Tuesday, 17 June 2025

Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2025

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Danny Pearson:

That the bill be now read a second time.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (16:49): I rise to speak on the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. At its core what this bill should be about is enhancing financial integrity in Victoria, because that is what this state desperately needs. We need to see the rules around financial integrity enhanced. Sadly, this bill is a lost opportunity to enhance that integrity. In fact what has been exposed is a bill that sneakily undermines truthfulness in financial reporting and sidesteps proper accountability when it comes to financial integrity in this state, and what a shame.

For background, the issue around financial integrity and enhancing financial integrity rules has been a checkered one over recent years, not only in this Parliament but in two parliaments prior. Two parliaments prior, a bill was introduced into this place which had some mechanisms contained within it that would, in theory, increase financial integrity measures. At that time there was not an agreement by this Parliament to proceed with that bill, and so the bill did not move through the chambers, because I think there was a recognition even at that time that what the government was trying to do then was obfuscate truthfulness in budget reporting. We saw in that particular bill a number of the contentious measures, not all of the contentious measures but some of the contentious measures, that are contained in the bill.

I might take a moment to talk about the comparison between the bill then and the bill now in terms of the measures contained therein. One of the most contentious, which is in both bills – the draft bill then and the bill now – is the removal of warrants. In shorthand, a process exists, which the government now try to publicly mock because they are trying to justify the reason for removing this important accountability mechanism, whereby the governor effectively signs off on government spending. What the government will say is: when these mechanisms were put in place, money was physical, and so therefore there was a need to account for expenditure. Well, as we now know, has there ever been a time in history where the amount a government spends needs to be accounted for more than is the case now? We heard the member for Rowville speak earlier today about the amount of debt that was chalked up over the 158 years of this place until 2014 being minuscule by comparison to the debt that has been chalked up under this government.

The warrant mechanism is a mechanism that allows the Governor a signing right, effectively, for the money that the government is spending, the appropriation of this government. That the government wants to remove that should not, frankly, surprise anybody. I think that the government would of course want to remove that oversight. But that was a common provision, and I suspect it was a contentious issue in 2017 when the forebear of this particular bill was introduced and one of the reasons why the Parliament said it was a bridge too far. We know that it is a core part of the current bill and one that we completely and wholeheartedly oppose.

I mean, you could make the same argument – why should we have the Governor sign off on bills that go through both chambers of this place? You could make the same argument. It would be a false argument, but you could. Only a government that spends too much money and does not want people to know about it could possibly argue that that requirement of oversight is unnecessary. Only a government that does not see an accountability need to watch their own spending, because they have forgotten that the money they spend is first earned by a taxpayer, could argue for the removal of that process. We will hear government speaker after government speaker say, ‘Well, times have changed, money’s not physical. Things have changed, and so therefore we don’t need that accountability measure anymore.’ Has there ever been a time in history where that has been needed more? I can assure you there has not. So we wholeheartedly oppose the government’s proposal to remove that accountability measure.

The original bill in 2017 did have clearer ministerial directions in relation to compliance obligations, and as a measure in the current bill we understand that. We understand that there are some measures within the bill that effectively move it from ministerial guidance to legislative requirements in relation to financial management, and that makes sense. It is important to put on record that those changes which were contained in the original bill of 2017 do make sense, as do certain financial management obligations in relation to public bodies and departments that were also included in that bill. Those measures were really the core part of the original bill.

Post that bill failing the department conducted a review into financial management obligations as they exist through this act, and what we found out through the process of this particular bill is that that review has never been completed. So we have a bill that is before this chamber based on a review that has not been completed. The department, after failing on their first bill two terms ago, conducted a review, and the review has never been completed. The review was an internal review that only consulted other departments – of course it did. I mean, why would you talk to anybody in the financial markets? Because they would tell you what they really think. There was, as the government said, no consultation outside the departments. The government admitted that. They admitted that when it came to rules around financial obligation there was no external consultation as part of that review. That is what the department said in the bill briefing. We can only take them at their word. But the review that was undertaken, the department also confirmed, was not completed. So what is this bill? This bill is based on a review that has not been completed and a review that has not seen the light of day. I am not aware that, other than the officers that dealt with the draft review, anybody else has seen it. So that is the guts of what has supposedly led to this new updated bill.

What is new in this bill? There are some notable key differences, and some of them are meritorious. I do note a new, effective budget overrun process. Currently, where a budget overrun is likely, there is no official process other than guidance that notification needs to be made in relation to that overrun. It makes sense to legislate that, so I do put on record our view that that additional measure, which was not included in the original bill, is noteworthy.

I mean, you can argue that the warrant removal was, at the time of the original bill, the worst thing in the bill. Well, I think now there is a new measure that pips it. This new bill seeks to remove quarterly reporting in the final quarter after an election. The department says, ‘It’s all too hard after a pre-election update to then complete an update post the election before the end of the year’ – it is all too hard. Now, at face value you might say, yes, a department would say it is hard because it is extra work. Though the department is in caretaker and so they have nothing else to do. I mean, they are literally in caretaker. I see the department staff laughing, but they are in caretaker and so there is less work. By its own definition, there is less work. So initially you might take it at face value that they think it is all too hard, but we are talking about the disclosure of taxpayer money. I mean, this is the problem with this government. They misunderstand that there is a requirement and an obligation to account for the way they spend other people’s money. It isn’t their money, it is other people’s money. In an election year what this bill proposes to do is remove the requirement for that report. It removes it entirely, so there will be less financial reporting in an election year, full stop. There will be less under this government.

I mean, how you can put a bill forward to this place saying you are going to improve financial management but report less is deeply, deeply concerning. Frankly it is sneaky. How can you propose to remove requirements to report under a bill that by its definition should be seeking to enhance the way finances are reported? It cuts against the very grain of what this bill proposes to do. It should concern every Victorian that the two core measures of this bill – and I did note there are other measures that are meritorious – reduce the requirement for financial reporting in a major way, because if you are removing the requirement for a quarterly report then by its own very definition you are removing the current requirement that exists in a bill that shamelessly proposes, in name only, to enhance financial management in this state. Only this Labor government could do it.

What this bill should be called is the Scrapping Financial Reporting Requirements Bill. That is what this bill should be called, the Scrapping Financial Reporting Requirements Bill, because that truthfully would explain what this bill is all about – reducing the number of financial reports. As I said earlier, when we went through the briefing process the department spoke about it being difficult to produce these reports because of the tight turnaround. What the department also said is it is difficult for an incoming government, because if there is a change in government the new Treasurer will have a short timeline after an election to approve a report.

So the first thing I said was, ‘Well, there have been three occasions where that has occurred.’ The department only had record of one. I spoke to the Treasurer at the time, who dealt with it a second time. The department only had a record of one of the three, but anyway I was able to find record of the other, and on both occasions it was accepted that there was no issue. So the department acknowledged in the one instance they were aware of that the Treasurer dealt with the issue without any problem. I spoke to the Treasurer at the time, the member for Rowville, who said he also had no problem managing that timeline and the reporting process. So what is the problem that they are trying to solve with this scrapping of a financial reporting requirement? What is the problem that the government is trying to resolve?

We had a conversation in the bill briefing about policy and politics, and this change is actually more about politics than it is about policy. If the department had said simply, ‘It’s hard doing work when we’re in caretaker period,’ I am sure that any government would say, ‘Well, come on, you’ve been doing it for how many decades? In the three instances that we are aware of there’s never been an issue, so just deal with it.’ But what we do know is that the government want to reduce their requirement for financial reporting, and that is what at its core this amendment is about. The bill should be called the ‘scrapping the financial reporting requirements bill’ because that is truthfully what it is, and the second amendment removes the Governor’s oversight of appropriations.

You have a bill that does a number of – I will not say minor things, but certainly in terms of financial management they improve financial obligations, and we concede that. We concede that when it comes to reporting of overruns and Treasury’s legislated right to ensure that changes in departments are made with Treasury’s awareness, they are fair and reasonable. Also, there are certain declarations in relation to very, very small entities – for example, cemetery trusts. Where those changes occur with those entities, they can be exempt from a traditional form of financial reporting, and that makes sense. In a very small number of circumstances where entities have effectively no budget, these obligations – more broadly on notification processes and also exemptions – and these changes make sense. But what does not make sense is what is actually at the core of this bill. At the core of this bill are two very big, sneaky things that the government is trying to hide under a bill that is supposedly about enhancing financial management.

The coalition will not support these changes, which are trying to hide how the Labor government spends taxpayers money. Only a Labor government could come into this chamber under the guise of improving financial management and hide the way that Victorian taxpayers money is spent, and that is the truth of this bill. This bill is a very, very sneaky bill, and it was called out today in the media for what it is – a very, very sneaky bill. You can see that a number of people, including experts, have made it very clear that there should be the reporting regime that exists now into the future, which is our position too.

The economist Saul Eslake spoke about the crucial need for the quarterly report that the government is proposing to scrap to remain because of the crucial differences between a pre-election budget update and a quarterly update thereafter. There are going to be differences, and just removing the requirement is simply wrong in principle, and it also undermines the financial reporting regime that exists.

