minister of the Crown who is a member of the Council may at any time, with the consent of the house of which he or she is not a member, sit in such a house for the purpose only of explaining the provisions of a bill relating to or connected with any department administered by him. It does not actually say ‘him or her’, so there is a bit of an oversight in the constitution there, but it makes very clear that there is a provision whereby a treasurer who happens to be a member of the Council can indeed come onto the floor of this place and deliver the budget, contrary to the Manager of Opposition Business’s suggestion that any minister could pop up and say, ‘I am the Treasurer’ and deliver the budget.

It brought to mind Spartacus, with ministers just popping up saying, ‘I am the Treasurer,’ ‘No, I am the Treasurer,’ and offering to deliver the budget on the actual commissioned Treasurer’s behalf. The reality is, therefore, that this is an entirely appropriate motion. There is, as the Leader of the House made very clear, ample precedent, with John Lenders having been the Treasurer between 2007 and 2010, and I believe that was the first time that a member of the Council had come down, at least in Victoria’s modern form of representative government, to deliver a budget on the floor of this place. There is ample precedent, as there is indeed in other jurisdictions. Reading a report from the Speaker at that time, Judy Maddigan, the measures by which Mr Lenders was able to come down to deliver the budget in the Assembly were based upon a New South Wales model, so there is clearly precedent in other state and territory jurisdictions across the Commonwealth.

I think the Manager of Opposition Business is right about some jurisdictions. Clearly in the federal Parliament there is no provision for a member of the other place, of the Senate, to come onto the floor of the House of Representatives to deliver a budget. The Commonwealth constitution – I think section 53, but I will need to check – makes it very clear that appropriation bills must be introduced in the lower house, so in that context there would need to be a minister representing the Treasurer on the floor of the House of Representatives, which is why, as far as I am aware, there has never been a Treasurer of the Commonwealth who has been a member of the Senate; many ministers of finance have been. But we are not the Commonwealth. We are the state of Victoria, and a provision does exist in our own constitution – section 52(1) – that makes it very possible for a Treasurer who is a member of the other place to come down here and to deliver a budget.

I was listening very carefully, and I was wondering if there were some objections that were more grounded in constitutional theory or whether having a minister come down from the other place is a threat to the principle of bicameralism, but none of those were forthcoming. We had instead a bit of debate between the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business about whether this is the people’s house or whether that is the people’s house. But unlike other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth, like the UK, we do not have an unelected upper chamber. We clearly have a chamber where members are elected at the same general election as those of us here are, admittedly on a different and much, much bigger ballot. But nonetheless they are a representative chamber – I am loath to say it, but I think it is true. We do not have a system in this country or in this jurisdiction, as I say, where those in the upper house are unelected. The Treasurer is a fantastically hardworking member for Northern Victoria, as indeed she has been in so many portfolios as part of this government, leading substantive reforms and now having the opportunity to deliver a Labor budget that will have an operating surplus and be part of this government’s commitment to the Victorian people.

I am looking forward to the budget and to the budget replies from those opposite, because I have listened in the time that I have been a member of this chamber, and without anticipating debate around the budget itself, budgets are statements of political intent, of government priorities.

We have seen very clearly over the last 10 years, in contrast to the term of government that came before, that Victoria has some of the highest population growth of any jurisdiction in the OECD, an issue that is reflective of Victoria’s dynamism and desirability as a place to live and to do business but in a sense a factor over which the Victorian government does not have unilateral control. Clearly population growth is primarily a federal government responsibility insofar as it is connected with migration settings, international students and other things for which the federal government has primary competence. But in that context, governments at a state level, which are charged with providing the basic services that Victorians rely upon – health, education, transport, infrastructure and those fundamental building blocks of what makes a community special – then have a binary choice. You can seek to invest to make sure the quality of life for Victorians continues to improve, or you can sit back and do nothing and not build schools and not invest in productive infrastructure, which is exactly what happened in this state between 2010 and 2014, when not a single school was built. As a consequence of that, if you sit back and do nothing, the quality of life for Victorians diminishes. So you can either invest in productive infrastructure that strengthens and grows the economy, while simultaneously making the quality of life for Victorians better, or sit back and do nothing.

