Wednesday, 4 March 2020

Matters of public importance

Budget

The SPEAKER (02:01): I have accepted a statement from the member for Ripon proposing a following matter of public importance for discussion as set out on page 18 of the notice paper. It reads:

That this house condemns the budgetary and project mismanagement of the Andrews Labor government which has already led to:

(1) the Treasurer admitting his budget needed deep cuts when he said to Neil Mitchell on 3AW on 12 February 2020, ‘I’m looking at every line item of expenditure, and I’m looking to take something like $4 billion out of government expenditure going forward’;

(2) budget cuts across the board, including to regional road maintenance, corrections and hazard reduction burns on public land;

(3) hospital waitlists increasing;

(4) unemployment rising above the national average on the most recently released data;

(5) an inability to solve the recycling crisis; and

(6) an admission by the Treasurer to Neil Mitchell on 3AW on 14 February 2020 that he will not rule out further taxation increases in the upcoming budget.

Ms STALEY (Ripon) (14:02): So the Andrews Labor government has buggered the budget, buggered recycling and imposed a $1 billion bin tax on Victorians. They have run out of money, and when Labor runs out of money they come after yours.

We are in the second-last sitting week before the budget, and if their public comments are anything to go by the prebudget cabinet meetings must be an all-out war—a war between a Treasurer hell-bent on telling all and sundry at any opportunity about his $4 billion cuts in expenditure and a Premier intent on covering them up. At every turn the Treasurer has volunteered how dire the position is—and that is the position of course that the government has created for itself. If we look at 12 February this year, on Mornings with Neil Mitchell the Treasurer said:

These are going to be difficult times.

Mitchell said:

Will you cut back on expenditure?

The Treasurer said:

Well, yes.

Mitchell said:

How?

The Treasurer:

We’ve made it clear. Well, I’m leading a base review process right across all public sector departments at the moment. I’m looking at every line item of expenditure and I’m looking to take something like $4 billion out of government expenditure going forward.

But the Premier senses the political quicksand of announcing $4 billion in cuts—quicksand that we see every day. We talk about this in this chamber with the backbench behind him. They are not very keen on these cuts and not very keen that Labor will be cutting services and they will be cutting people, because $4 billion is a lot of money to take out of the budget. The Premier understands that there is some political downside to this, so he will not publicly agree with his Treasurer. Instead, of course, the Premier is trying to con Victorians that $4 billion in cuts is what they voted for in 2018. On 20 February in Parliament, when he was asked if he endorsed the Treasurer’s cuts, the Premier said:

… the Treasurer’s absolute focus on making sure that every dollar in the budget aligns with the priorities of this government, because they are the priorities—

…

They are the priorities that were resoundingly endorsed by the Victorian community …

But the Premier’s attempts to spin these massive budget cuts have to be called out. This is a whole new level of Orwellian doublespeak. The Victorian people are not turkeys voting for Christmas, and to treat them as such shows a level of hubris right up there with Gough Whitlam.

Now, we already know the Premier’s word on taxes is worthless. We all remember his solemn pledge before the 2014 election on Channel 7 to Peter Mitchell. He said, when he was asked about no new taxes:

I make that promise, Peter, to every single Victorian …

Yet Victorians are now being slapped with 27 new or increased taxes since the election of the Andrews Labor government. And then the Treasurer doubled down on the fantasy of no tax increases prior to the 2018 election when he told Victorians that his plans contained:

… no new taxes, whatsoever. No new tax increases, no extra charges, it’s all there in black and white.

Well, what is all there in black and white, when we look at this list of 27 new taxes, is that we have got a new stamp duty on property transfers between spouses. We have got an increased stamp duty on new cars. There is a new stamp duty on off-the-plan purchases. There is the vacant home tax, but then they widened the vacant residential land tax to uninhabitable properties. Too bad if you have gone into a nursing home and your property, which is the family home, is not right for rental; now you have got to put the money in and upgrade it. Too bad that Mum might have dementia and it might be difficult. No, this government thinks that you have to make your family home available to the rental market.

We have had increased fire services property levies. We have had a new point-of-consumption gambling tax. We have had goldmining royalties—particularly difficult for my electorate of Ripon where we have one goldmine that had been closed and has reopened and did not plan on having to pay this tax. That tax was introduced with no consultation, entirely against the wishes of the industry, who were prepared to pay a tax. They have never said they would not pay a tax. What they said is they wanted input into the design of the tax. But no, no—this government knew better. They were not going to consult with industry as to how the tax—which by the way is at a higher rate than WA—would be implemented. The list of new taxes goes on and on.