There were some additions, as I spoke to earlier, that were worthy and meritorious, but one does wonder why this government, when looking at the previous bill and adding to what was originally put in 2017, decided, for purely political reasons, to remove a quarterly reporting requirement. Why would you do that? Why would any Treasurer, and especially this new Treasurer, think that is a good idea? You might not it understand fully, but you could see with the former Treasurer, who had been there for a decade and clearly was an expert in covering up his own mess, why he would personally want to reduce reporting requirements. Of course he would want to reduce the reporting regime in the state. But for a new Treasurer to tick off this bill to come into this place – I mean, what a shocking record.

Katie Hall: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, the member for Brighton is speaking a lot about Treasury. I note that this is actually a finance bill, and I am not quite sure why the member for Evelyn is not leading this contribution from the opposition. I wonder whether the member for Brighton has pulled rank. But if he could get back to the finance aspect.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): That is not a point of order.

James NEWBURY: I did not even know that member was still in this chamber. I am speaking directly to the reporting regime that the government in this bill is trying to scrap. You can completely understand why this government are getting so anxious about that being exposed, because they were hoping this one would sneak through and that no-one would notice the reduction in the reporting requirements. That is why we have as a coalition put forward such a strong plan in relation to enhancing financial reporting in this state, which we have spoken about over recent weeks – because we believe that the future of this state is about growing this state, and at the core of that is ensuring that the market and the broader economy have trust in what the government is doing and what the government is reporting. We have seen time and time again the credit rating agencies especially saying, ‘We don’t trust what the government is saying.’ That is why they put this state on notice in terms of the credit rating. I mean, what a bad rating we have. But they put us on notice.

As my colleagues are rightly pointing out, we know the Treasurer has just been in New York begging to keep the current credit rating – begging on the taxpayer’s dollar, no less. It will be very interesting to see because I am not quite sure how those rating agency meetings will have gone with a Treasurer who has literally no plan to fix the problem that this government has created. When you talk about the biggest project in this state’s history and the budget line item is ‘TBC’ – I mean, you must walk in and think that you are a joke. Well, you are as a Treasurer. ‘How much is this going to cost?’ ‘TBC. Don’t know, don’t know.’

When the federal government ask how much it is going to cost, they will not even tell them. So the credit rating agencies of course are saying, ‘Hang on, your budget mechanisms aren’t transparent, and they don’t make sense.’ They have said that over and over again, not only putting our ratings on warning but also putting our infrastructure spends and the lack of proper oversight on our infrastructure spends on the record. They have said it. For rating agencies to be saying that over and over and over and over again, including after the budget, should tell you everything you need to know. They have also spoken about this giant ticking debt bomb that this state now is sitting on because of this government.

What the coalition has identified is a crucial need to enhance truthfulness, honesty and transparency in the way the budget is reported but also how spending decisions are made, what things will cost and when they will be delivered. To think that in the first 10 years of this government, between what they promised to spend and what they did spend, there was a $129 billion blowout. $129 billion between what the budget said and the budget actual – how can you make a mistake like that unless you are being deliberately deceptive? The average was $14 billion a year between what was promised and what was spent. So is there any wonder that there have been calls for truthfulness, honesty and enhanced financial reporting. And what have we seen instead – we have seen a bill come into this chamber which does, as I acknowledged, make a number of minor, I would say, technical changes in relation to notifications and reporting which, if they were in a bill in and of themselves, I would suggest we would be supportive of. But what this bill does is try to cover two really, really sneaky changes with these other amendments. We know when it comes to the Governor’s effective signing off, for want of a better phrase, of the government’s appropriations – scrapped if this bill is passed. The Governor’s oversight of spend – gone. Why would this government want anybody to watch what they spend? But also then there is the reporting of what is being spent through a quarterly reporting process.

It does not matter what those on the other side say to try and explain how times have changed, there is not a need, departments are busy and all that rubbish. It is all rubbish. The truth is, because of those two measures at the core of this bill, our financial management obligations in this state are being reduced. The truth is that is what this bill is about – scrapping those. We cannot support those, and I think that it should be seen for what it is. It will be seen for what it is. It is deeply concerning to think that we have a new Treasurer who has ticked off on this bill and is trying to sneakily hide what this government is spending and reduce the amount of oversight of that spending. This is not the government’s money, it is taxpayers money, and this Labor Party has well and truly forgotten that.

Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (17:19): It is an absolute pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak on the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. From the outset can I say that this bill –

Belinda Wilson interjected.

Paul EDBROOKE: It is a finance bill – absolutely – and I expect to hear members on the other side speak very, very passionately about this. I do find myself a little bit confused about what the opposition member that just spoke was talking about. This bill proposes to ensure that departments and public bodies are using resources in a fiscally sustainable way – something I think we can all agree on – and having regard to decisions of government and to proper financial management. It also intends to make sure that the Financial Management Act 1994 and the financial framework of the state are fit for purpose, that the public sector is resilient to future challenges and also that the Victorian public sector financial management legislative framework complements and supports administrative reforms to manage fiscal risk, drive better financial discipline within departments and public bodies, increase central oversight and management and increase financial management capability and accountability. So I do find myself very, very confused that those opposite will not be supporting this bill.

We have heard from the member for Brighton, who seems to have two settings: outrage and confusion. I think we heard them both at level 100 just then. I do not want to be rude, but it was the economic insight of a toaster right there. A lot of what the member said did not make sense, and I think we are confusing confidence with competence. You can stand up in this place and act very confident, but it does not mean anything you say actually makes sense. I would say the loudest critics of reform like this are sometimes those who liked the old system because they could slip something through it. The member for Brighton said that we are hiding the books. Mate, there is a budget online. There are budget books given out on budget day. There is the mid-year update. You can go and – if you need to, like your speech – contact ChatGPT and bring it up. It is there. I think every time the shadow minister opens his mouth about finances or the economy an economist somewhere dies a little bit in their heart and a fairy loses its wings. If you cannot find the figures from this government, I cannot help you. I think that that was a very, very confusing and a very, very confused contribution to this house. The member for Brighton warning people in this house about financial transparency is a little bit like Colonel Sanders giving a TED Talk on chicken welfare. It just is. It just does not make sense.

We heard something – which I will bring up in a second – that the member raised, which was why we do not consult with financial markets when we are making financial legislation. I want you just for the next couple of minutes to think about that one, and I will get back to it in a minute. Why does this legislature and government not consult with financial markets, whether it be the forex or stocks or bonds? I am not sure the member knows what he is talking about.

The member for Brighton has been in the paper recently, saying this bill hides the government’s pre-election spending. Well, in the bill there are requirements for pre-election updates, quarterly reporting and risk flagging. It beggars belief that he can even come into this chamber and say that. I know he has had the good graces of the departmental staffers giving him information. Whether he chooses to educate himself and absorb that information is up to him, but it is there for him to read.

The current process for the Governor signing a warrant is so outdated that when it was written people still rode horses and Ned Kelly was still riding around. It is that old. The member for Brighton also said that we are removing crucial safeguards. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are actually removing a paperwork regime that is older than vegemite itself. Times have changed, and we need to modernise. The warrant system is so outdated that they probably sent those warrants by pigeon. We do not do that anymore. There is this thing called email; there is the internet. We use it and we use it well, and we can update our record keeping without being accused of a lack of transparency and clarity in our numbers.

I also notice in the Herald Sun that the shadow minister accused the government of changing the rules to avoid scrutiny. We are not trying to avoid scrutiny; we are updating a budget system that predates sliced bread, this thing is so old. If the member for Brighton had his way, we would still be in here with powdered wigs, balancing the books on a chalkboard. This is just modernising the system.

The whole thing about us stopping the Governor signing things off is also something that I think warrants some discussion. It is not like the Governor sits there with a ledger and signs off everything that is bought from Officeworks by a department. It is a ceremonial signature. It is almost seen as the last line of defence between fiscal responsibility and not having it; it is something that is ceremonial. Next, I think the members opposite will be demanding royal seals and swords and knights to be in here so we can order photocopy toner. We do not have to work like that these days. We can be more efficient. Get on board; be in the 21st century with us.

The accusation of secrecy is also a really interesting one. It is a good segue into that question I asked just before about who we should be consulting on this legislation. Look, if the member thinks that this bill is secretive, he must think that the budget papers are classified files and X files. It is just a stupid argument. I think those economic arguments we just heard were delivered with the confidence of a man who has never actually been fact checked but really should be, because as we stand here today, we have got people opposite giving us lectures on transparency while some of their members are clocking up claim forms like they are rockstars. I really think there needs to be a little bit of transparency on that side to see what is going on there.

Now, going back to why we do not consult financial markets when we make our legislation, the first reason would obviously be that financial markets do not run this state, the Victorian government does; the Parliament as a whole does. We are accountable to the people of Victoria, not to investors, bankers or hedge funds. The second reason would be that I do not think public policy should be market tested on the forex or on the ASX. I have a real problem with that. I have a huge problem with that, and I do not think the member opposite really considered what he was talking about when he said ‘financial markets’. Maybe he meant something else, but financial markets mean stocks, bonds, derivatives, forex. They are the main parts of the financial market, and it revolves around them. Is this what the member is saying: that the financial elites should be brought in to be briefed on our legislation and be consulted on it and offer their changes before the Victorian public?