What I have reflected upon with previous budgets and budget replies is that those opposite decry every single budget spending measure as not being enough and as not doing enough in their communities – as not building enough ovals, as not building enough new intersections and as not building enough schools or hospitals – yet at the same time decry every revenue measure as being too much. Something has got to give in that equation, and it is the challenge of a party that seeks to be an alternative government: you have to reconcile those things. If you are not going to support revenue measures and if you are going to seek additional spending on every measure, what gives? I look forward to the debate that will ensue as a consequence of this motion being passed and to hearing more from the Shadow Treasurer, the member for Brighton, who has just entered, and his colleagues as to how they will front up to Victorians and be clear about what they are going to cut and what they are going to diminish in terms of service provision and delivery.

I look forward to the Treasurer coming down to this place, as a consequence of this motion being passed, and talking about how this government will continue delivering the infrastructure and services that people in my community rely upon. Previous budgets have delivered stage 2 of Greenvale Secondary College, which has just opened, a $22.38 million project that means that young people in my community have access to a world-class secondary education in their own suburb, and projects like Mickleham Road stage 1, a $220 million project that has been delivered by this government.

Bridget Vallence: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I understand there has been a little bit of latitude, but clearly the member is not referring to the narrow confines of the motion whatsoever. I would ask you to ask the member to come back to the motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is fair to say that from the lead speaker this debate has been more wideranging than most nomadic people on our earth. If the member could come back to the motion, it would be appreciated.

Iwan WALTERS: I will, and I understand why the Manager of Opposition Business would not want me to talk about the fantastic investments that this government has made across Greenvale and that have made a difference to the lives of people in my community – roads, hospitals and schools, the things that make a difference. They are sick of having those opposite tear them down. It is why the Liberals got a primary vote, I suspect, of 15 per cent in my area at the federal election.

Will FOWLES (Ringwood) (10:48): I did not know that this particular motion was going to be coming into the chamber today, and I listened with great interest as the member for Evelyn waxed lyrical for near on half an hour on a matter that perhaps ought not warrant that much of this house’s time. I want to thank the member for Greenvale for alerting the house that the budget is apparently going to deliver an operating surplus. I remain to be convinced of whether that is done by dint of accounting fiction or by genuine structural reform to the budget. I do wish to make a few comments in particular about the amendment moved by the member for Evelyn, because it does provide that standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the lead speaker for the opposition to speak without any interruptions and that any business be delayed until that speech has concluded.

We recently saw in the United States Cory Booker, a fine senator, speak for a very, very, very long period of time as an exercise in railing against the somewhat fraught presidency of Donald Trump. Were the member for Sandringham still the Shadow Treasurer I do not think I would be quite as vexed by the possibilities brought about by the amendment moved by the member for Evelyn, but with great respect to the member for Brighton, who is in the chamber, he is not immune to the possibilities of a good stunt. My fear is that he might very well speak for 24 hours and keep us all here through the day, into the evening and overnight.

Bridget Vallence: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I am not seeking to interrupt necessarily, but I just want to educate my parliamentary colleague that the Shadow Treasurer, under the standing orders, can only speak for as long as the Treasurer’s speech takes. If the Treasurer seeks to speak for 24 hours, then the Shadow Treasurer, I am sure, will be happy to do so.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Evelyn will resume her seat. That is not a point of order, and I think you know that.

Will FOWLES: That might very well be the case, except of course that the standing order to which the member for Evelyn refers is suspended by dint of this motion, because this motion allows that the standing orders be suspended to allow that:

… once the lead speaker for the Opposition has begun to speak on the second reading of the Annual Appropriation Bill, any interruptions of business are delayed until the speech has concluded.