And so now we have the Premier and the Treasurer, who lie exposed as saying one thing before an election and doing another after it because there are new taxes and there are extra charges, and it is all there in black and white. And more taxes are coming. The Treasurer tells us so, and on this I absolutely believe him. In February this year the Treasurer tried unsuccessfully to rewrite history by claiming that prior to the last election he was asked to give a commitment not to increase taxes and said anyone who did that would be foolhardy. Well, I do not remember him saying that. What in fact he said was that it was all there in black and white that there were no new taxes, no new charges—all there in black and white.

He then went on to say, ‘We’re just going to look at how most effectively we run taxes’. Well, of course when Labor talk about how effectively they run taxes, it is how effectively they can put them up. Again, he said he would be disingenuous if he did not tell people these were trying times. Well, in trying times, in periods of economic difficulties, what you want to do is reduce taxes so that people have more money in their pocket that they can use to stimulate demand to restart the economy. But no, no—again in February, on Neil Mitchell, the Treasurer was asked about new taxes, and Neil Mitchell said:

You will not rule out taxation increases?

And the Treasurer said:

That’s absolutely right, Neil.

This government has been in power for over five years, and they have had five years to lay out their priorities. We have had five years of increased taxes at every turn. The one I particularly want to talk about is the new one, which is the 90 per cent increase in the landfill levy. They have had five years—five budgets—to prioritise fixing the recycling crisis and the toxic waste crisis. They have had five budgets where the minister should have been advocating to the Treasurer for this, should have been advocating for money to fix it; five budgets where the government had opportunities to spend the Sustainability Fund on fixing these problems; and five years—over five years—to introduce a container deposit scheme, one that is actually up and running rather than pushed out past the next election.

But why do that when the government can let the problems fester—fester away under the inept leadership of the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, a minister whose record is outstanding in its incompetence. How useless must she be that there were fewer—yes, fewer—solar installations under her free solar program than when consumers had to pay to get solar installed.

Mr R Smith: Fewer businesses by the end of it, too.

Ms STALEY: Yes indeed, member for Warrandyte; fewer solar installation businesses. Yes, and this minister is incoherent—and I will save the house’s ears by not reading into Hansard some of her many entirely unintelligible attempts to answer a question or put a position. This minister has known about China not taking Victoria’s commingled waste for years. This minister has known about illegal toxic waste dumps for years. This minister has had hundreds of millions of dollars in the Sustainability Fund to spend fixing these problems. But what does she do? She increases the landfill levy—the bin tax—by 90 per cent.

There is enough money in there already to pay for the programs she has now belatedly announced, so there was no need at all to increase that tax. It is just another way—because of course that tax flows to the budget—to prop up this budget through yet another tax. Today we have had a new idea about how they are going to run their own tolling scheme. Will that go through the budget? At every point this government is far more innovative than I could ever be, I have got to say, in thinking up new taxes.

Mr R Smith: And audacious.

Ms STALEY: And audacious, member for Warrandyte, indeed—audacious in their mendacity.

There is no doubt that we as a state and a nation are facing economic shocks. The massive bushfires and the effects of coronavirus, both domestically and in its impact on global economic growth, are significant exogenous effects with negative consequences—and I expect the member for Essendon will comment on that phrase. This is when a strong budget position puts us in a position to be able to ride out these problems. We need to have room to cut taxes to stimulate demand. We need to have an efficient and effective taxation and budgetary position and system so that when you have things that arrive that you were not planning on—and nobody had planned on coronavirus—you actually have capacity. But of course this government has not got capacity, and it does not have the will. Their entire idea is you just put up the taxes because—

Mr Rowswell interjected.

Ms STALEY: Yes. Thank you, member for Sandringham—they have buggered the budget.

We are yet to see the additional $4 billion in cuts that the Treasurer tells us are coming. Yet before we even get that $4 billion in cuts, what have we seen as they have played around the edges trying to desperately prop up their budgetary position? We have seen elective surgery waitlists blow out; they have blown out enormously in the last quarter. We know that every single health network in Victoria is under massive financial pressure, and more than ever have been required to sign a letter to the government with a deficit budget. They have all got letters of comfort from the government because there is not enough money in health. They have already made cuts to health.

On roads maintenance, the previous budget already set out, again in black and white—budgets are like that; they are in black and white—that roads maintenance will be cut over the forwards. It is there. It cannot be argued against that their plan is to spend less on roads maintenance in the out years that they are spending this year.

We have also already seen the exposure of their massive cuts to hazard reduction burns. These are down by 68 per cent—I think it might be that; it might be more—and we have seen pretty poor outcomes from that. We have got $4 billion more in budget cuts coming because, remember, the Treasurer said he is going to go through the budget line by line and he has refused to take any areas of expenditure off the table for his cuts. The Premier is telling us that these are the cuts that Victorians voted for. So everything that the government cuts is what Victorians voted for, according to the Premier. Every cut in service, every rise in hospital waiting lists and every reduction in our already crumbling, crappy rural roads is because that is what Victorians voted for, according to the Premier.

