Thursday, 14 August 2025

Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2025

Council’s amendments

Message from Council relating to following amendments considered:

1. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 9 –

‘9A Mid-year report

After section 25(2)(b) of the Financial Management Act1994 insert –

“(ba) must include details of payments made during the period of 6 months ending on 31 ‍December in the financial year out of money advanced to the Treasurer in an annual appropriation Act for that year to meet urgent claims;”.’.

2. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 18 –

‘18A Tabling requirements

(1) For section 46(1) of the Financial Management Act1994 substitute –

“(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the relevant Minister of a department or public body must cause the report of operations and audited financial statements of the department or public body for a financial year to be transmitted to each House of the Parliament on or after the next following 15 October and before the earlier of –

(a) the end of the next following fourth month of the financial year; or

(b) either –

(i) the expiration of the fourth sitting day of that House after the report is received by the relevant Minister; or

(ii) if the first sitting day of a House of the Parliament after the report is received by the relevant Minister is more than 14 days after the date of receipt of the report, the expiration of the fourteenth day after the report is received by the relevant Minister.

(1A) On transmitting a report under subsection (1), the relevant Minister must report to each House of Parliament the date of receipt by the relevant Minister of the report.

(1B) The relevant Minister must not direct a department or public body to submit its report of operations and audited financial statements to the relevant Minister on a particular date.”.

(2) In section 46(2)(b) of the Principal Act, for “laid before each House of the Parliament within 14 sitting days of that House after the request.” substitute “transmitted to each House of the Parliament on or before –

(i) the expiration of the fourth sitting day of that House after the request; or

(ii) if the first sitting day of a House of the Parliament after the request is more than 14 ‍days after the request, the expiration of the fourteenth day after that request.”.

(3) After section 46(3) of the Principal Act insert –

“(3A) The clerk of each House of the Parliament must cause a report transmitted under subsection (1) or (2) to be laid before the House on the day on which it is received or on the next sitting day of the House.

(3B) If the relevant Minister proposes to transmit a report to the Parliament on a day on which neither House of the Parliament is sitting, the relevant Minister must –

(a) give at least one business day’s notice of the relevant Minister’s intention to do so to the clerk of each House of the Parliament; and

(b) give the report to the clerk of each House on the day indicated in the notice.

(3C) The clerk of each House must –

(a) notify each member of the House of the receipt of a notice under subsection (3B)(a) on the same day that the clerk receives that notice; and

(b) give a copy of the report to each member of the House as soon as practicable after the report is received under subsection (3B)(b); and

(c) cause the report to be laid before the House on the next sitting day of the House.

(3D) A copy of a report that is given to the clerks under subsection (3B)(b) is taken to have been published by order, or under the authority, of the Houses of Parliament.

(3E) The publication of a document by the relevant Minister under subsection (3B)(b) is absolutely privileged and the provisions of sections 73 and 74 of the Constitution Act ‍1975 and any other enactment or rule of law relating to the publication of the proceedings of the Parliament apply to and in relation to the publication of the document as if it were a document to which those sections applied and had been published by the Government Printer under the authority of the Parliament.”.

(4) Insert the following note at the foot of section 46 –

“Note

Section 4 of the Members of Parliament (Standards) Act1978 sets out values that a Minister should demonstrate in the carrying out of the Minister’s public duties. These values include accountability.”.’.

3. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 19 –

‘19A Annual reports of State-owned corporations and other bodies

(1) After section 53A(4) of the Financial Management Act1994 insert –

“(4A) The relevant Minister must not direct the body to submit its annual report to the relevant Minister on a particular date.”.

(2) For section 53A(5) of the Principal Act substitute –

“(5) Subject to subsections (6) and (7), the relevant Minister must cause the annual report to be transmitted to each House of the Parliament on or after the next following 15 October and before the earlier of –

(a) the next following 31 October; or

(b) either –

(i) the expiration of the fourth sitting day of that House after the annual report is received by the relevant Minister; or

(ii) if the first sitting day of a House of the Parliament after the annual report is received by the relevant Minister is more than 14 days after the date of receipt of the annual report, the expiration of the fourteenth day after the annual report is received by the relevant Minister.