If the member for Evelyn wants to amend her amendment to reflect the undertaking she has just given to the house, I might very well withdraw my objection to it. But I fear we are treading into dangerous territory, because if ever there was a member prone to a good stunt, it might very well be the member for Brighton. That is okay; you are allowed to attract attention to your cause using stunts. We saw a member in the other place yesterday reading a speech from a roll of toilet paper and another stunning intervention from the person who purports, in that place, to call himself the member for Ringwood. These things happen. People do stunts. They dream up these reasons to do it. But I will draw the house’s attention to the Geneva Convention against torture. In particular the definition of torture is:

… any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person –

for specific purposes, such as intimidation, by –

… a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

There you go. The Geneva Convention against torture might very well apply here, because we might well be subjected to 24 hours of the member for Brighton speaking at great, great, great length, under the scope of this motion, and inflicting any amount of severe pain or suffering and seeking to intimidate, by a public official.

The Geneva Convention against torture mediates against this amendment to the motion, and I suspect the house ought also to disregard this amendment to the motion. I do not think we want anyone in this place speaking for hours and hours and hours on end. If the member for Evelyn wants to amend her amendment to reflect the principle she has just outlined, that the response to the budget only be the length of the lead speaker on the budget, then I would be happy to support that motion. It would speak to the fairness of having a budget speech and a reply speech, and I do not think, frankly, that many fair-minded Victorians could object to it. But what I do not want to see cracked open here is an opportunity for the member for Brighton to do a Cory Booker and keep us and the staff and everyone else here overnight, well into the following morning and perhaps all of the following day. Whilst it would be newsworthy, it would be an egregious waste of the resources of this place and of our collective time. He might very well end up giving that speech to an empty chamber, but nonetheless he would be keeping many staff here, even if not all MPs, were he to walk that path.

It is with that that I conclude my comments and urge members to vote against this amendment, unless the member for Evelyn sees fit to make the amendment reflect her words as made by way of a pseudo point of order earlier in my contribution.

Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (10:54): It is with really great pleasure that I rise to support the motion put by the very hardworking Leader of the House, the member for Macedon, who is doing an outstanding job in leading the proceedings in this chamber. It is a motion that will provide for the upper house member of the Legislative Council Treasurer Symes, who I have had the pleasure of knowing for a very long time, to come and deliver her first budget as the Victorian Treasurer. It is our 11th budget as a Victorian state Labor government since being elected in 2014, and I look forward to it as the member for Pascoe Vale, Coburg and Brunswick West for many reasons. I know that, just like the previous Labor budgets we have been introducing through this chamber prior to my time and subsequently, it will be a budget – unlike those opposite are claiming – that is all about jobs, a budget that is all about education, a budget that is all about health and wellbeing –

Bridget Vallence: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, given the amount of time and that the member’s leader says she cannot foreshadow what is in the budget that is next week, this is a very narrow motion. I would ask you to ask the member to come back to the narrow confines of the motion and be relevant.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not uphold the point of order, because this debate has not been narrow-ranging from the offset. I would encourage all members to stay close to the topics that are in the motion and not go into specifics about a prebudget speech.

Anthony CIANFLONE: I just find it absolutely astounding, with the greatest respect, that every time on this side of the house we start talking about things like jobs; schools, kinders and hospitals; upgrading our transport system; taking real action on climate change, which is a real thing, believe it or not; action on social justice; prevention of family violence; and all the things that matter to Victorians – cost of living – the opposition get up and use another procedural excuse or reason –

Bridget Vallence: Deputy Speaker, the member on his feet is defying your recommendation to not foreshadow what is in the budget. He is also attacking the opposition. There are a bunch of points of order we could raise. But really, on relevance, this is a very narrow procedural motion and he is straying from that and seeking to foreshadow what is in next week’s budget – trying to take the thunder from the Treasurer, perhaps?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Again, this debate has been wide on both sides of the table. I would ask the member to keep his contribution to the words that are in the motion. Context is acceptable.