It is not long now before we get to the budget, and when we do we will see the full exposure of where this government is. But we are already seeing the effect of how they are managing the economy flowing through to unemployment, because the unemployment rate in Victoria has now risen above the national average. It is now at 5.4 per cent, and that is above the national average. It is also substantially higher than New South Wales. New South Wales is almost a full percentage point below Victoria in its unemployment rate. Unfortunately for those of us who live in rural areas the unemployment situation is just not good at all—for example, Bendigo’s unemployment rate has risen by 1.4 per cent over the past year; unemployment in Victoria’s north-west, which is where I live, is up by 1.3 per cent. These are real people who are losing their jobs because this government does not care about them.

Ms Green: On a point of order, Speaker, I took the decision not to interrupt the member for Ripon while she was speaking, but I would like you to draw her attention to the use of unparliamentary language. She used the word ‘crappy’ and I also heard her use the word ‘buggered’. I really take offence to the use of that word. It makes reference to historical offences that were used wrongly against gay people, and I would ask that she refrain from using the term ‘buggered’ in the chamber.

Ms McLeish: On the point of order, Speaker, that language that the member for Yan Yean has mentioned has been used many times in this Parliament. ‘Bugger’ and ‘buggered’ have both been used considerably. Look back to records of Hansard from 1992 and you will find that that has been accepted in this house by members of both sides.

The SPEAKER: I do not think that the word that the member for Yan Yean mentioned was used in the context that has been suggested, but nonetheless I would remind members generally to try to use language that they would be happy for the schoolchildren who sometimes watch Parliament to listen to.

Mr R Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, since we are sticking to the rules can I draw your attention to the member for Nepean and the previous Speaker’s rulings regarding political badges and their appropriateness in this chamber?

The SPEAKER: I thank the member for Warrandyte for that. I cannot see the member for Nepean.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! For the benefit of the member for Nepean, political badges are not allowed in the house, so I would ask him to remove the badge if it is a political one.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member will remove the badge without the assistance of members of the opposition.

Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (14:19): I rise to oppose this ill-conceived, ill-considered matter proposed by the member for Ripon. I am proud to be a member of the Andrews Labor government. I am really proud of our legacy of strong financial management. The reality is that we have been producing budget surpluses year in and year out for years. The last Labor Treasurer to preside over a budget deficit was Tony Sheehan in 1992. The last Treasurer of this state to preside over a budget deficit was in fact the current Leader of the Opposition back in 2012–13.

This notion that there is budgetary and project mismanagement is just patently false. If you look at the measure of debt as a proportion of gross state product—and that is the appropriate way in which you should measure debt rather than in nominal dollars—it is a measure that goes to looking at the capacity of the economy to service a debt in the general government sector. What we determined at the last state election was that we would increase that cap from 6 per cent of gross state product in the general government sector to 12 per cent in order to fund the Melbourne Airport rail link, the North East Link and the 25 additional rail crossings. These are three—well, 27, actually, including the 25 additional rail crossings—really important initiatives that need to be delivered in order to create the society that we also aspire to live in. And you have got to pay for it. It has got to be funded by some means, and it is indeed appropriate that the debt levels be increased to accommodate that.

The other point to make is that historically the long-term average in the general government sector for debt as a proportion of GSP was actually around about 18 per cent. That was the case under the Labor governments. That was the case under Liberal governments up until the late 1980s. So historically we are absolutely well under the long-term average, and we are making these investments to drive the economy. I mentioned this in my committee report contribution earlier today. What you had when those opposite occupied the Treasury benches was a government that was not investing and that was not building any major projects. I remember talking to people in business in those years, particularly in the early years of the Baillieu government. There was not any sense that the government had any initiative or any idea of where it wanted to go. From the private sector’s perspective the response to that was, ‘If you’re not going to use your money and invest in the economy, why should we? If you’re not going to build critical infrastructure and make that long-term commitment to the state, then we will not take on extra workers because we cannot be sure that there will be a job for them. We will not make additional investments into property plant equipment because we just do not know if there will be the capacity for us to repay that debt’.

What you have seen under this government has been a series of investments that will transform the city and this state. As a consequence of that you have seen an enormous amount of wealth being created. We have created an extra one in seven jobs since we were elected in 2014. Those were jobs that did not exist. You just have to drive around this city or drive around our state to see the amount of roadworks that are currently underway, to see the amount of construction activity. Goodness me, I wish I had invested in companies that were producing hi-vis vests 10 years ago because, honestly, you would be worth an absolute fortune now given the amount of investment that is occurring in this state.