This is not about making people money. This is not about the private sector. This is not about stocks and bonds. This is about governing Victoria, and we should be able to bring a bill into this house that provides all the clarity and to update that transparency so that Victorians know how every dollar is being spent, and that is what this bill does. I cannot for the life of me understand how a shadow minister can rise in this place and actually ask why we do not consult with financial markets on bills. That would be like letting Uber drivers rewrite the road rules. Why don’t we just get a hedge fund to have a look over and consult on our health policy? It is absolute stupidity. What we have seen today, as I said, is the economic insight of a toaster. It is just a joke. As I said, the member for Brighton warning us on this side about financial transparency is like Colonel Sanders giving a TED talk about chicken welfare. It is just silly.

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, what the member for Frankston is saying at the minute verges on the requirement of a substantive motion. The member for Frankston is just casting aspersions on the member for Brighton which are verging on unparliamentary. I would ask you to counsel him against doing so.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): I listened to the member for Brighton’s contribution on the bill, and it was very, very wideranging.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (17:29): I am not even pleased to rise on this. I am here to speak on the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and interested in being lectured by those opposite about financial management and transparency.

Members interjecting.

Danny O’BRIEN: I hear some warblings from the member for Mordialloc, who knows full well, as does the member for Yan Yean and others on that side, that I have done my penance of 10 years on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC), and frankly, to have the government on this side talking about financial management, particularly about transparency and accountability, just sticks in my craw somewhat.

As the member for Brighton indicated, there are some positive aspects to this legislation, but we should be aware of the genesis of it too. There are a couple of geneses of this legislation. Firstly, it is in part reflective of a piece of legislation from 2017 that ultimately lapsed after the 2018 election but more recently was announced as part of a review in the 2024–25 budget into the Financial Management Act 1994. I note from the briefing provided to the opposition on this bill that that review has not finished and neither is it to be released, and yet here we have a piece of legislation amending the Financial Management Act.

As I said, there are aspects of this that in principle are laudable and okay, but it is substantially weakened by the removal of some of the accountability measures that the member for Brighton highlighted, particularly through reduced budget reporting in election years, the removal of warrants and expanded discretionary exemptions for declared bodies. Whilst that is not the same as Treasurer’s advances, I note that once again at PAEC just gone the issue of Treasurer’s advances was a significant one as the government continues to use them in a manner that they were not originally intended for and in a way to effectively hide from scrutiny of the Parliament when it comes to government spending.

I note this is in a situation where the state is now heading for, by 2028–29, $194 billion of debt. That will amount to interest payments of $29 million a day or $1.2 million per hour, and every one of us on this side knows that we could do very useful things with that sort of money if it was not going to interest payments. I hasten to add, debt is not a bad thing of itself. We all understand on this side that governments of all persuasions for all time have always raised debt, and it is not an issue in itself. Most households have debt of some sort, particularly with their mortgage. The issue, though, is when that debt gets out of control, and when our net debt level is at 25 per cent of gross state product – as I said, $194 billion we are heading for – I would suggest that it is in fact out of control. When 10 per cent of government expenditure will be going on interest repayments, that is 10 per cent that could be better spent on hospitals, on nurses, on schools, on teachers, on police, on fixing our roads, on addressing the shortage of fire trucks in the emergency services and on all of those things, those services and that infrastructure, that our state needs and instead is going towards interest repayments, not necessarily for good debt but to pay off blowouts. We see in the budget papers, if anyone cares to have a look at budget paper 4 and compare the original estimated investment on the capital projects versus the expected investment, that there is a $48 billion blowout in those costs. That becomes a very large chunk of that $194 billion of debt, and that is where I say it is that waste and mismanagement that is an issue.

I talk about transparency, and I mentioned the CFA there a moment ago. We saw an example of it in question time just now, which was a follow-up to events of the last couple of weeks in PAEC. We asked a simple question to the Minister for Emergency Services as to what the budget for the CFA is, and we could not get an answer to a simple question.

Indeed we asked the question of the minister – and this is in the context of the budget decision to introduce the new emergency services tax and tax Victorians an extra $3 billion over the coming out years: what is the budget then for our emergency services, and specifically the CFA? The minister told us on 15 May that that will be in the budget. Now, that was not in the budget. There was no such figure in the budget. So we tried again today, and once again still cannot get an answer. We are at 17 June. The financial year starts in two weeks. I would expect that agencies like the CFA, the SES and Fire Rescue Victoria would all like to know what their budgets are.

The context of that is, as I said, just before the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings began, the Treasurer published a notice in the Government Gazette which outlined the rates for the new emergency services tax and also outlined how much each of the recipients of the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund would get. Now, those figures were there in black and white in the official government paper signed by the Treasurer, and whilst they were only the allocations from the emergency services fund, they also included a column as to how much of the total funding for those agencies was coming from the emergency services fund. So we know that the government said that the CFA and VICSES were getting 95 per cent of their funding from that figure in the column next to them. In the case of the CFA it was $312 million – 95 per cent. That is what the actual gazette said, signed by the Treasurer, so we can very easily, in a simple calculation, work out what the base funding for the CFA is, which was $328 million.

When that was put to the Treasurer and to the minister and to the Premier at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings, each and every one of them said, ‘No, that is wrong.’ The reason they were saying it is wrong is: that is a significant cut. We know also, on figures from the Treasurer’s office, that the 2023–24 budget for the CFA was $370 million, so that is a nearly $42 million cut to the CFA if we take those gazette figures to be accurate. We also know that the Minister for Emergency Services at the time last year, who is now the Treasurer, in fact gave PAEC a figure for what the 2024–25 budget for the CFA would be – and that was $337.6 million. So either way you cut it, in the last two years the CFA has had a cut and it is getting a cut again next financial year, 2025–26. I sat down after asking the simple question today, ‘How much is the base funding budget for the CFA in 2025–26?’ and I had the Premier yelling away at the table at me, saying, ‘We answered this question.’ No, they have not answered this question. That is the whole point of why we have been asking. And we get again today the Minister for Emergency Services refusing to answer the question. She actually said, believe it or not, ‘The figure will be reported in the annual report.’ Well, that is handy: after the fact. Six or 12 months after the actual end of the financial year the CFA is going to find out what its budget is and the public is going to find out what its budget is. That is laughable.

I say to the Premier and I say to the minister: if the figures that were published in the gazette about the budget for the CFA are wrong, tell us what the actual figure is. Neither the Premier nor the minister today nor the Treasurer in PAEC would tell us. and I think that tells Victorians everything we need to know. It is one thing for the government to say, ‘You’re wrong. There is no cut to the CFA or the SES or Fire Rescue Victoria.’ But if we are wrong, tell us what the true figure is. They have not done that It would be a very simple government political decision to actually tell us.

So we are looking now from 2023–24 to next financial year – 2023–24 being the last figures available: a $115 million cut to Fire Rescue Victoria; a $42 million cut to the CFA, as I said; an $8.5 million cut to VICSES, a $79 million cut to Triple Zero Victoria; and a $30 million cut to Forest Fire Management Victoria. This is the poor financial management of the government. They are taxing Victorians another $3 billion over the out years supposedly for emergency services, and yet our emergency services are actually being cut. The lack of transparency from the government on these issues today and over the past few weeks has been disgraceful.

Josh BULL (Sunbury) (17:39): I am pleased this evening to have the opportunity to make a contribution on the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and follow on from the terrific contribution made by the member for Frankston, who I think articulated the government’s position in terms of both the mechanisms and the changes that are contained within this piece of legislation. These go to updating, modernising and improving the financial reporting obligations that we on this side of the house take very seriously and indeed make sure that the budgetary processes and a number of processes that are also contained within this bill and others will do a terrific job in making sure that those mechanisms are followed.

The key point around what is contained in the legislation, and the member for Frankston touched on this, is making sure that the framework that exists around financial management in our state is updated. ‘Why do we need to do that?’ some at home may be asking. It is because circumstances, technology, reporting obligations and different mechanisms change over time. What I think we are pointing out and what is occurring through this piece of legislation is a recognition of that, and it is not what we have seen from those opposite when it comes to some comments, particularly those from the lead speaker, made around this bill. In many instances either the lead speaker had not read the bill or was simply coming in here to make some sorts of wild accusations. What I think the member for Frankston outlined very well as the government’s position is that this piece of legislation is an important step that we committed to taking and that performs a range of functions, as I mentioned earlier, that go to better financial management in this state.

The bill forms part of what is an ongoing legislative and non-legislative reform process for financial management. I mentioned the changes with both technology and reporting. If you think of various sectors, whether they be science and tech or innovation, the amount of diversity and the speed at which many of those industries and sectors have evolved and changed mean we need to make sure that we are taking the necessary steps to provide for those processes. That is why, across the nine important changes to the act, this work is being done in a diligent and dedicated manner, and that is why this bill is supported by the government.

I will just rattle off quite quickly the nine changes, which include the update to the financial management principles to better reflect the expectations of the government and the public sector; the embedding of a notification process where there is a risk that a department’s or public body’s budget may be exceeded; the inclusion of the power to include or exclude agencies from the operation of certain provisions of the Financial Management Act 1994; the clarification of accountable officer, board and financial officer responsibilities; the adjustments to the requirements relating to the budget update in an election year; the adjustments to transition requirements for the September quarterly report; the strengthening of the requirements around the creation or cessation of agencies; the updates to regulations and direction-making powers; and the removing of the requirement for warrants. What we know – and this has been touched on previously – is that those changes through a growing economy, a growing population and a growing state, plus those mechanisms that intersect with the changes to technology and the additional reporting requirements that are needed, go to a better, stronger framework. On this side of the house we take those responsibilities very, very seriously.