Anthony CIANFLONE: Deputy Speaker, I always welcome your guidance. Along with the key policy priorities that the opposition do not want to talk about, I just wonder why the Shadow Treasurer has not spoken on this motion. The Shadow Treasurer, whom we heard about from the Leader of the House earlier on at the start of this debate, is now in the chamber. He is staying silent. He is staying very quiet. But we know he has been making a lot of noise in the lead-up to this motion being moved.

Bridget Vallence: Deputy Speaker, I would like to bring your attention to the state of the house.

Quorum formed.

Anthony CIANFLONE: Great to have a quorum back in the chamber for this riveting contribution. I thank the member for Evelyn for bringing a bit of an audience to the chamber, because the point I was making was that we have heard the member for Evelyn, the member for Greenvale and the member for Ringwood but we have not heard the Shadow Treasurer speak on this motion. We have not heard the Shadow Treasurer get up on his feet and talk to this motion. In fact they have moved a reasoned amendment to give him dedicated time as part of his budget reply. I will tell you where there will not be a quorum, or barely a quorum: when the Shadow Treasurer gets up to give his budget reply speech. They will be lucky to have a quorum with the way the party room is going at the moment.

This motion that the member for Macedon has moved as the Leader of the House will provide for Treasurer Symes to introduce her first budget as Treasurer, but she will be the second Treasurer from the upper house as far as I am aware in the history of Victoria, which was formalised as a colony way back in July 1851 – the first Treasurer from the upper house who introduced or led a budget process as Treasurer having been none other than previous Labor Treasurer John Lenders. At the time of that process and that debate – and the opposition were making a bit of noise and hoo-ha around that time as well – it was very clear that, as the member for Greenvale very, very well put, there was no constitutional impediment in Victoria to a Treasurer from the upper house coming to the lower house to introduce and progress appropriation bills or relevant budget bills. Do not just take my word for it – I would encourage others to take the word of then Shadow Treasurer, still member for Rowville, who is in this chamber in this current Parliament. He said at the time, in an Age article of 3 August 2007:

Ministers should be controlling their own legislation and especially something as important as (budget) appropriations.

In other words it should be the Treasurer coming into this chamber to introduce the bill and progress the bill that they are the lead minister of. We have heard from the member for Evelyn, ‘Why isn’t the government appointing another minister or another MP or backbencher potentially to introduce the bill? Why isn’t it the Minister for Finance or this minister or that minister?’ Well, I will tell you something: we are a government of substance and action, and this is an opposition about nothing. It is an opposition about nothing, just like the show about nothing. In the show about nothing you had George Costanza going around pretending, as Art Vandelay, to be the architect, to be the marine biologist, to be everything and anything under the sun. But he was nothing, just like the show and just like this opposition is nothing. They mean nothing. They are irrelevant. If that is the best they can grab on to, I mean, God help the Victorian people if they were ever to get back the reins of power.

They are a Liberal opposition that are obsessed with procedures. We have got another reasoned amendment; they love their reasoned amendments. The member for Evelyn has moved another reasoned amendment to give the Shadow Treasurer, who does not want to speak on this motion, unlimited time, like Cory Booker, to do a massive filibuster – which I do not reckon the member for Brighton would have the stamina to do, by the way, no chance. But it is also in the upper house – David Davis, the Leader of the Opposition in the upper house, is obsessed with moving procedural motions, using crucial, precious time in the chamber to talk about procedural changes, about document release and all these technical things that people in the public do not care about. We as a government always use our matters of public importance to talk about things that matter, like cost of living, and at the same time David Davis moves motions that are just irrelevant – absolutely irrelevant. They are obsessed with their own internal procedures as well. We have to acknowledge the fact that this is as far as I am aware the first political party in Victoria that has gone on to have members of the party sue each other and take each other to federal court, which should not happen.