(5A) On transmitting a report under subsection (5), the relevant Minister must report to each House of Parliament the date of receipt by the relevant Minister of the report.”.

(3) In section 53A(6)(b) of the Principal Act, for “laid before each House of the Parliament within 14 sitting days of that House after the request.” substitute “transmitted to each House of the Parliament before –

(i) the expiration of the fourth sitting day of that House after that request; or

(ii) if the first sitting day of a House of the Parliament after that request is more than 14 days after the date of the request, the expiration of the fourteenth day after that request.”.

(4) After section 53A(6) of the Principal Act insert –

“(6A) The clerk of each House of the Parliament must cause a report transmitted under subsection (5) or (6) to be laid before the House on the day on which it is received or on the next sitting day of the House.

(6B) If the relevant Minister proposes to transmit a report to the Parliament on a day on which neither House of the Parliament is sitting, the relevant Minister must –

(a) give at least one business day’s notice of the relevant Minister’s intention to do so to the clerk of each House of the Parliament; and

(b) give the report to the clerk of each House on the day indicated in the notice.

(6C) The clerk of each House must –

(a) notify each member of the House of the receipt of a notice under subsection (6B)(a) on the same day that the clerk receives that notice; and

(b) give a copy of the report to each member of the House as soon as practicable after the report is received under subsection (6B)(b); and

(c) cause the report to be laid before the House on the next sitting day of the House.

(6D) A copy of a report that is given to the clerks under subsection (6B)(b) is taken to have been published by order, or under the authority, of the Houses of Parliament.

(6E) The publication of a document by the relevant Minister under subsection (6B)(b) is absolutely privileged and the provisions of sections 73 and 74 of the Constitution Act ‍1975 and any other enactment or rule of law relating to the publication of the proceedings of the Parliament apply to and in relation to the publication of the document as if it were a document to which those sections applied and had been published by the Government Printer under the authority of the Parliament.”.

(7) Insert the following note at the foot of section 53A –

“Note

Section 4 of the Members of Parliament (Standards) Act1978 sets out values that a Minister should demonstrate in the carrying out of the Minister’s public duties. These values include accountability.”.’.

Danny PEARSON (Essendon – Minister for Economic Growth and Jobs, Minister for Finance) (14:54): I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

In doing so I would like to make a brief contribution. The Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 makes commonsense changes that support the government to deliver on our fiscal strategy and, importantly, maintain Victoria’s credit rating. These changes improve accountability and transparency across the public sector and its entities, remove outdated aspects of existing legislation and ultimately better reflect the needs of an increasingly dynamic financial and economic environment. The government engaged with the crossbench on the bill in the other place, and the Greens proposed amendments which the government ultimately accepted. I want to place on record my thanks to the Greens political party for their engagement on the bill and suggestions that do contribute further to increasing transparency and improved reporting requirements with regard to financial management.

The first amendment is a requirement for the midyear financial report to include reporting on Treasurer’s advances approved in the first half of the financial year. This aligns with the bill’s intention to improve financial reporting and with the Treasurer’s stated desire to increase transparency over the use of Treasurer’s advances. The second amendment requires annual reports to be transmitted to Parliament by 15 October, or the earlier of 14 calendar days after the relevant minister receives the report and 31 October. This will result in annual reports being transmitted to the Parliament earlier than current arrangements and in a timely fashion.

These are sensible amendments that contribute to the intention of the bill, unlike the criticism from those opposite, which was simply a counterproductive and reckless position to take. Those opposite are continuing to live in the Dark Ages and stop progress with their opposition to this bill, while the government takes action to strengthen financial accountability in this state, enhance further planning and ensure that the public sector is resilient to future challenges. I commend the amendments.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (14:57): I will start by acknowledging that these amendments were ready to be dealt with by the house yesterday, but the government could not find a minister that could deal with the amendments yesterday and so the house, for the first time that I am aware of, could not deal with the amendments on the day they were ready to be dealt with by this chamber. The minister, as I think I heard him say, yesterday was working from home.