The reflections that go to the budget and to many of the challenges, particularly post COVID and post the pandemic, have ensured that we have invested right across every single portfolio.

There is the additional $11 billion-plus in health and the significant range of cost-of-living measures that were announced – whether that be extensions to existing grants and opportunities within our school settings, and the wonderful work that all of our teachers and staff do right across education; power bill relief; or the incredibly important opportunities that exist within public transport, including free PT for those under 18 from 1 January and for seniors on weekends – and a whole range of other opportunities that were outlined in the budget that was handed down. These of course build upon a massive pipeline of investment that goes to providing for what is a growing state: the removal of 86 dangerous and congested level crossings; the delivery of the West Gate Tunnel and the Metro Tunnel, both due to open this year; and the delivery of the North East Link and Suburban Rail Loop after that. There is a huge pipeline of works that this government is indeed working very, very hard on.

The provisions within this legislation go to the reporting and the financial management requirements within this state. They go to updating and modernising the framework that relates to those reporting requirements, making sure that we are focusing on delivery but also on reporting and making sure that we have a really important and sound obligation to be able to provide for the financial management within this state, as all other jurisdictions and territories do across the country – the feds as well. Making sure that those provisions are the best they can be goes to the heart of what this bill is about.

Unfortunately, what we see time and time again when we come into this place is a whole range of different policy positions and a bit of a circus from those on the other side of the house. But we are indeed focused on the important work of governing and outlining what was announced in the budget and the more than a decade of preceding budgets before that. We know and understand that local communities are at their best when they are supported by a government that listens to them and delivers for them, that makes sure to provide opportunities for our growing communities, particularly in our growth corridors. But no matter where you live, right across this state, we are making sure those opportunities exist through the budgetary process and through the range of programs and initiatives that exist within local communities, which is the most important obligation – of course alongside keeping people safe – that the government can continue to work on.

I want to take the opportunity to thank each and every person who has played a part in delivering this piece of legislation to the house, knowing and understanding that the work needs to continue and knowing and understanding that part of our functioning, thriving, positive and strong democracy is an obligation to acquit finances responsibly and do it in a way in which transparency is at the forefront. This bill improves those processes. This bill works to strengthen the provisions and the framework of the system as it currently is, but it recognises the fact that it has been a long time since some of those things have changed. In 2025 we need to make sure we are updating and modernising, and that is exactly what this piece of legislation does.

Despite what we have heard from some – and it is only early days in the debate – I think that we on this side of the house know and understand that the responsibility of governing is incredibly important. We take that responsibility seriously and we are making sure we are listening to local communities, we are acting and we are delivering. We are ensuring that we are delivering on the commitments we made, and we are making sure that the system is strong and sound and as good as it can be. Each and every day that we are on this side of the house and we have the responsibility of being members of Parliament – particularly members of Parliament in an Allan Labor government – we are working with our communities. This is a profound privilege, and we will continue that work every single day.

Bridget VALLENCE (Evelyn) (17:49): I rise to speak on the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. As Treasurer Symes’s office contacted us to indicate that this is a Treasury bill with both Treasury and finance elements, I am pleased to be able to rise and speak on the bill. If you ever wanted to see an example of a government engaged in spin and subterfuge, then you would need to look no further than this bill. It really has the hallmarks of a government doing whatever it can to avoid scrutiny, transparency and accountability. We will hear from Labor government members today how this bill will increase transparency, improve budget management and tighten controls. But what this bill really does, which you will not hear from a Labor government member today, is seek to deny Victorians the truth about how chaotic and dysfunctional Victoria’s finances have become under the tired Labor government, the decade-old Labor government, because the principal purpose of this bill is to conceal how catastrophic Victoria’s budget has become before the 2026 state election. The provisions in this bill will deny Victorians the truth before an election, because this bill seeks to remove their obligation to do the usual financial and budget reporting, for the Treasurer to not have to do that and not be true with Victorians about the state of finances under Labor. That is not transparency. That is not accountability. It is nothing but another attempt by this tired Labor government to withhold the truth from Victorians.

If you read the minister’s second-reading speech tabled in this Parliament, which I assure you will not take you very long, the minister would have Victorians believe that this bill is the product of a review undertaken into the Financial Management Act 1994 that was announced in the recent 2024–25 budget to make it fit for purpose, but that is absolute spin, because almost 90 per cent of the proposed changes under this bill were proposed by the Labor government in 2017, more than eight years ago. In 2017 the Andrews Labor government introduced the Financial Management and Constitution Acts Amendment Bill 2017, and whilst that bill was much longer, it includes almost all of the amendments and changes that are now proposed in this 2025 bill. But it was so bad and not accepted back then that they did not even move past the introduction stage. They did not even debate the bill. All this tired Labor government have done is fossick around and go into the bottom drawer; they like the bottom drawer over in the Labor government. They have dusted off the old 2017 bill, and they have done a massive cut-and-paste job. To tell Victorians, as this government likes to do, that this bill is the product of some detailed in-depth review that they announced a couple of months ago in the 2024–25 budget is absolutely disingenuous. They only have to go and look at the lapsed bill from 2017 to know that, and I would invite the Labor government members to do so.

When we sought details of the review during the bill briefing through the Treasurer’s office, the government could not even tell us who had conducted the review. They said that it was based on a review in the minister’s second-reading speech. They could not tell us exactly who had done the review. All they could say was that it was an internal review in the Department of Treasury and Finance. When we asked whether we could be provided with a copy of the final report of the review, we were told the review had not been completed. You could not make this up, you really could not, because we are here debating a bill that is supposedly the product of a review that has not been completed. It is just absolute spin. When we asked if we could be provided with a summary of the review’s recommendations, we were told that these matters are not normally discussed outside of government – lack of transparency again – so we find ourselves in this absurd situation where we are debating a bill that is supposedly the product of review that has not been completed yet and that the government will not even make public for Victorians to see.

One of the key objects of this bill is to remove the current requirement for the Treasurer to release a budget update and September quarterly financial reports in an election year. In an election year, when transparency should be at its highest, the desperate and tired Labor government now want to do everything that they can to avoid informing Victorians about the disaster the Victorian budget has become under their financial mismanagement.

Labor know that come September next year, September 2026, the budget will be much worse than it is now, and they want to do everything they can to keep that from the Victorian people. You would think that given such significant measure it would warrant some comment or at least justification in the minister’s second-reading speech. But it is not there. It is not in there; he did not even mention it.

Since 2000 it has been a requirement of any government to issue quarterly financial reports and a budget update. Since 2000 there have been six elections, and at no time prior to now has any previous government sought to remove this financial transparency and reporting. Even the Andrews government in 2022 did not seek to do this. The government argues these measures are required because the reporting requirements in an election year are kind of too difficult, a little bit too difficult – that it is a doubling up of work, because the government is required to issue a pre-election budget in any event. But that is absolutely more spin, because the fact is that the quarterly financial reports are required to comply with appropriate financial frameworks, meaning that they need to be properly audited and reliable. In contrast, there is no such requirement imposed on a pre-election budget update, which is only required to be on estimated financial statements or based on assumptions. None of the auditing or reporting disciplines that are required for properly prepared quarterly financial reports are required for a pre-election budget update. So it is clear the only reason why the government is seeking to introduce this is to conceal the true state of the financial disaster under this Labor government and what it has truly created for Victorians and the burden it has created for our children and grandchildren. It is a disgrace.

Another measure contained in this bill is to impose stricter reporting requirements on departments and agencies. Has the Labor government finally come to the realisation that it might be a good idea if bureaucrats were required to supply information about their finances rather than turning a blind eye to the constant financial mismanagement that is a hallmark of this Labor government? Again, this is another measure contained in the 2017 bill, and it is nothing new. You might also think it is a good thing for departments and agencies to be required to report to government if they are going to blow their budgets. The devil is in the detail in this bill. Whilst a department or agency will be required under this bill to report if they are going to exceed their budgets, there is nothing in the bill that imposes a strict timeframe for when this notification must occur. Experience suggests departments will usually attempt to avoid the embarrassment of reporting a budget blowout for as long as possible.

Another troubling aspect of the bill is that the power will be provided to the government to exclude agencies from the new reporting requirements. Under the bill, the Governor, on advice from the minister, will have the power to designate an agency as a declared body, meaning that they will not be required to inform the government if they have blown their budget – a very concerning carve-out. Based on what a declared body will be, as prescribed under the Public Administration Act 2004, you can see that under this new exclusion power there would be nothing to stop the government from declaring a body like the Suburban Rail Loop to be excluded from reporting if they have blown their budget. We know in the last financial year the Suburban Rail Loop Authority delivered a budget deficit of $3 million under former Labor hack James Merlino’s leadership. We all know that the Victorian Managed Insurance Authority, as an example, also has a budget deficit of almost $100 million. Well, there is nothing to stop this Labor government from excluding agencies like these – like VMIA, like the Suburban Rail Loop Authority, like WorkSafe Victoria, like Breakthrough Victoria – from these financial reporting requirements. Under this bill there is a provision that they may not ever have to do this, that they may not ever have to comply.