Bridget Vallence: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, again, this is a very narrow procedural motion. The member has strayed well and truly outrageously beyond what was contained within here. He may be performing again, but all this Labor government is doing and all he is doing right now is delaying a vote on the Treasurer coming in to deliver her budget speech. Are they worried – their horror budget? Come on.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): I ask you to provide succinct points of order. Yes, I do believe the Deputy Speaker said as wide as nomadic people, but if we could refer in the last six seconds – go, please, member for Pascoe Vale.

Anthony CIANFLONE: They should see an astrologist, just like Sussan Ley – (Time expired)

Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (11:05): Sorry; I jumped up in surprise. I did think there might be a further contribution from those opposite. I was anticipating that because I was anticipating the Shadow Treasurer making a contribution this motion, given that obviously an amendment has been put forward by those opposite. The Shadow Treasurer must feel quite passionately about this to amend our motion, and I did expect a contribution. To be quite honest, I was looking forward to it; I thought it would give me quite a bit of material to respond to.

Nevertheless, what I would like to address, in speaking in support of the motion put forward by our wonderful Leader of the House, is the fact that this is actually going to be an historic moment by allowing the first female Treasurer of this state to deliver her budget. On this side of the chamber we ensure that our women have a voice in this place, and we will ensure that those from the other chamber, when required, have the opportunity to do so – in this case it is the Treasurer, to deliver her budget here in the house, where it belongs. It will be delivered by the person in charge of it; that is precisely why. The member for Evelyn, the Manager of Opposition Business, did posit the questions: ‘Why isn’t the Premier going to deliver this? Why isn’t the Minister for Finance going to deliver this?’. It is because it is not their budget, it is the Treasurer’s budget – to be delivered here.

And there is precedence for it. On 6 May 2008 John Lenders from the other place delivered his budget in this place. There was a little bit of argy-bargy on the other side of the chamber. There was definitely form; the member for Rowville was one of those who was getting a little bit het-up about it. Nevertheless, it happened, and then it happened for the following budgets that were delivered by Mr Lenders. So there is precedence for the budget to be delivered by a Treasurer from the other place. This is what we are debating today. It is incredibly important. As I said, and I will note it again for Hansard and those in the chamber, our first ever female Treasurer in the state of Victoria in our wonderful history is going to deliver her budget – and rightly so.

I applaud the fact that this will be happening right here. I am looking forward to listening to the Treasurer and her contribution, and I certainly hope that those opposite will give her the respect that she absolutely deserves.

James Newbury interjected.

Daniela DE MARTINO: I have got some interjections from over there. I cannot quite hear what is going on.

A member interjected.

Daniela DE MARTINO: Yes, this is it. The member for Brighton is interjecting, but the member for Brighton could have an opportunity to actually put forward what he wants to say and have it recorded in Hansard. Instead, there are interjections. It is unparliamentary to take interjections, so I will not be doing that. It is interesting because the member for Brighton, we know, clearly does not like people being from out of town in positions of power. That has been made evidently clear. At least we are working on making sure that someone from the other place will be having their moment in this place, and that is a good thing. I think we can all agree on that.

I was listening to the member for Greenvale, and I have got to say I always feel like my IQ increases when I listen to the member for Greenvale. I feel like a little sponge just trying to soak up all the intelligence and the knowledge and the wisdom and the history that emanates from him. It was really interesting to learn a bit about our constitution and section 52 of the Victorian constitution, which does precisely allow for the Treasurer to come into this place and deliver her budget. I think it is a good thing for us all to know that – that this is not something we have just conjured up. We are not going off piste in doing this; we are absolutely following our constitution and precedents in the Victorian state Parliament. That is a good thing for us all to know. And it was quite interesting to hear about the federal constitution being a little bit tighter than that. That was quite interesting.