Danny Pearson interjected.

James NEWBURY: Oh, he was in Darwin, sorry – not even in the state.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Brighton to come back to the Council’s amendments.

James NEWBURY: I understand, and I do acknowledge that the former speaker sledged the opposition and of course that was not on the amendments either, Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, come back to the Council’s amendments.

James NEWBURY: On these Council amendments, which were listed on the notice paper yesterday, the reason they were not dealt with by this house yesterday when they were listed on the notice paper is because the government could not find a minister to deal with them. So that is why we are dealing with them today. They were on the notice paper yesterday and were not dealt with.

In relation to the bill, what this bill does is reduce financial transparency. In general terms, it reduces financial transparency. That does not mean there are not amendments in the bill, which I spoke to in the debate initially, that are meritorious. There are, but what this bill does is reduce financial transparency. It reduces the number of financial reports that will now be provided to the Victorian community, full stop. The net number of reports that are provided to the community will be reduced, in one part because the department claimed that it was difficult to work hard around an election. We asked in relation to the instances where elections have occurred while this act has been in place whether there has ever been a problem, and they said no. So one does have to wonder whether it was an administrative decision or a political decision. I suspect, like everything with this government, hiding is always the first choice, and the reason why there has been a reduction in financial transparency is because the government does not want it.

In relation to the amendments, what these amendments seek to do is meritorious. The Greens and the government and the opposition have had discussions about the issues that the Greens have raised through these amendments. They were very good, fair and reasonable discussions about the issues that were raised. That is why I suspect that in the Council the government accepted those amendments, because they were aware that the Greens, who had put them forward, and the coalition were supportive of them in principle. It does not mean to say that they are perfect, and please, I would not want the house or the members that moved them to take that as a reflection on what has been moved, other than to say it is something but it is not perfect. I suspect the reason we have not got to a point of perfection is because the government would not have agreed to it.

We have two amendments, the first dealing with Treasurer’s advances and the reporting of Treasurer’s advances, which improves the current system. Integrity experts have spoken about Victoria’s giant slush fund and how Victoria’s use of Treasurer’s advances is way out of pace with any other state and the Commonwealth combined and said there needs to be greater transparency around Treasurer’s advances. I do note the new Treasurer, when she came into the job, said that she did have concerns around Treasurer’s advances but has done nothing about it. I understand that a review was put in place early on of some nature around Treasurer’s advances, but like the Silver review, it has gone nowhere, and clearly it was not a rapid review, as the member for Evelyn rightly said. The Treasurer’s advances are one great big slush fund for this government that are not accountable. At the end of the day we are talking about Victorians’ money, and so there should not be off-the-books spending that is dealt with separately, that is only accounted for publicly previously once a year and now with this amendment twice a year. Twice a year is actually not good enough. It should be more, and there were conversations about whether there could be accountability measures put in place to ensure reporting was monthly or monthly from points of spend, but the government made it clear that it would be too difficult and perhaps too transparent for it to be greater than once every six months. This amendment improves the current system – there is no doubt about it. I would not want the members that have moved this amendment to think that we believe otherwise. We do think it improves the system, but as I said earlier, it is not perfect.

When it comes to the tabling of reports, which is the second set of amendments, it again improves the system but, again, not as perfectly as could be the case. We know that the government times annual reports for a particular day so that we see mountains of annual reports tabled in a way that no-one can meaningfully go through them. The information overload is such that it is difficult to fully understand the level of spend, the level of misspend, of this government. These amendments seek to deal with that by putting stricter timelines around the tabling of those reports.

I do note that an additional measure that was considered as part of the discussions was around the Minister for Finance’s ability to exempt the tabling of reports. Many members of this chamber will remember the extremely long list on the last annual tabling day where the minister exempted multiple pages of a very small font list of reports. From memory, hundreds of reports were exempted – well over a hundred were exempted, from memory – from being tabled within the adequate timeline. This amendment does not fully deal with some of those probity issues. Tightening the timeframes and providing transparency around when the reports are tabled is important. But as I have just raised, there are loopholes, which I suspect the Minister for Finance, who is at the table, knows all too well, because he has used the loophole before and I suspect will use that loophole again in a way that works around the intent of these amendments. And it is disappointing that that will be the case when it occurs.