The government has argued that it is a power to give more independence to bodies like IBAC. I think this is ridiculous. I think that the former IBAC Commissioner Robert Redlich KC would actually agree, because he has complained many times about not having enough budget to prevent corruption in this state. For the government to say that they want to remove the ability to provide this financial reporting is outrageous. This exclusion power will diminish transparency and accountability.

Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (17:59): Well, haven’t we heard it all? We have heard here today the member for Brighton complaining that there are two sneaky things in the chamber. Well, I tell you what, there are three sneaky things in the chamber: the member for Brighton, the Leader of the Nationals and the member for Evelyn. They are the only sneaky things that are in this chamber. Let me explain how what they have said is completely wrong and completely disingenuous and demonstrates that they actually have no regard for the truth, no regard for transparency and no regard for Victorian people.

The member for Brighton says that we want to hide how money is spent. If you have ever spent any time talking to a Labor MP, all we want to do is spruik what we are spending and talk about the fantastic budgets that we are promoting and that we are passing for the Victorian people, and I will get to a list of those things shortly. It is classic Brighton of course, talking down the Victorian economy as well. Fancy having a Shadow Treasurer who spends his time talking down the Victorian economy. The reality is that this government has productive debt. We have a plan to address it, and we are successfully implementing that plan. That is the truth of the matter.

We heard from the Leader of the Nationals. He is obviously missing his time in the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, but perhaps he would have done better to listen to or attend and sit in the hearings, because he certainly misrepresented what was spoken about in PAEC in relation to funding for our emergency services. It was a bizarre process in PAEC. They were trying to make calculations on the back of an envelope and put it to department secretaries that this must be the way it is. That is not actually how you run governments. When they tried to make the case that the funding was set out in the gazettal rate, they were very clearly told by the department official – and I am going to quote for you, just to remove any doubt, because they keep repeating that falsehood in this chamber, so let me be very clear that this is a quote from the official:

The gazettal rate excludes the investment that the government has made through the supporting emergency services volunteer initiative in the midyear update and also in further supporting our emergency services volunteers in the 2025–26 budget …

They also noted that it does not include Commonwealth contributions and contributions from other agencies which are made each year to our emergency services. All of that was said very plainly in PAEC, so who is being sneaky here? It is not us; it is those opposite. They explained that where we are in the financial year is when the budgets are being finalised and set by the various departments and agencies. It is classic Nationals, misleading emergency services in the community for their political gain – shame. Because the truth is that this budget has $2 billion in funding for emergency services. That is the truth of it.

To the third sneaky thing, and that is the member for Evelyn, who tried to make out that there is some difference between the pre-budget and quarterly updates when the content is the same, the analysis is the same and the checks and balances are exactly the same.

So although we have had three sneaky attempts to mislead the chamber about this bill, I just will not have it, because none of them have spoken what is fair, true or transparent in this place. Let us not forget it; let us call them out every time. We cannot let them continue to talk down our economy, to lie about our investments and to use political approaches to what should be support across the board.

I wish to change track and change tone now in my contribution on this bill, because when I was thinking about this bill the first thing that came to mind was the lesson of the widow’s mite. Some of you might be aware of the parable of the widow’s mite, where a widow gives all that she has to the charity or the temple collection bowl.

It reminded me of when I in my former life worked, as I did, for charities or for non-government organisations where we relied on donations from people. We spoke often in my organisation about a letter that we had received from a widow who, in her spidery cursive writing, apologised to us that she was only able to send us $10 because her husband had passed away. You know, times were tough on the pension, but she said, ‘Here is what I can give. Here is what I have. Here is $10.’ The idea of stewardship and of being entrusted to take care of every single dollar that you have is really central to the work of a lot of NGOs but also to this government – knowing what the money costs people, what tax contributions and other contributions are, and knowing we have to use those funds in a fiscally responsible way so that we can keep on delivering for Victorians the frontline services that they need, especially those that are doing it tough, like that widow. That is why we have delivered such a strong cost-of-living support budget with such a strong focus on health and education.

As we have heard, this bill embeds the government’s expectation for sound financial management – that every dollar will be cared for and spent wisely – into legislation by updating financial management principles around operating within your budget and also embedding notification processes when there is a risk or an expectation that a budget may be exceeded. We are making sure that the public service reflects our strong value of valuing every dollar. One of the ways that we are demonstrating that is through our fiscal strategy. Steps 1 through 3 have been completed, and step 4, which is the stabilising of net debt as a percentage of GSP, is forecast to be achieved from 2026–27. We are set up very well to achieve step 5 because our revenue forecast is growing significantly faster than our expenses. Total expenses for general government sector forecasts are up 2.6 per cent on average over the forwards relative to 3.8 per cent for revenue and 5.3 per cent in economic growth. So we are well set up to reduce net debt as a percentage of GSP.

I wish I had more time to speak on this. Financial management is a cycle, and this legislation means that at each point in the cycle we are strengthening accountability, transparency and oversight, making sure that budgeting is undertaken with the thought to delivering for Victorians and ensuring the fair provision of services for all, which is after all what a Labor government does. It is going to lead to improved internal processes, and it will mean that senior staff have increased attention to this and that the Department of Treasury and Finance has a line of sight to departments’ expenditure where required. We manage budgets responsibly so we can deliver the frontline services Victorians rely on – real help with cost of living, good hospitals, schools and safe communities. Our 2025–26 budget shows this, with a $2.3 billion cost-of-living package in the latest budget. Let me run through a list in the time that I have left. Just from this budget alone, a $100 power saving bonus for concession –

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, if the member has a contribution to make on the budget, I suggest she do that during her budget contribution speech rather than one on the financial management legislation.

Lauren KATHAGE: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I am explaining how tightened, strict and careful financial management means that we have the funds available to support Victorians with the cost of living.

The ACTING SPEAKER (John Mullahy): We have had a very wideranging debate. I would ask the member to come back to the bill.

Lauren KATHAGE: The bill recognises that we have a set amount of money to support Victorians, and we choose to use that money carefully and wisely in the support of Victorians.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (18:10): I have got some comments to make on the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. When I was listening to the contribution from the member for Yan Yean, I was wondering what planet she has been living on for a while. She talked about managing things in a fiscally responsible way, and I just cannot help but draw her to the fact that over the 158 years of Victorian Parliament up until 2014 the state debt was at $23 billion, on a downward trajectory, moving down from 6 per cent of gross state product. Ten years later, a decade later, that debt is banging on the door of being $200 billion – 25 per cent of GSP. That is extraordinary. I cannot really fathom how a government in 10 years can do such a job of wrecking the budget. On top of that, we heard at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee that the Treasurer had not done any modelling on the fact that we could get a credit downgrade and what that would mean. None of that points to managing the budget in a fiscally responsible way, clearly in contradiction to what the member for Yan Yean believes in the face of that evidence. I think it is a lot of smoke and mirrors and debt and deceit here.

The bill before us, the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill, has had an interesting history. It was introduced in 2017 on 29 November by Minister Scott at the time, and it was called the Financial Management and Constitution Acts Amendment Bill 2017. That bill did not really go anywhere. It was second-read by the minister, and it was parked. A year later it still had not been debated, and then it lapsed. Over the previous four years of government – and now we are another 2½ years in, so 6½ years on – nothing has happened in this space.

Now we have got this second attempt at this point in time. I read the second-reading speech with interest, and then I got out the bill. I could not really marry the second-reading speech, what was talked about in that second-reading speech, with what was actually in the bill; there was a really big mismatch for me.

Another thing that I found quite interesting was the timing. The 2024–25 budget papers announced that there would be a review of the Financial Management Act – okay, all good. Introduced in 1994, 30 years on – makes sense. It is time to have a look at that. It was around making the act fit for purpose and the public sector resilient to future challenges. Okay, you would think that is all right. This was a 2024–25 budget announcement, remembering that in 2017 this had already seen some light of day. The Department of Treasury and Finance did not advise that this was a result of the review that had been undertaken. They were doing a review and this was the result, but the review was not complete, so it sounds like there is a little bit of spin there. It was not going to be public, and getting a summary of that was not something that the government were open to.

If the bill was a result of the review which has just been done, certainly there are many bits of this bill that the government have mirrored from the 2017 bill. The common provisions between the 2017 bill and the one we have before us, which cannot have been as a result of the review unless they go, ‘We didn’t bother to do anything about that, but it’s still relevant,’ are about the removal of warrants, ministerial directions, financial management obligations and reporting and disclosure. There is quite a bit there. Both bills propose repealing warrant requirements, significantly diminishing the governor and Auditor-General oversight. Both bills empower the ministerial directions, with clearer compliance obligations with regard to the financial management obligations. The introduction of overarching financial obligations for departments and public bodies mirrors the clauses in 2017, and there are similar proposals around reporting and disclosure obligations that existed then. It might be a little bit broader this time, because it has exemptions for declared bodies, which I will talk about in a moment.

We did ask a number of questions about this and we did have some interesting answers from the department, but I wanted to draw the house’s attention to a couple of what I would call clangers in the second-reading speech. I would be almost embarrassed if I was the government that had these in the second-reading speech. I have got a quote:

The Bill introduces a requirement for agencies to stick to their set budgets –

Oh, my goodness! I cannot believe that you have said that in the second-reading speech. It goes without saying that agencies should stick to their budgets. I mean, that is the whole point of having budgets in the first place. They are not there to be overrun and to rack up debt and then try and explain it later. The second part of that sentence is:

and report any financial risks through an ‘early warning system’.