I was listening with great interest to the member for Pascoe Vale speaking with his usual passion about all the benefits that our budgets, thus far and into the future, deliver for the state of Victoria. I am looking forward to it, because I know that we have worked incredibly hard as a government here for the past 11 years to ensure that Victorians get a fair go and that they enjoy the best of what is on offer out there. We work incredibly hard to make sure that education is the best it can be.

We heard yesterday from the Deputy Premier talking about the statistics of Victoria in this nation when it comes to education. We have so much to be proud of, and I know that in the budget that comes along there will be more wonderful things for our schools and for our children, along with health, along with jobs and along with transport. We have got such a record to be proud of. I cannot wait to hear what is coming. I am really looking forward to it. I did note the Manager of Opposition Business talking down the budget, because they like to talk down the state of Victoria quite often, which is very, very disappointing. It is not a good thing to do, especially if you want to be running the state eventually one day. Talking it down is never a good thing to do. It is not smart, it is not clever; it is just opposition for the sake of opposing, and that is really disappointing.

A member interjected.

Daniela DE MARTINO: It is quite shameful. I have to say I did have a bit of a chuckle when I heard the member for Pascoe Vale talking about the show about nothing. I look forward to seeing the Shadow Treasurer’s contribution, for which we now have I believe some kind of time. That is the amendment to the motion that has been put forward by them that:

So much of standing and sessional orders be suspended so as to allow that, once the lead speaker for the Opposition has begun to speak on the second reading of the Annual Appropriation Bill, any interruptions of business are delayed until the speech has concluded.

I wonder how long they will go for, because there are only so many times you can stamp your feet, shout loudly and say that you do not like something, and they are often the tantrums that we see in this place. I am interested to see if any policies might emanate from those opposite, because there is an absolute lack of them, and that is interesting.

A member interjected.

Daniela DE MARTINO: Nuclear power, sorry. There is nuclear power; that is right. I wonder what the position on that is nowadays, because I know the Leader of the Opposition has kept schtum about his position on it, waiting for the fallout – there is a pun – post election to see which way the wind might be blowing and whether or not it would have radioactive waves going with it. It will be interesting to see if anything comes from the Shadow Treasurer’s contribution – of substance. That is the key word here. Will anything of substance come forward? Will we have any idea if they have a vision for the state, or is their only vision to talk down this government, talk down the state, oppose everything we put forward, because that is pretty much how it goes. I have done the count. I did it only a few sitting weeks ago. Five times they have agreed to our government business program in my entire time in this chamber. In over 2½ years they have agreed to our government business program five solitary times. That is one handful. We have not even made it to the second hand. It is a little bit disappointing, because we have had a number of sitting weeks in that time – I am estimating, because I have not counted exactly – but probably about 35 or thereabouts. That is a pretty low hit rate when it comes to supporting good things happening. Anyway, moving on from there, this is a motion. I am supporting the original motion as put forward by the Leader of the House:

That:

(1) So much of standing and sessional orders be suspended so as to allow on Tuesday 20 May 2025, following the introduction and motion for the second reading of the Annual Appropriation Bill:

(a) the Minister moving the second reading to retain their right to speak (for 15 minutes) on the question later in the debate;

(b) Jaclyn Symes MLC, Treasurer, under s 52 of the Constitution Act 1975, be permitted to attend the House for the purpose of giving a speech of unlimited duration in relation to the Annual Appropriation Bill.

(2) A message be sent to the Legislative Council informing them that under s 52 of the Constitution Act 1975, approval has been granted for Jaclyn Symes MLC, Treasurer, to attend the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday 20 May to give a speech on the Annual Appropriation Bill.