On both of these amendments, we support them in principle. We think that there are loopholes that could have been closed in a more fulsome way; however, we support the principle of the amendments as they are. I will finish by circling back to the bill in principle and say the government with this bill have claimed to improve financial transparency, but what they have done in fact is reduce financial transparency. This bill was not supported for that reason, but these amendments will be supported by the coalition today.

Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (15:06): As pleasant as it is to see that this bill is back in the house with amendments from the Council, we saw the Victorian Liberal Party oppose the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 that was put before this house, and based on the debate that we had I am pretty sure there was a lot of confusion and a lot of people that actually had not read the bill. There seemed to be a lot of misunderstanding about what the intention of the bill is and what the action of the bill would be. For example, the bill was largely criticised by the Liberals as removing accountability and transparency of the executive, and the Shadow Treasurer at the time took the charge in blocking the legislation.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the Speaker, just before she left, gave a ruling that speeches need to deal with the substance of the amendments, and she was very clear about that. As much as I enjoy the precis and analysis by the member of what I said multiple months ago ‍– perhaps we can have a chat about it outside the chamber – it is not in line with the Speaker’s ruling.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Alison Marchant): I will remind the member to come back to the amendments.

Paul EDBROOKE: Thank you, Acting Speaker; I will try and make your job as easy as possible. However, I think it is worth going into the substance of the bill, and what was decided in the upper house of course is why we are here today. But for those members on the other side that think their discussions, their debates, had no material impact on what happened to this bill when it went through Parliament and why it actually needed to get amended, that is shying away from reality and shying away from their responsibility.

One of the examples we heard was about the use of warrants. For the past 16 years, whether you are Liberal or Labor or whether you are part of various inquiries, that has been something that has been brought up time and time again.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member spoke earlier about the fact that he claimed to have read the bill. Warrants are not part of the amendments that are before the house. It is a matter entirely separate to the debate that is underway. I would ask if you would remind the member to come back to the amendments for a second time.

Paul EDBROOKE: On the point of order, I am totally entitled to give some background behind the substantive argument about these amendments and some context to these amendments, and I believe I am doing that, Acting Speaker.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Alison Marchant): On the point of order – having not heard the ruling before, though – I would just remind the member that this is not debating the amendments. So if you can tie it to the amendments, that would be appreciated.

Paul EDBROOKE: I appreciate your guidance and also the guidance of the Shadow Treasurer as well. I guess you have got to understand, though, that when people misunderstand what is before the house, it goes to their voting patterns and it affects how these different bills go into legislation. What we have seen is, I believe, a misunderstanding of and at some times an uneducated view of this bill.

What has come back from the Council is great. It is good to have a bipartisan view on this bill, and this bill will go into law. It will become something that benefits our community. At the same time, I think it is reckless of those on the other side to suggest that not supporting this bill, for whatever reason they could not substantiate, is something that should be done in this house. People should be reading bills. They should be educating themselves on this. Certainly what I would like to see in this debate in regard to the amendments that have come from the upper house are people that have read the amendments and people that understand what those amendments will do – what effect the amendments will have on this bill and therefore on our community. I think that is really important. What we saw in the original debate on this bill was a ridiculous charade of people that got up on speaking points that made no sense, and we want to see that on these amendments –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this will be the third time the member has had to be counselled on coming back to the amendments. This is not a discussion about an original debate that occurred several months ago. This is a discussion about the amendments that are before the house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Alison Marchant): I will remind the member to come back.

Paul EDBROOKE: I do not want to make life too tough for you, Acting Speaker, so I will ensure that my debate is wound up pretty quickly. I enjoy the fact we can have a conversation in this house – also outside the house – but these amendments go to the core of what we were talking about in the substantive debate. I commend these amendments to the house and hope this bill has a speedy passage.

Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (15:12): I would also like to make a brief contribution on the Financial Management Act 1994 and these amendments. Of course we will be supporting the amendments. They are Greens amendments that were moved and written by the Greens and brought to the other place. We are very happy that they will now become law. First up, I do want to say thank you to the government, in particular the Treasurer’s office and the Minister for Finance’s office, for working with the Greens and their constructive engagement on these amendments when we first had the idea about them. I know there were some inside government who did not like the amendments and were trying to kill them, but I am glad that they were not successful, and I am glad that we are seeing them come before the house today and that we will see an important integrity improvement in Victoria because of these new laws that the Greens have brought forward.

As others have said, the amendments primarily do two things. The first is that they get rid of the ridiculous dump day. Governments on both sides have a long historical practice of dumping hundreds of annual reports on the exact same day, largely to bury information from the public and avoid scrutiny. It is a really important win for democracy, for integrity and for the transparency of this Parliament that these amendments will end that practice. These reports are not just dry admin. They are reports that contain a lot of really important information – reports from government agencies and departments that contain things like how our health services are operating, ambulance ramping data, data about police misconduct, data about how money is being spent, whether big projects are running to their budgets or not, important data about our environment and much, much more. There are literally hundreds of them. Often governments have wanted to keep this information quite inaccessible, keep it secret if they can and keep it hidden.

It is important for good governments to be transparent with the public, because if this information can be made transparent, then we can look at it and we can figure out how to genuinely improve things. If our hospital services are not performing the way the public expects or the way the government expects, that information needs to be out there so that we can genuinely have a conversation about how to improve it. I know our politics these days have become a bit of a servant to the 24-hour news cycle. It has some unintended consequences where governments are now feeling like they do not have the time to address big, tricky issues that come before them before they are just splashed on the front page of the paper as a scandal. I have some sympathy for governments around that and around how difficult it is to govern in these times, but that is not an excuse to have a reaction which is just to hide the information. That is not how we need to address this problem, so it is good that we will be seeing more transparency and integrity reforms because of these bills. The amendments will see that the reports will have deadlines on when they need to be tabled in Parliament and when they need to be made public, and it will not be up to ministers or the government to dictate when that happens so they can all happen on the same day. That is good for the Victorian public.

The other set of amendments deals with the issue of Treasurer’s advances, where the Treasurer has been able to spend money in quite a secretive manner. I know that has been a matter of some conjecture over the past few years in particular. These amendments will require reporting on this every six months so there is a lot more transparency around the Victorian budget and how money is being spent. They are commonsense and important integrity reforms, and we are very proud that the Greens have brought them before the Parliament and that today we will see them become law.

Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (15:15): I also rise to speak on the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and particularly the amendments made by the Council. I think I missed the opportunity to speak on the substantive bill, which is a little bit of a shame. I just want to reference some of the initial statements made by the member for Brighton in asking why these amendments were not discussed yesterday. I thought that was actually quite rude to the minister at the table, the Minister for Finance. As the minister himself said –

James Newbury interjected.

Paul HAMER: He was not in the state, because he was attending to government business. He was not gallivanting on some holiday, and I think it is only appropriate that the amendments be dealt with now the minister has returned to Parliament and has been able to present them. There has been a lot of work which has been done through the minister and through the minister’s office and the Treasurer’s office, and it was only right and proper that he had the opportunity to present the amendments to the house, and I thank him for it.

In terms of the amendments that are sought to be passed today, if we look back at the context of the bill and what we are trying to achieve through the amendment bill, it is about the reporting obligations of public sector agencies and clearer requirements for financial disclosures, performance reporting and risk management, making it easier for the Parliament, the public and oversight bodies to scrutinise how these funds are used. I think the changes that were canvassed and proposed in the other house and were accepted by the government are complementary to these and, as other speakers have said, further strengthen the legislation in this regard. There is a large number of reports and there is a very significant number of government agencies and government departments, and they are spending large sums of taxpayer money. It is important that the annual reports and other financial statements of these agencies are reported – as they always are and as they always should be – and if there are processes for them to be put in within clearer timeframes and to make sure that those timeframes are clearer for Parliament, for the public and for members of the community to consider them, then that is an important step forward. I will keep my contribution brief, but I think the amendments that have been proposed and accepted by the Council really go to the heart of what we were trying to achieve with the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill in the first place, and I commend the amendments to the house.