It tells me that government departments were going over their budget and sitting on their hands and not telling the ministers. The ministers should be asking how it is going, should be having very strong oversight of this, and I do not suspect that that is possibly what has happened because now they think they need to introduce legislation to get on top of this. Give me a break.

The other quote that I thought was interesting:

The Financial Management Act of 1994 did not require departments and agencies to set a budget and to stick to it.

It is a little bit more of what I was talking about before.

We will embed Government’s expectations that sound financial management includes establishing, adhering to and monitoring set budgets put in place at the start of the year.

Seriously? Rather than legislation, there is a term called ‘performance management’. If departments are not meeting their obligations, their expectations that they can run their show according to the budget that has been set down, that is a serious question about their capability – and certainly their financial capability. I know not everybody is versed in finances, but when you are running a department and you are the minister, you actually need to have a bit of oversight on this. I mean, I cannot understand why you have to put this in legislation. This is stuff that you cannot make up. This is what the government have really done, and some of the budget headings, budget discipline principles and budget overrun reporting – I mean, they have got a whole new section 44C that is going to be inserted that will require departments or public bodies to provide written notification to the department head of the Department of Treasury and Finance if the department or public body is likely to exceed budget. Seriously, the minister should be on top of this before it gets to that point, when things are looking a little bit dicey. The minister should have the accountability and nous to get on top of it and deal with it at that point, before we are left with a whole bunch of gremlins.

There are a couple of issues around transparency here – certainly the election period financial reporting exemption. The member for Evelyn did quite well outlining this here, that since 2000 when this was introduced there have been six elections requiring quarterly updates. Now all of a sudden it is an issue. I will tell you, we have got two former treasurers over here who said that it is not an issue at all.

There is an expansion for exemptions for declared bodies, a bit of carve-out there, and mostly the integrity bodies. But the advice that we received back from the department when we asked a number of questions – on top of the integrity bodies, there was the Victorian Electoral Commission, the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission, court services, Judicial College of Victoria and the commission. But it says this list is subject to change based on further consultation. That leaves it wide open. Who else are you going to bung in there? Is it going to be the Victorian Managed Insurance Agency? Is it going to be WorkSafe? We know the government do not like to be transparent here. We spent five years in a legal battle going to the Supreme Court to get an email that says, ‘The health advice didn’t say we should be locked down. It was actually the former Premier and current Premier who were calling out that.’ With regard to WorkCover, we had a very protracted battle through the legal system to get a copy of a report that we got redacted. Then the next bit was a little bit less redacted, and finally, you know what, they had to hand it over. So the government did not want to be transparent, and for the members over there to talk about transparency: have a look at what you do, not what you say, because that is where the truth lies.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (18:20): What is the fundamental purpose of this bill? At its heart it is about boosting transparency and accountability and improving public sector management and reporting. I am going to take up some matters raised by the opposition. They do not want us to elevate convention and current practice into law – is that what they are saying? Surely it is more accountable to elevate it into law, so I am a little bit perplexed by the premise that the previous speaker from the opposition has taken – that they do not think we should do that. Surely that is only enhancing transparency. Whilst on the one hand, yes, convention should be adopted, but ‘should’ and ‘must’ are different things, and elevating convention into law – I am going to proffer and I am actually quite confident – is the most profound and important way, when we are talking about this particular context, and is certainly an element that can help to enhance Victoria’s financial management framework. So I was quite surprised by that commentary about elevating convention into law and almost mocking that transition. I found that surprising at the least, because we are certainly being very up-front about the transition that we are putting forward as part of this bill. I would think that that would not be the strongest argument by the opposition to rebut the bill – to undermine that particular transition that is being put forward by this bill – when we are talking about greater transparency and accountability on public expenditure. It is certainly elevating accountability with regard to the public sector, so I would have thought they would be on board with that. That particular line of conjecture was, can I say, perplexing, to say the least.

Anyway, I think I have made my point clear, and I hope that they will come on board with that and realise that legislation is actually a pretty effective mechanism in terms of being able to make clear the implementation of reform in this state and is certainly, I would proffer, stronger than convention alone. Maybe I am wrong. I do not think so; on this account I think we are heading in the right direction – so I am just putting that there. And certainly it is about cultural change, improving the management of fiscal risks and driving stronger discipline and increased oversight when it comes to public expenditure across the public sector. I think it is pretty evident that there is merit in driving this cultural change. We are being very up-front about the change. I would also say that strengthening public sector financial performance supports the government’s fiscal strategy, delivering surpluses and boosting economic growth. We can see it is quite a congruent framework, so to speak, within which to operate.

I would like to also take up the matter of the warrants, because I could hear a lot of opposition from the opposition with regard to changing this particular process. I will say the warrant system really is an anachronism, and it persists in Victoria despite all Australian jurisdictions except WA having abolished it years ago. We are no longer storing gold underneath Parliament anymore. I think we have modern IT and banking systems and things such as annual reports. If you look at schedule 1, which will be amended as part of this bill, should it be passed – and I very much hope it will be – you can see that it is just providing a bulk figure in consolidated revenue. That is not exactly the most transparent mechanism if that is the hill we are going to die on when it comes to wanting to desperately hold onto warrants because of this fundamental premise of transparency and what they are claiming them to be. I am pretty comfortable with, and I think we can all be confident in moving forward with, letting go of this anachronism when we look at what it no longer delivers in terms of relevance but also accountability and transparency, as opposed to, for instance, an annual report, where you actually see the breakdown of the expenditure.

I would proffer that that is certainly a far greater representation when you are talking about government expenditure – when you actually break down the expenditure, as opposed to one bulk figure. I am not suggesting there is otherwise something improper about a warrant; I am just saying it is an anachronism, and it is not delivering what those opposite are claiming it does. I do not think that they need to keep white-knuckling this wonderful warrant system that that we have had in place all these years, particularly when you think of all those other Australian jurisdictions, save for WA, that have already let go of the warrant. I think that if they actually perhaps look at the act that is being amended and see what the warrant does and does not deliver, then they should be confident that they no longer need to white-knuckle it and really hold onto that as the last bastion of transparency for parliamentary processes – or government processes, I should say, more specifically. We have modern banking and IT systems and strong requirements to provide annual reports demonstrating how funds are allocated, rendering warrants practically outdated and ineffective. That is the other aspect of the conjecture from those opposite that I do not actually understand. I do not believe they have validated their argument for retaining warrants. It just does not make sense anymore. The removal of warrants improves administrative efficiency and allows the public sector to better focus its efforts on ensuring value for money in service delivery, so I think it is certainly a commonsense element of the reforms that are being brought about.

If we look historically, it was a Labor government – it was the Bracks government – that actually legislated the comprehensive reporting we have today. So instead of the degradation and decline of transparency and accountability, we know that effective mechanisms were put in place by the Bracks government. Just for the benefit of the chamber, I am going to refer to those. We have an audited financial report that provides the Victorian Auditor-General’s independent perspective on the state’s financial outcomes. We hand the budget over to the Auditor-General each and every year to sign off on before we publish it. We produce a midyear report and quarterly financial reports, and we publish a budget update ensuring that there is transparent and accountable financial reporting. Rather than dramatising the changes that we are putting in place here with regard to the reporting requirements in an election year, whilst the bill will remove the requirement to publish the budget update on 15 December of an election year, governments may nevertheless choose to publish it. The bill merely provides some flexibility should it be needed – for example, if there is a change in government. The probability of a dramatic change within the 10 days or otherwise I think is highly improbable, so I think that the fanfare and the confected sort of concern by those opposite are definitely not warranted in this regard.

Overall, when we are looking at the principles of these changes, we are really updating financial management principles to better reflect the expectations of government and the public sector. Rather than working against transparency, I would say it is actually the opposite. It embeds notification processes when there is a risk that a department’s or public body’s budget may be exceeded. Why is that a problem? I do not get it. I do not understand why those opposite do not want that to happen – do not want it to be embedded in legislation. I do not believe they have put forward a solid argument on that front. It includes the power to include or exclude agencies from the operation of certain provisions of the Financial Management Act 1994. It clarifies accountable officer, board and chief financial officer responsibilities. There you can see an enhancement, not a detraction, of clarity when we are looking at these responsible roles. It adjusts requirements relating to the budget update in an election year, as I stated at the outset, with important caveats so that transparency is not compromised in that space. It adjusts transmission requirements for the September quarterly report, strengthens the requirements around the creation or cessation of agencies, updates the regulations and direction-making powers and, as I said before, removes the requirement for those outdated, anachronistic warrants.

Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (18:30): I am delighted to rise and make a contribution and certainly follow on from the member for Eildon, who hit the nail on the head when she said, ‘Where have some of these people been hiding to come out with some of the stuff that we are hearing on this bill tonight?’ In fact I think I found an error in the naming of the bill. It is the financial mismanagement legislation. That is exactly what we are talking about here: mismanagement, not management. Mismanagement is a hallmark of what this Labor government is doing. We have got so many budget overruns. We have got cost blowouts. We have got financial mismanagement from wall to wall. When I read the second-reading speech – and the member for Eildon picked out another quote – right at the beginning it says:

This Bill is another example of this Government’s commitment to sound financial management.