I am really looking forward to the historic moment, to being a part of that and sitting in this place when our first female Treasurer delivers her first ever budget. It will be a moment for the history books, make no mistake. There is no more appropriate place for that to occur than here, and there is no more appropriate person to deliver it than the Treasurer herself – not the Premier, not the finance minister, not any other minister of the Crown. As wonderful as they all are, as hardworking as they all are, as incredibly competent and fabulous as they all are, the one person who should be delivering this budget is the Treasurer, without question. I really do look forward to being here in this place and being one day able to tell my children, maybe even great-grandchildren, that I was there when it happened. I commend the motion to the house.

John LISTER (Werribee) (11:14): It gives me some pleasure to speak on the motion moved by the Leader of the House, because I think it is important for the functioning of this house to be able to hear from those who are responsible for those departments when it comes to creating things like our budget. There has been a lot of discussion around precedent. This is not something that has happened regularly before, but it has happened before in this place – we have mentioned Mr John Lenders back in 2008. That feels like a lifetime ago for some of the youngest members in this house, but 2008 was one of the times when we saw this happen. It is also not something unusual for parliaments in the case of our cousins over the Tasman. Tasmania has also done it. As long ago as 2007 they had their upper house Treasurer Michael Aird deliver their budget in the lower house.

The motion is quite clear. It asks that Jaclyn Symes MLC, Treasurer, under section 52 of the Constitution Act 1975 – which I will speak to in just a moment – be permitted to attend the house in relation to the annual appropriation bill. The member for Greenvale took us through a little bit of the Constitution Act, but there is something I want to reflect on regarding some of the challenges put forward by the member for Evelyn when it comes to the question, ‘Why doesn’t the rest of the frontbench present it?’ Why doesn’t the Premier do it? Why doesn’t this person do it? Why doesn’t that person do it?

It is pretty clear in section 52 that this power and this arrangement come about only for explaining the provisions of any bill relating to or connected with any department administered by him – it is a bit unfortunate, the anachronistic wording of the constitution, but we know it is interpreted to mean ‘any person’ and that it is referring to any department administered by them. The Department of Treasury and Finance, which prepares the appropriation bill, is administered by the Treasurer. I think it is particularly important to hear from the Treasurer, especially when it comes to something as important as our appropriation bill.

I am looking forward to seeing a budget, which we have seen in the budget outlook. I know we have had a lot of discussions about the need to be confined to the wording of the motion, so I will talk about the appropriation bill but also the budget outlook which led to this appropriation bill. I am looking forward to seeing that operating surplus, and I am looking forward to seeing the ways that we are going to continue to deliver for Victorian families, working families, in our schools, in our hospitals and when it comes to major infrastructure, because these are the things that matter to the people that have put us here in this house and the people who have put those in the upper house as well. They are an elected chamber. This is not the House of Lords we are talking about, this is the Legislative Council, which is duly elected by the people of Victoria.

I am looking forward to seeing a budget that delivers on these different things, because I think what has been clear to me in this whole debate is that this is a relatively straightforward procedural motion to make sure that the person responsible for the preparation of the appropriation bill gets the opportunity to speak in Parliament. I think it is a little bit disappointing that we are now at 11:20 in the day and we are still discussing this, and we have had this amendment put forward in order to make it even more complex, when we could be talking about those really important pieces of legislation that we are bringing forward to make a difference to the lives of Victorians.

I have been shocked by many of the anachronisms of this place, no more shocked than seeing those opposite when it comes to these sorts of things. We are following that set standard that is put forward in the constitution. I will briefly speak to the amendment put forward by the member for Evelyn, and I note the member for Brighton, despite being the key beneficiary, has still not spoken to this amendment. I reflect on this amendment and the fact that our motion has a precedent in this place. It also has a precedent in other Commonwealth parliaments. I would like to see them – and if the opposition would like to respond to this, I would appreciate it – point to a moment when something like this has happened in this place, where the lead speaker for the opposition has been able to delay any interruption of business until their speech has concluded.

Our motion has precedent and is grounded in the constitution, but this amendment is a self-serving opportunity for the member for Brighton to grandstand. We know those opposite and their mates in Canberra and their Liberal mates like lunches.