Bridget VALLENCE (Evelyn) (15:19): I rise also to speak on the amendments passed in the other place in relation to the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I think some members on the other side will be happy that I actually have read the amendments, so I will be able to speak to them, unlike the member for Frankston. But this is still a bad bill. Even with the amendments that we passed and supported in the other place, it is still a bad bill. These new amendments only make a bad bill a little less bad, and it really will give this tired Labor government even greater power to hide the true state of Victoria’s disastrous financial situation – to hide from the reporting and the transparency that every Victorian deserves, particularly when we have the state of the budget and the state of the finances skyrocketing to nearly $200 billion of debt and Victorian taxpayers funding $1.2 million an hour of interest repayments alone.

This is a bill that seeks to destroy accountability and transparency, as I said, and to remove the ordinary transparency that has been occurring year after year, election cycle after election cycle, of Labor governments and Liberal governments. It has been happening for a long, long time, and all of a sudden this government wants to strip Victorians of that transparency just before the next state election – surprise, surprise. It removes the requirement for this government to report on what Victoria’s finances look like before Victorians are due to make an extremely important decision at the next state election. Every other government before this – as I said, Liberal and Labor – has had to disclose the true state of Victoria’s finances and the financial position in the lead-up to an election. But this Labor government, which has become obsessed with control, spin, deceit and secrecy, will deny disclosing this very valuable and important information to Victorians just before an election. It is an utter disgrace. As the Shadow Treasurer mentioned –

Mathew Hilakari: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is a debate around the amendments that are coming from the upper house, and we are straying well beyond that at the moment.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Alison Marchant): On the point of order, I think the Manager of Opposition Business is linking things to the amendments that are before the house, but I ask her to come back to the amendments.

Paul Edbrooke interjected.

Bridget VALLENCE: A bit loose? The member for Frankston did not even refer to the amendments for one second in his contribution, and Hansard will reflect that. As I said, and I will repeat: this government has become obsessed with control, deceit, secrecy and a lack of transparency, and it will absolutely deny disclosing that extremely important information for Victorians just before the election. It is an absolute disgrace. That is the sneaky piece that they inserted in this legislation, and that is what they have been able to get through the upper house with these amendments in a deal with the Greens so that they can avoid that extremely important level of transparency – throw it out the window so Victorians do not get to see the true state of the budget before the election. It was because they could get that deal and those amendments up in the upper house that Victorians will be denied the opportunity to know the true state of the budget.

These amendments before us will go only some way to restoring an extra little bit of responsible financial management. What these amendments are seeking to achieve is to have a little bit of extra transparency, particularly around the Treasurer’s advance and how it is used and how it is spent, and that is absolutely long overdue. The Treasurer’s advance has been an important mechanism, but it should be used only in a narrowcast way. Under this tired Labor government, however, the Treasurer’s advance has been completely and utterly abused to the point where it has become an absolute slush fund, just as the Shadow Treasurer has said, to fund Labor’s pet projects and schemes, and it has been hidden from the budget papers. The Treasurer’s advance has been hidden from the budget papers.

The Treasurer’s advance has always and traditionally been intended to be used to access funds in times of emergencies, for example, a natural disaster like the severe and devastating storms that hit the Yarra Ranges in my community. But under this corrupt government, under Labor, it has been used like a credit fund, like a slush fund, to pay for this government’s political projects. It was revealed late last year just before the former Treasurer Tim Pallas resigned that Victoria had drawn $10 billion from the Treasurer’s advance to cover hospital spending, infrastructure work and, worst of all, the settlement of the Commonwealth Games fiasco. These funds are never disclosed in the budget papers and only revealed a year after they are actually spent. I think many in this chamber will remember at the last budget when the health budget was cut by a billion dollars by this Labor government. Hospitals were facing the prospect of being forced to close and cancel surgeries. This Labor government had decimated the health budget.