When has there ever been any sound financial management, let alone another example? That implies there has already been an example and this is another one.

Roma Britnell interjected.

Tim McCURDY: Exactly. Show me one example of decent financial management that this government has done. In fact I think they need to sack the speechwriter or at least do a welfare check, because honestly it is out of control, this second-reading speech. It goes on a bit further, and again, this is not the quote that the member for Eildon had:

We continue to demonstrate targeted and disciplined financial management … This represents a prudent and systematic approach to strengthening the long-term sustainability of the State’s finances.

Surely it is not April Fools’ Day. I cannot believe that the government has the arrogance or the gall to come in and talk about financial management legislation, when we know very well we have gone from about $20 billion to $190 billion under the watch of this government. It is absolutely disgraceful. If we talk about financial mismanagement, I have got a couple of examples here, one being the West Gate Tunnel. If you want to talk about financial mismanagement, it started at $5.5 billion, and it is going to be closer to $10 billion. $10.2 billion is the latest figure – double, from $5.5 billion to $10 billion.

Roma Britnell interjected.

Tim McCURDY: Yes, someone is trying to defend that. I cannot believe it. It is like going to see someone who is going to build you a house and land package and asking, ‘How much is the house and land package going to cost?’ ‘Oh, it’s going to be $600,000.’ ‘Great, sign me up.’ They come to give you the keys at the end of it and say, ‘Actually it’s $1.2 million. It’s double what we first thought it was going to be.’ How are you going to take that? Those on the government benches seem to think that Victorians just want to keep accepting this.

The North East Link’s $10 billion cost has blown out to $20 billion, another doubling. Mismanagement is how we have got here. Again, it is like if you go and see a Toyota dealer, sign up to get a new Camry and he says, ‘It’s $50,000,’ and you go and get the keys and he says, ‘Sorry, it’s actually $100,000. Just make it $100,000 and we’ll call it quits.’ Do these people expect people would just take that on face value and say, ‘Okay, I’ll pay the $100,000. I know we talked about $50,000’?

The member for Benambra will like this one. The Suburban Rail Loop, the daddy of them all, is $34 billion, and it is going to blow out to $125 billion on the latest estimates – nearly four times the cost. Member for Benambra, if you went across to the Impy and asked the publican how much a pint of beer was and he said it was $15 you would say, ‘Well, pour me one’. Then if he poured you the pint of beer and said, ‘That’ll be $55, thank you,’ you would say, ‘Stick your pint of beer where the sun don’t shine. I’m not paying $55. You told me it was going to be $15, and now you’re telling me it’s $55. It’s nearly four times the price.’

This is what those on the government benches do not realise. All their projects blow out by double, triple, quadruple. If we did a lie detector test on half of those on the government benches, I actually think that they would not even believe the story. But they are too scared to stand up to their leadership.

They are too scared to stand up for their communities, and they just do not care. They think Victoria will just pick up the tab. Well, Victoria is sick of picking up the tab, and I think some of those who sit on margins of less than 10 per cent better start standing up to their leadership and standing up for their communities and just do something, as the great John Kennedy said. Just do something. Do not think; do not hope – do. And while they are not doing anything, well, they are eroding their own seat, and their own community know that. Why? Because Victoria needs them to stand up, their community needs them to stand up and even their own family needs them to stand up. If they have the courage, it is not too late to do it.

These blowouts and these financial mismanagements that I talk about – their own goals – are why the ambos are ramped. People are dying waiting 5 hours for an ambo that is ramped somewhere else – just disgraceful. Energy prices have gone through the roof, but renewables will be the answer; your energy prices will come down. What a disgrace. They have not come down. It is just another Labor lie. Financial mismanagement – we talk about the $29 million a day or $1.2 million an hour that we are going to be spending on interest. This is absolutely out of control. To try and fix that, they do not turn around and say, ‘Oh, well, we’ll just back off on the spending. We’ll just introduce more taxes or increase more taxes’ – 60 new taxes. I have got a whole list of them. Victorians are paying more and getting less.

Labor always say in this place that they stand up for the battler – that they are the party for the battler. Well, ask the battler how they are going at the supermarket. Their prices are not coming down there; they cannot afford to fill their supermarket trolley. Ask the battler how they are getting on with their power bills because of this ideological renewables process that they are going through. They are just going to continue to see power bills go up. Ask the battler how they feel about those power bills. In whichever area you look at – registration on cars or anything like that – they are certainly not helping the battler. It is a deception.

Having said all this, this bill is critical. We have heard some of the speakers on this side actually talk about what damage this bill does. It is a lack of transparency that we will have that comes out of this bill. Clauses 5 and 6 – the establishment or abolition of entities and warrants – require ministerial consultation for entity creation or abolition, adding administrative complexity, and remove warrant-based procedures, as you have heard from the member for Brighton, eliminating critical oversight previously provided by the Governor and the Auditor-General. Furthermore, it reduces election period financial reporting – how dare they? Reporting exemptions, clauses 8 to 10, removing governor-issued warrants, erode crucial checks historically conducted by the Auditor-General and the Governor, reducing independent scrutiny. This is deceitful, it is dishonest and it needs to be called out.

I am also concerned about the amount of debt that Victoria finds itself in. We know we have gone from what was around $20 billion. In fact in 1970 it was $6 billion, and it took 44 years to get from $6 billion to $20 billion-odd dollars. It did not take long to get from $20 billion to $194 billion, and now we face a Mount Everest type mountain of debt that we have got to try and get over.

As I say, if only this government would turn around and say, ‘Let’s back off a bit; let’s try a little bit harder,’ but they just keep going, keep spending. Now we have got the Treasurer in New York – I think she may still be there or has just arrived – begging the credit rating agencies to try and keep our credit rating at what it is. I mean, we have gone from AAA to AA-plus to AA. We have had two hits on our credit rating, and now she is out there begging to keep our credit rating where it should be.

Members interjecting.

Tim McCURDY: You do not like to hear the truth. I know that. That is a concern.

A member: She is here.

Tim McCURDY: Oh, she is back, is she? She has just got out of business class, and now she is back. She has got a bit of dirt on her knees from where she was down begging to make sure that we can keep our credit rating instead of getting another drop like we have had. It really is a disgrace, as I say, the gall and the gumption of this government to bring in a bill called financial management. It is just spin and deception.

I have heard those on the other side talk about this bill. They go on and on and on, but they will not address the problem. Stop the spending, slow the spending down and stop the blowouts. Victoria wants the truth and Victoria deserves the truth, and this bill will not deliver the truth.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (18:40): It gives me great pleasure this evening to rise and speak in favour of the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. However, it has not been a great pleasure over the last several hours to tune in, whether it be on the TV in my office or in this place, to the contributions of some of those opposite. It would seem to me that the vast majority of them take their brain out before they walk into the chamber.

Roma Britnell: You’re the main culprit.

Dylan WIGHT: So says the member for South-West Coast. The last thing I would be doing if I was a member of the opposition benches would be critiquing the performance of anyone on this side. Deadset, it is like you take your brains out of your head before you walk into the chamber to make a contribution. We just heard the member for Ovens Valley compare major infrastructure projects to house and land packages. I cannot wait for Metricon to build a tunnel under a river. Seriously, the economic ineptitude and the lack of capacity for anybody on that side of the chamber to make any sort of meaningful contribution that makes any sense – it would be funny if it was not dangerous to democracy. He went on, when talking about a government financial management bill that talks primarily about oversight, to start quoting the price of beer and supermarket shops and talking about how it is the government’s fault that people out there are paying more for groceries when we are talking about a financial management bill that talks primarily about oversight. Honestly, we are here to do important work, not listen to the incoherent ramblings of some pretty dim individuals. Every week that goes by and the more divided that they get, the worse this becomes.

A member interjected.

Dylan WIGHT: Indeed – so distracted. More worried about themselves than they are about coming in here and doing the incredibly important job that hardworking Victorians have voted for them to do. There have been several contributions prior to me on this piece of legislation, and several of them have been pretty misleading. This is a pretty commonsense bill that aims to continue this government’s fiscal plan as outlined towards the end of the COVID pandemic and the restrictions that existed around that. It makes major upgrades to the Financial Management Act 1994 as well as amendments to the Constitution Act 1975 and the Local Government Act 1989 to modernise and clarify financial governance across departments and public bodies, to improve reporting and accountability and also remove outdated requirements for warrants to issue public money.

As I said, there have been several contributions prior to mine. Indeed, the member for Brighton, who is charged with being the Shadow Treasurer and the opposition’s financial spokesperson, has come in here and done nothing more than mislead the house and mislead Victorians as to the intentions of the government. To say that this bill has anything to do with watering down or weakening accountability, or to hide things that are in the budget and reporting requirements, is blatantly untrue. We all understand how politics work, and I understand that the opposition think they have got a job to do, but you cannot just come in here and mislead people. You cannot just go out and drum up fear in the community and think that that is going to be your 1 wood for two or three years, but they know no other way. They know no other way, so they will come in here and they will mislead Victorians at every opportunity that they get.