Members interjecting.

John LISTER: Yes, their very few mates in Canberra. They like lunches, and this amendment would push back lunch, which I am okay with – I will have a few snacks in the morning and make sure we can get through a busy morning because it is an important morning. But we know that the Liberals like lunches, so much so that they like those lunches for bosses – that policy they put out where they were going to give so much of an incentive for lunches for bosses. Here we go, righto – here is another anachronism.

Michael O’Brien: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, for the love of God make it stop, please.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): Which point of order are you referring to?

Michael O’Brien: Can the member please be vaguely relevant to the motion before the house?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): It has been a very wideranging debate, but I ask the member for Werribee to continue with his contribution focused on the motion at hand.

John LISTER: I think it is relevant to the motion, because when we look at the way that the day will run it does go to lunch and I was discussing the issue of lunches, because something this appropriation bill will make sure that we continue to deliver here in the state of Victoria is not lunches for bosses, like those opposite want to see, but things like breakfast clubs and lunches for schoolkids in our state schools. That is what I am looking forward to discussing on the day. I am not looking forward to seeing grandstanding from those opposite just to make some kind of point and to get their grabs for their Facebook pages and put it all around and have some other thing that they put up that chews up more of the algorithm.

I think it is a bit rich for those opposite to dictate who in cabinet should be responsible. Those opposite are eating themselves alive when it comes to who is in charge. We have a responsible cabinet government. We have our Treasurer that prepares this appropriation bill, and we want to make sure that they get the opportunity to speak in his house.

James Newbury interjected.

John LISTER: He is very loud for someone who did not have a chance to speak on his amendment.

We are delivering for working Victorians. We have had a few directions from the Speaker about the range of things that we can speak about with this bill, but there are some things that we have already foreshadowed that will be in this appropriation bill which are out in the public domain which I do want to speak to. One of those really important things is our upgrade to Sunshine station. That upgrade to Sunshine station will unlock that western corridor, meaning that we can put more services through, meaning that we can deliver on more upgrades to our western rail services. It was something that was at threat of being cut by certain political persuasions in the federal Parliament wanting to cut it. And where were they going to put that money instead? This also goes to appropriations. They proposed to put that money into roads in the south-east. Now, do not get me wrong, they might need that support. I am all for supporting all parts of our community, but to rip something out of the western suburbs and send it to the south-east while they stand out there on pre-poll with their brethren talking about how the west is neglected – they neglect to even propose anything for the western suburbs.

As much as I oppose this amendment by the member for Evelyn, having a little bit more time might give them another chance. They have had two chances in six months – two elections in six months in the western suburbs – to perhaps outline their alternative for how they are going to support the west. I think it is a pretty sad indictment when we see that every time they come up with this line of ‘neglect’ they neglect to put forward any alternatives. If they want to be the alternative, and if they want to have the alternative Treasurer, as they keep calling the member for Brighton, speak for longer and interrupt lunch, they need to put it up. They need to tell us what it is, because in the end the people of the west and the people of Victoria are going to make that decision, but we also need to make sure that while this side is well and truly in government – so much so that we take over most of the house’s seats – we follow good process, we bring in the minister responsible for preparing the appropriation bill and the minister responsible for the department that prepares that appropriation bill. Might I say she is our first female Treasurer, which is a pretty monumental thing. We are following good process, but at the same time we are not supporting the anachronism of those opposite, who choose to waste time in the house with these sorts of amendments rather than letting us get on with good procedure and good government. We have had so much time in this house to be debating some of the important things for the people of the western suburbs and for the people of the regions, and yet we are here debating this absurd amendment from those opposite.

Assembly divided on Bridget Vallence’s amendment:

Ayes (26): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Rachel Westaway, Jess Wilson

Noes (51): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, John Lister, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Belinda Wilson

Amendment defeated.

Motion agreed to.