Paul Edbrooke: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, as has been articulated many, many times before in this debate, this is a very narrow debate about what has come back from the upper house, and I ask you to draw the member back to that.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Alison Marchant): Manager of Opposition Business, I remind you to come back to the amendments.

Bridget VALLENCE: The Treasurer’s advance is expressly one of the amendments that we are discussing today. It is precisely why it is so important to remind the house how this Labor government has been using the Treasurer’s advance so dismally, with such a lack of transparency, which is precisely why this amendment has been brought forward that we support.

The health budget was cut by a billion dollars by this Labor government, and as I said, hospitals were facing forced closure and cancelling vital surgeries for everyday Victorians. But after the political pressure got too much, this Labor government raided the Treasurer’s advance to the tune of $1.45 billion just to keep hospitals from being shut down. We then saw that $1.36 billion was ripped out of the Treasurer’s advance to spend on the Suburban Rail Loop (SRL), this project that very few Victorians want. It is not going to assist anyone in my local community. It is so bad that the federal Labor government is no longer committing any further funding to this project, and there is a business case that is not really thorough or has no rigour around it. But we now hear that this Labor government plans to hit property owners with a new tax to pay for the Suburban Rail Loop, and that is after they raided the Treasurer’s advance in order to pay for it. This is why we need more transparency.

Mathew Hilakari: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the speaker on her feet might say it is relevant for the last word that she said, but the previous 2½ minutes were not relevant. This is not a budget take-note speech. It is a response to the changes from the upper house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Alison Marchant): There is no point of order.

Bridget VALLENCE: This SRL project is haemorrhaging money for the state and sucking vital funds from essential services that Victorians rely on. The Labor government cannot get anything more from the Commonwealth government. They are going to have to tax Victorians more, and that is why they had to use the Treasurer’s advance. It is precisely why we want more transparency from the Treasurer’s advance.

Mathew Hilakari: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, once again, you have counselled the member several times now to say that she has got to be brought to being relevant to the debate that is at hand. I am not clear, other than the last few words that the member says at any point in time, that it is actually relevant to the debate.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Alison Marchant): I ask the Manager of Opposition Business to come back to the amendments, please.

Bridget VALLENCE: We have also discovered that the Treasurer’s advance, which is exactly what this amendment goes to, was used by this Labor government to fund wages of public servants working at the Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions to the tune of $15 million because they are running out of money.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (15:29): Sometimes I think the opposition are just opposing for the sake of opposing. I mean, the substance of their arguments and rebuttals is pretty thin. Particularly on this bill, they have really distorted a lot of the aspects of the bill, to say the least, if we want to speak to the actual amendments that have been made. I know there was some considered engagement with the crossbench and certainly the Greens political party, and we thank them for those productive elements. I note that the member for Brighton could have put forward amendments but left it to the Greens, so fair enough. That is what it is – no need for moaning after the fact.

The first amendment adds a requirement for the midyear financial report to include reporting on Treasurer’s advances approved in the first half of the financial year. This aligns with the bill’s intent to improve financial reporting and with the Treasurer’s stated desire to increase transparency over the use of the Treasurer’s advances. I am speaking to these amendments, because that is certainly my understanding of the way such bills are to be debated when they return to the lower house. The second amendment requires annual reports to be transmitted to the Parliament between 15 October and the earlier of four sitting days after the relevant minister receives the report – 14 calendar days or 31 ‍October. This will result in annual reports being transmitted to the Parliament earlier than current arrangements and in a timely fashion.

They are sensible amendments that contribute to the intention of the bill, unlike the criticism from those opposite, which is simply counterproductive and a reckless position to take – irresponsible. Those opposite are continuing to sort of peddle in the Dark Ages and stop progress with their opposition to this bill, while the government takes action to strengthen – and that is what I find so galling – accountability for the state and transparency. I do not know why they are faffing about with it. Their arguments, as I say, are spurious to say the least. It does not reflect well. But in any case, we have got it here, we have got the amendments. I commend this bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Alison Marchant): A message will now be sent to the Legislative Council informing them of the house’s decision.