We have got a strong handle on the state economy and we are driving fantastic results for our community. And we are reinvesting. You often hear those opposite saying Labor is spending money. They never talk about reinvesting. They never talk about making investments that we need in terms of our schools, our hospitals, our roads and rail network. That is exactly what we are doing, and by doing that we are creating an enormous amount of wealth and affluence in our community and we are building a fairer and more progressive economy.

I will go to the first point of the member’s matter of public importance where it talks about the Treasurer’s comments on the Neil Mitchell program. The member seems to be taking a great exception to the idea that a Treasurer would go through and look at line by line expenditure. Well, why wouldn’t we? Why wouldn’t we go through the budget? Why wouldn’t we look at it line by line to work out whether—

Ms Staley interjected.

Mr PEARSON: I will take up the interjection. If there were programs which were initiated by those opposite which may still be being funded, which may not be in alignment with our core values, which may not be an efficient and effective use of taxpayer resources, then I think they should be cut. I do not know what planet you guys are on, but I am on the planet where you have got good and appropriate use of taxpayer funds and you have an efficient way in which taxpayer funds are expended. I think that when you have got a Treasurer who is going through these matters line by line that is an entirely appropriate thing to do to make sure that taxpayer funds are being appropriately expended and that the funds that are being expended are being expended in a way which benefits the people of Victoria. That is an entirely appropriate thing to do.

Of course you have to spend that time and go through it carefully and then you make that determination, and indeed that is a matter for the Expenditure Review Committee of Cabinet to work its way through, but again I just make the point that you would expect a good Treasurer to be doing this sort of work on a routine basis to make sure that things are being spent accordingly.

I got this matter of public importance last night and I was sort of pondering this matter and thinking about what I would say. Item (2) in the matter is:

budget cuts across the board, including to regional road maintenance, corrections and hazard reduction burns on public land …

The budget will not be handed down until May. I am not aware that there has been any proposal to have any form of reduction in expenditure on these items at all. I am not quite sure how you can say there are budget cuts when a budget has not been handed down. If you are going to bring a matter before the house, have it thought through. Have it thought through and considered so you can point to it. This is just making stuff up.

In relation to hospital waitlists increasing, the issue around hospital waitlists increasing relates to the fact that we had one of the worst influenza outbreaks in our state’s history. Of course when you have a significant number of people presenting to accident and emergency departments seeking urgent help and assistance—and we know that if you do experience the flu and you are an older person, that can be quite deadly—indeed in the second quarter of 2019–20 there were 479 163 emergency presentations, of course that will have an impact upon the ability of hospitals to respond in terms of elective surgery. If you think about it, if I am due to have a hip replacement and I am scheduled to go and be operated on and be in hospital for a period of a week, and you have got a 70-year-old or an 80-year-old who is presenting at the same hospital on the same day with symptoms of influenza and they are at risk of dying, what are you going to do? Of course you are going to turn around and prioritise care. You have to try and find a way—

Ms Staley: Are you really saying you can’t plan your health service?

Mr PEARSON: Okay, the interjection from the member opposite is you can’t plan your health service properly. What I am saying is there are unforeseen events and you are dealing with a hospital system which can at times experience almost infinite demand, and you have to prioritise and you have to schedule how you intend to deal with these things.

The other point that I would make too, just taking up the member for Ripon’s interjection, is notwithstanding the amount of pressure that has been applied to the hospital system in terms of dealing with the influenza outbreak, the median wait time for elective surgery in the 2018–19 financial year with 28 days. For people who were in category 1 the median time was 10 days. Compare and contrast that with when those opposite held the Treasury bench: their median was 42 days. You are comparing 42 days under their efforts with our 28 days, so notwithstanding the fact that we had huge levels of presentations at our hospital systems as people sought to get that urgent care that they needed, we had the capacity in the system to respond to that. Yes, it is regrettable and it is unfortunate that elective surgery had to be rescheduled, but you do not have a choice when you have got people who are at risk of dying. You just do not have a choice when people are at risk of dying. The matter that the member has put forward talking about it is just flawed.

In terms of the way in which the economy is growing, we are investing heavily in our state, and you can see that reflected in the overall trend of the unemployment figures. We have got the lowest payroll tax rate for regional Victoria ever, and I think if you look at the impact that it is having across the nation, I believe it is the lowest payroll tax rate for any regional area in the country. As a result of that we are seeing very low rates of unemployment, significantly lower than what we inherited when we arrived in office.

So it is laughable when those opposite are turning around and criticising us on our budgetary management where you have got an enormous amount of jobs being created—I think the figure is well over half a million jobs have been created since 2014—and where we have got an extremely low unemployment rate, far lower than when they were in government. I think their figure was around about 7 per cent. We are now driving a very strong, robust economy, and we are seeing the benefits from that.