They bang on and they talk about debt a lot. They also talk about the price of beer and things of that nature as well, but they love to talk about debt. Debt to gross state product is a relatively new measure in Victoria, but if we make our way back to some of the biggest spending governments in this state as a proportion of that measure of GSP, I think it is important to go back to the 1970s and talk about the Bolte government. GSP was not a measure that we used at that time, but if it was, then debt to GSP would have been hovering in the low 40s as a percentage, which indeed would be the highest debt-to-GSP ratio since the Second World War. I am not here to criticise that government for the decisions they made. I am certainly not here to say that a contemporary government in Victoria should aim to get to that level of debt as compared to gross state product. But I think it is important to note why that government was in debt to that amount, and it was because the Bolte government and the Liberal government of those years knew that it was incredibly important to build infrastructure for Victorians and to build and deliver the services that Victorians needed, so they went into debt to do that. Our infrastructure spend accounts for a decent portion of the debt-to-GSP ratio that we have in Victoria today, which is in the 20s.

If we look at infrastructure spend over probably the last 15 years, we came to government and we made no secret of the fact that were going to increase infrastructure spending and we were going to build projects. We were going to do so because it improves the lives of Victorians. It makes it easier for them to get to work. It also drastically improves productivity, which is really important. Projects like the Metro Tunnel, the West Gate Tunnel and the North East Link have several benefits. They have benefits to productivity – getting to work and home from work sooner – but they also mean that Victorians can spend more time with their family, which is incredibly important as well. But it is important to note when we won government in 2014 we had to make up for four years of nothing. Victorian political history may as well just have just a blank slate from 2010 to 2014. It is the reason that the Liberal Party were only in for one term, because they did absolutely nothing in four years time. So we came to government, and we made no secret of the fact that were going to increase infrastructure spending.

We have had a global pandemic, and we have got some supply chain issues and we have got some workforce issues as a result of that, so yes, costs have increased, not just in Victoria but across the whole eastern seaboard. This whole notion that this is a problem that is confined to Victoria, that when the Liberals were in government in New South Wales they did not have the same problem – there were some increased costs, which obviously adds to that. We got to a point where in 2023–24 our infrastructure spend was $24.2 billion. I think the important part to note about that is from that peak of $24.2 billion over the forwards, our infrastructure spend will come down to $15.6 million whilst debt stabilises.

There is a quiet thing that those opposite will not say out loud. As I said in the last sitting week, there is only one bloke – that McCracken fellow in the other place – that will say it out loud. Whilst those opposite will not say the quiet thing out loud, all they talk about is cuts in spending and cuts in debt. We are 18 months or so from an election. They should come clean with the Victorian people as to how they are going to achieve that. We know that they will cut infrastructure projects – they have already said that. McCracken has admitted that they will have to cut spending, so then we have got to talk about what. I can tell you what: school breakfast clubs, the school saving bonus, power saving bonuses, free public transport for children under the age of 18. All the things that those opposite would never support in a million years will be cut if they ever get the gift of government again, and they should come clean with the Victorian people. If they could stop fighting amongst themselves, they might be able to give a cogent plan to the Victorian people.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (18:50): I rise to speak on the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, a bill that seeks to amend the Financial Management Act 1994, the Constitution Act 1975 and the Local Government Act 1989. Interestingly, this bill has been seen before – introduced in the 58th Parliament, or about 2017, but abandoned and now resurrected. It is actually no surprise that it did not progress previously, and it should not be a surprise now, because if there were ever a government that should not be loosening the levers on financial accountability, it is this one. The Allan Labor government is actually the worst economic manager in the state’s history. According to the government, this bill arises from a financial management review – a review that is not complete. We have seen this before: the government uses an excuse of a review, but with the review not being complete, there are no recommendations for the government to act on.

There are several deeply concerning aspects of this bill, and the Liberal Party will be opposing it. First and foremost is the proposal to remove the requirement for quarterly reporting in the December quarter of the next election year. The government claims their pre-election budget is sufficient, but given their consistent failure to deliver on budgets, blowing them year after year, it is no wonder they do not want to be held accountable. Accountability should not be optional, especially not when public money is at stake. Victorians actually deserve transparency, particularly at election time, but this government wants to hide the truth from them because the truth is not flattering.

We, the opposition, are alarmed by the proposals of clauses 5 and 6, and in particular the repealing of section 17 of the act, effectively eliminating a longstanding warrant-based procedure and critical oversight from the Governor and the Auditor-General. The government argues that other states have already moved away from this model, but that conveniently ignores one glaring fact: no other state is carrying Victoria’s debt. So let us be clear: under Labor, Victoria’s debt exceeds that of New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania combined. What do we have to show for it? Are services better? Are outcomes improving? No. In fact Victorians are paying more and getting less.

This is the same government that has introduced over 60 new taxes after promising not to introduce any. When challenged, some Labor members say, ‘Well, how else do you raise revenue?’ That tells you everything. They do not understand or, worse, do not care that you do not tax your way to prosperity. You incentivise growth, you back small business, you create an environment where people can innovate, invest and expand – that is how you raise revenue without punishing families.

One of the most baffling inclusions in this bill is the provision stating that departments and public bodies should operate within their budgets. On the surface you might say, ‘Well, that’s a good thing and actually something everyone would expect.’ But hang on, that is not the breakthrough; basic financial responsibility is not what this government is after. The fact that it is being included now and being paraded as reform just shows how far standards have fallen, because that is something that should always be expected – to stay within your budget.

But even the inclusion of that part in the bill is toothless in itself, because there is no enforcement mechanism, just vague wording saying that the departments ‘should’ stick to budgets. Well, this government should do a lot of things, but we know from history that ‘should’ means nothing if there are no consequences for failure. As an example, one might note the seven IBAC reports calling out this government and its bad behaviour.

Worse still, this Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill allows the Allan Labor government to carve out public bodies from budget adherence requirements if it so chooses. So, sure, you might say that might be a good idea for, say, IBAC or Court Services Victoria, but this is Labor. They will do everything and anything that suits them. That means bodies like WorkSafe might be excluded. As we have already been shown, they have got themselves into some hot water.

Look at WorkSafe. It is an agency that should be safeguarding Victorian workers, yet the financial position has deteriorated so badly that its very existence was putting the functioning safety net under serious threat. That is not hypothetical; that actually happened. Another example: what if Labor carves out the Suburban Rail Loop Authority, a project that has no business case and keeps moving the budgetary goalposts? The state of Victoria just cannot afford this white elephant.

This bill pretends to improve financial management, but in reality it actually just erodes accountability. If you want a case study on Labor’s failure to manage money, just look at the last decade – over $14 billion blown in project overspends $14 billion – that is taxpayer money. That is Victorians’ money wasted. And while government is blowing billions, we have a housing crisis. I see every day in South-West Coast people sleeping rough in freezing cold conditions and women escaping violent homes trying to find somewhere safe for themselves and their children being told there is nothing. Our public housing waitlists have ballooned to over 64,000 people. In 2014 under a Liberal government, that number was 9900. It has exploded under Labor’s watch. I have had people come into my office talking about public homes sitting empty – dozens and dozens across South-West Coast that have sat idle for months, sometimes years. The locals who do the maintenance program for the government or who have worked in the department of housing say that the government have run out of that particular bucket of money for minor repairs, and perfectly good homes sit idle.

In February 2024 I raised a particular house in Crawley Street in Warrnambool that had sat idle for almost a year. I put it on A Current Affair. In October last year it was still vacant. It seemed to be in reasonable condition, and shortly after – because clearly I embarrassed the Labor government – they demolished it. Now, months later, it is still sitting as a vacant block. This is disgraceful. People are homeless, and that is the sort of program this government runs. The Shadow Minister for Housing tells me that only 14 units have been built on vacant government land. Is this why this land sits idle? It is a big block, and the government should be building family homes on it – probably more than one. This example really is just one example, and I constantly have constituents coming into my office reporting that perfectly good homes sit vacant for long periods of time. Often they are single mums waiting for a home who would be grateful for the roof over their head of a home they are saying has been sitting there for months.

This government talks about their Big Build, but since the announcement in 2020, there are 224 fewer public homes in Victoria than before they started the program. The goal for new community housing was missed, with only 30 per cent of their target delivered. In terms of affordable housing, the government promised 2900 homes, and just 640 have been built. That is not progress, that is failure. That is broken promises. Even worse, there are now 3400 fewer public housing bedrooms in Victoria than there were when this program began. We do not just have fewer homes, we have less capacity. So when this government brings in legislation on financial management, asking the Parliament to trust them – to ease off reporting, to remove oversight, and to believe that departments should stick to budgets – I just say: no chance. You want trust? Earn it. You want fewer reporting requirements? Start meeting the ones you have already got. You want to modernise oversight? Then strengthen it – do not gut it.

Victorians are paying the price for this government’s failure every single day. Whether it is power bills, housing stress, a health system in crisis or the growing weight of cost-of-living pressures, it comes back to the simple truth: Labor cannot manage money. And when you cannot manage money, you cannot manage services. You cannot deliver what people need. The Allan Labor government has lost control of the state’s finances, and this bill does nothing to fix that. In fact it makes things worse. By reducing transparency and weakening accountability, that just gives this government more ability to make it worse. That is why we will be opposing the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and standing up for a Victoria that expects better, demands more and deserves a government that knows the value of a dollar.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.