You cannot turn around and talk about budgetary and project mismanagement when you are dealing with this level of investment and you are getting these sorts of benefits from the economy. The other point I would make too is that to criticise this government for not ruling out further tax increases in the upcoming budget—we have to as a government be able to respond to the challenges that confront us. Yes, we have got budget surpluses and we have had budget surpluses each and every year that we have been in office. Six months ago you could not have predicted the bushfires. No-one could have predicted the bushfires. You certainly could not have predicted the coronavirus three months ago. These are very, very recent phenomena and they are going to have a significant impact on our economy.

For the reasons I have outlined we have got a very low debt-to-GSP ratio in the general government sector, so we do have the policy ammunition to respond to those issues if we need to. But we absolutely must reserve the right to look at further taxation increases in order to ensure that we can continue to provide core government services. We have a statutory obligation to provide education to our children. We need to make sure that we have got the ability to turn around and to respond to these challenges, and it is absolutely the right of this government to seek to look at introducing further taxation measures if it feels that it is important and if it thinks that it is imperative to do so. It would be irresponsible for us not to consider that.

When you unpack it all we have invested heavily in our state and we are leading the nation in terms of economic growth. We are acting in a prudent and financially responsible manner, because our debt as a proportion of gross state product is probably at one of the lowest levels it has ever been, yet we are still making these sorts of investments. The Treasurer is absolutely right to work his way through, line by line, the financial statements to make sure that money is appropriately being spent and that it is in alignment with the expectations of the community now. It reflects the verdict of the people back in 2018—not, for example, what people may have voted for in 2010. He is absolutely within his rights to do that work and to reflect that.

Moreover, we are within our rights to look at a further introduction of taxation if that is what is required. We have got some significant challenges. It is a bit like looking at the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System—that is a significant piece of work that is going to need to be funded, and we have to act responsibly financially and we have to find ways in which we can make these sorts of investments to create the society that we need and that we want.

In this grab bag of initiatives that the member for Ripon has introduced it seems like there is something there for everyone so anyone who is speaking on the matter of public importance from those opposite has got something to speak about. It does her no service, it does the Liberal Party no service, because it is a flawed motion. It is not based on reality, it is not based on facts. We are running a very strong, disciplined government, and that is reflected in the fact that we are producing budget surpluses year after year. Our debt levels are low, we are growing the state and we are creating a fairer Victoria, and it is for those reasons that I absolutely and wholeheartedly oppose this deeply flawed motion moved by the member for Ripon.

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (14:34): It is always interesting following the member for Essendon. A lot of members of Parliament as they come to this place and as their careers progress actually improve in the contributions they make to the Parliament. Some actually go backwards. I will leave it to the people that have been listening to the last 15 minutes to make a judgement about the member for Essendon’s contribution this time, because to me it effectively was incoherent. I was not sure of the message that he was putting through at all.

He talked about the legacy of the current government. The legacy of the current government is going to be remembered as cuts and taxes. Cuts and taxes—that is all it is going to be remembered for. Debts are going up, taxes are going up, services are going to be cut and people are going to lose their jobs. It is going to be all about cuts and taxes, so I do not know why he thinks there is going to be some important legacy from the Andrews government.

He tried to justify the blowout in waiting lists. I just do not understand the logic of that. For a government that says health is one of its priorities, it is one of its failures. To have an increase of over 10 000 on the waiting list is just appalling. For the people that are waiting for hips, for knees, for their eyes to be fixed or whatever, to think that this government says health is one of its priorities and to have the blowout on the waiting list that it has is just absolutely appalling.

I rise to support the member for Ripon’s matter of public importance (MPI) and the fact that it condemns the Andrews government’s budgetary and project mismanagement of this state and goes on to describe a whole lot of reasons why that is the case. Somehow the member for Essendon is a bit like the Premier—he is trying to crab-walk away from the press conference and from the interview with Neil Mitchell that the Treasurer gave, where he said:

We’ve made it clear. Well, I’m leading a base review process right across all public sector departments at the moment. I’m looking at every line item of expenditure and I’m looking to take something like $4 billion out of government expenditure going forward.

I do not know which bit the member for Essendon missed about that actually being cuts. Four billion dollars out of the state budget is going to require big cuts—huge cuts—in services and in staff, and I am not sure where the member for Essendon missed that in the memo that went round the backbench.

Mr Richardson interjected.

Mr WALSH: Well, that is where the member for Essendon is. It is great to see the member for Mordialloc here, and I am sure he will make some great interjections as we go through this contribution.

If you look at roads, we have the absolute tragedy of a huge increase in the number of fatalities on Victorian roads. Two hundred and sixty-six people tragically have died on our roads in Victoria. After decades of the road toll going down, the road toll is now going up. There is a very good saying by those in country Victoria that if you actually fix country roads you save country lives. What we have seen is a reduction in the investment in country roads, particularly the country roads and bridges program that was taken out. That was $1 million for each of the 40 councils right across regional Victoria that actually helped them fix those country roads, and that was each and every year. That has been taken out.

We have had the split-up of VicRoads into Regional Roads Victoria—again a smokescreen to make sure that the budget cuts are not as easily identified. But everyone that drives around the roads in country Victoria knows that the roads are in a much worse condition than they were before. So what is the government’s solution to that? Put up an 80-kilometre sign, put up a 60-kilometre sign or put up some wire rope barriers. That is the way they are fixing roads in country Victoria, and that just does not cut the mustard.

One of the key parts of the Victorian economy is the agriculture sector. In this line-by-line, forensic look at the budget that the Treasurer is doing $47.5 million was taken out of the ag budget last year, and now there are going to be 49 science jobs lost in Victoria—soil scientists out of AgriBio, groundwater and salinity research people out of Bendigo, red meat and livestock workers out of Hamilton. They are cut out of that, and what is the minister’s excuse for that? She says, ‘This is an organisational change’. ‘Organisational change’ is code for those scientists actually being out of a job in the future and agriculture losing that science capacity into the future. Soil scientists—if you think about climate change and you think about the ability to store carbon in the soil—are a key part of going forward on this, and they are being chopped. All the soil scientists in your electorate of Bundoora at AgriBio are going to lose their jobs, Speaker, because the minister says there is not industry interest or support in this. Well, I do not know who she talks to in the industry, but I know there is a lot of support and there is extreme concern about all these ag science jobs being lost.

Regional Development Victoria is a key part of growing the non-Melbourne part of this state. The Regional Growth Fund, something that we were very proud of in government, was a $1 billion fund to actually help grow regional Victoria. With RDV itself, $130 million was taken out of the RDV budget last year, and the $1 billion Regional Growth Fund is not funded anymore. So all that money that went to local government and went to community interest groups to fix up the footy sheds and to build the toilets in the local town for roadside stops so people could actually stop in those towns—all those sorts of projects are not being funded into the future.

The Murray Basin rail project—talk about mismanagement of projects—is a totally botched project by the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. A once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to standardise and upgrade all the freight lines of north-west Victoria, less than half of it is done, the budget has been expended and there is no commitment to fix that project. What has been built is actually worse than when they started it—the trains are running slower than before that project was started. The commonwealth government is actually asking for a business case. They are actually prepared to talk about what needs to be done to finish that project, and the minister will not put forward a business case. What more can a federal government do that wants to actually help with this project? It wants to help fund projects in Victoria, and the minister will not even put forward a business case for that. That was an absolutely appalling decision.

In the MPI the member for Ripon mentioned the issues around controlled burns. We have seen the devastation from the bushfires we have had over the summer. One of the things that came out of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission was actually to have a 5 per cent target for burns. One of the first things this government did in 2015 after they were elected in 2014 was walk away from that commitment and actually change that commitment. If you go and look at the numbers—and these numbers are very important—in the 2014–15 financial year there was just over $50 million spent on direct fire fuel management; in 2015–16 that was reduced to $44 million; in 2016–17, $40 million; in 2017–18, $30 million; and in 2018–19, $18.2 million was all that was spent on actually reducing fuel load in the bush.

It was an appalling range of cuts over those five years. That is a 64 per cent reduction in the budget for fuel burn over that particular time. So it is no wonder country Victorians, before the bushfires this summer, were all saying that the fuel loads were back higher than before the 2009 fires. If you actually look at the total budget, 85 per cent of the global budget for that program is spent on reporting and planning. Just 15 per cent is spent on actually reducing fuel load there. There are a lot of white utes. There are a lot of people running round, so if the member for Essendon is looking for some budget cuts, perhaps he could actually make sure that money is spent on doing something rather than driving around in a white ute.

Everyone in country Victoria would be thrilled if the Premier actually said, ‘We got it wrong and we are going to go back and we are going to support recommendation 56 from the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission and actually move to that 5 per cent target into the future’. I think everyone in country Victoria would be very, very happy about those particular issues.

The other thing that the member for Ripon talked about was the tax increases. On the other side of all the cuts that we are seeing is this huge increase in taxes—27 new or increased taxes now across the life of this government. There is a very good saying that is now coming to the fore again: when the Andrews government run out of money they come after yours, and that includes you, Speaker. You will be paying more in these 27 new taxes and charges that are being introduced here.

I think the most insidious of those now is the new bin tax. There is more than enough money in the Sustainability Fund to fund the new initiatives that this government has put in place. They do not need a new bin tax. The bin tax is just there to prop up the bottom line of the Treasurer’s budget. It will stay in consolidated revenue; it will not be spent. It is going to be there in consolidated revenue into the future, but you and we and everyone else are going to pay a lot more for their waste disposal.

Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (14:44): That was edge-of-your-seat stuff, wasn’t it? That was spine-tingling from the Leader of The Nationals there, getting up and about. At least he gets a bigger turnout than the Leader of the Opposition, which probably tells you everything you need to know about them.

What an interesting matter of public importance (MPI) has been put forward. The allegation put forward is budgetary and project mismanagement by the Andrews government. And then there is a smorgasbord—a steak knives set; you can take home everything. It is a list of suggestions or comments put forward here that have no coherence. It is a bit like listening to question time and the opposition’s strategy when they enter this place during question time. It looks like a suggestion box of issues that have been put forward and they have just gone for a free-for-all.

But I think I have cracked the code. I thought the member for Ripon on this MPI was coming in for the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party spot. I thought, ‘A great speech’. I was in a meeting but I was listening to it, and I thought, ‘This is some top-shelf stuff. This is one for Facebook, one for the ages’. I thought the member for Eildon was probably sitting here going, ‘I didn’t move this one; this is going to be a bit of a worry going forward’. But no, this MPI gives away a broader plan. It lists 3AW’s Neil Mitchell no less than twice, and there has been a consistent theme from the member for Ripon in mentioning 3AW consistently. I reckon the member for Ripon is actually not interested in being the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. She wants to be Neil Mitchell’s MVP. She wants to take the Mercedes-Benz out to Ripon, visit the electorate occasionally. That is the real game plan. That is the real thing. If the member for Ripon spent a little bit more time in Ripon rather than on the highway listening to Neil Mitchell every now and then, maybe they would be in a better place on strategy.

What we see here in this MPI is something extraordinary. It played out the other day in the extraordinary intervention from a member for Western Victoria Region, Bev McArthur, and the member for Brighton, who spoke out against attacking savings, attacking the private sector, who had the courage to put their values forward. They went back to the notions of their first speeches and the values they live. At least they have got the courage to be Liberals rather than this guff. Someone from the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), the member for Ripon, surely would get excited about the suggestion of $4 billion in cuts. In the MPI last week I reflected on the fact that when the Kennett government was tearing the heart out of the 350 schools closed in that era, who was the cheerleader for more school closures and more school cuts? It was the IPA, who said, ‘Go further; dig in deeper. Thousands more teachers should have gone’.

We had the member for Brighton and a member for Western Victoria Region championing returning to Kennett-era politics. Well, we know what that means. That means austerity for our communities and cutting deep. We saw that history repeats itself. As Sidney Harris reflected—a journalist from a time before—history repeats itself in a cunning disguise. Commissions of audits such as that put forward by the former Leader of the Opposition, savings measures and review processes is what they are about.

I am always astonished that anyone on that side who champions the IPA wants to come into this place and be part of governing and hold taxpayer-funded positions. They are so opposed. I do not know how they reconcile themselves lying at home at night and going, ‘Hang on, I want small government, I want the private sector to run everything, I don’t want any safety net for people to look after them, but I’m happy to take the taxpayer funds. I’m happy to take the limousine; I’m happy to get the ride as a shadow minister’. It is unconscionable some of the things that are put forward.

The notion that the member for Ripon would put forward an MPI that lectures us on health spending—I thought this was the twilight zone. Give me a spell. What we saw in 2014 was a decimation of our health system. For elective surgeries you could not even get a look-in. They were ballooning out, and you get the Leader of the Opposition coming in here and starting to lecture us on health.

The former Minister for Health in the other place treated our ambulance staff and our nurses and our paramedics with absolute disdain. The system was on its knees. Paramedics were in all sorts of bother. The notion that that would even be a feature is well off-grid for them as well. You look at this and go, ‘Hospital waiting times, that’s something they want to have a chat about, seriously?’. You look at the notion of unemployment. When I saw this written—‘unemployment rising above the nation’s average’—it was an absolute disgrace where you left it. Where was regional employment? To the member for Warrandyte, where was youth unemployment? Where was it during that time? You could not name it. That is how bad it was. It was double digits and all sorts; 6.9 per cent was the number.

The strategy that has been dished up here lists two things that are pretty core to Labor’s agenda at the moment and pretty core to us actually doing all right in this space! The fact that the member for Ripon would put that forward in an MPI is extraordinary, because 500 000 jobs are being created. One in seven of those jobs did not exist before the Labor government came to power, and we are the engine room of Victoria. The Premier has said this before: the greatest economic outcome that the Leader of the Opposition delivered when he was Treasurer was to just be in front of Tasmania, to just keep them in check.

That was the prosperity of Victorians. That was the prosperity being put forward—to just get in front of Tasmania. Well, that is not what we accept on the side. And the notion of—let us just take this back—budget and project mismanagement: you would not have an MPI that was written like this in the 57th Parliament, because what budget, what projects, were being managed at all? We had a last-minute, 5 minutes to midnight, attempt to woo the electorate, to try to hoodwink the electorate, that they had a major infrastructure agenda. We had constituents who genuinely thought that they were going to get on the airport rail out of Southern Cross that ended up in Warrnambool. They were buying fake tickets going, ‘I think this is where the airport rail might go’. Stickers were on the ground. I mean the desperation in campaign strategy was extraordinary.

Contrast that to working collaboratively with the federal government to deliver the airport rail. Seeing the metro rail tunnel up close will be something to behold. That will be transformational like the city loop was, the likes of which we have not seen since. Of course the city loop was first conceived in 1929 and saw its finale and conclusion with the opening of Flagstaff in 1985—a monumental time frame that it took to get that project to where it was. We saw that the Metro Tunnel was thought about, talked about, by Infrastructure Australia in the mid-2000s—all the way through to the planning money being delivered by the then outgoing Brumby government—and it sat there on the shelf. We will open that project in 2025 and it will transform the way we get around our city.

When you see this MPI you actually go to the values of those opposite. The member for Brighton and a member for Western Victoria laid out the ructions, the deep-seated issues and tension points in the Liberal Party today. Are they going to be interventionists and populists like the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to be on anything that comes up in the media? Or are they going to be true Liberals and live to their values? Well, the member for Brighton and the member for Western Victoria and others—some of the stuff that has been said and written, maybe by the member for Ripon—puts forward a view of where they want to go and where they think they want to go. But the Victorian people deserve to know: is it the austerity and small government that so many in their first speeches, coming in in 2014 and 2018, championed? What would they change as well? What would they change on the current infrastructure projects? What would they stop?

We saw leading into the 2018 election that they were very happy to park the level crossing removals in my neck of the woods, down on the Frankston train line. It would have pushed Cheltenham and Mentone out to the never-never. It was actually in their policy statement. A credit to them that they were honest with my community and said that these projects were not a priority—but the notion that we would be lectured by those opposite, who did not have a signature infrastructure project! I mean, if they want to say it, if they want to interject and tell me one of them—we have been waiting now for five and a half years—they can offer up one; we are still waiting for one. The east–west link was an absolute disaster. On the notion of comments today during question time by the Leader of the Opposition about ‘dodgy’, about ‘secretive’: seriously mate, are you in the twilight zone? Those opposite—you are looking at the bench through there, and when the Leader of the Opposition is up and about, glazed over, eyes down, just hoping to get to the lunch bay and get out of there as quickly as possible—not even they believe the hypocrisy that has been put forward, the hypocrisy that a side letter hidden behind business cases is the way to go on the east–west link. That was it; that was their play ball. The cuts that were made in 2011 that were seen all the way through to 2014, that put our health system on its knees, that sent our paramedics to the wall, that took on a war with our paramedics, that is how they treated our emergency services. The notion then that people would forget that is just unconscionable.

This MPI is a good try. It is having a dip. It looks like a suggestion box or a steak knife set, where everyone gets a go. It has no consistent coherence to it, other than a bit of Neil Mitchell and a couple of other things that look like, literally, reading 12 pages of the Herald Sun and going, ‘I’ll pick out the key policy areas’. When you look at this, it actually tells a broader story, that the Institute of Public Affairs is alive and well in the Liberal Party. It is the policy engine room. When we go back to their values in the mid-1990s, when people pleaded—when people were literally sleeping in schools to save schools being closed—and the fact that the member for Brighton and the member for Western Victoria are the new cheerleaders of a new age of Kennett-era politics, we know exactly what they would do in 2022. That is, cut, slay and destroy public services. That is what our communities need to face. That is why they are not fit for government, and this MPI is just an attempt for Neil Mitchell’s MVP.

Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) (14:54): I am pleased to rise this afternoon to make a contribution in relation to the matter of public importance that has been submitted by the member for Ripon. That is:

That this house condemns the budgetary and project mismanagement of the Andrews Labor government which has already led to—

numbers of things, including:

(1) the Treasurer admitting his budget needed deep cuts when he said to Neil Mitchell on 3AW on 12 February 2020, ‘I’m looking at every line item of expenditure, and I’m looking to take something like $4 billion out of government expenditure going forward’;

(2) budget cuts across the board, including to regional road maintenance, corrections and hazard reduction burns on public land;

(3) hospital waitlists increasing;

(4) unemployment rising above the national average on the most recently released data;

(5) an inability to solve the recycling crisis; and

(6) an admission by the Treasurer to Neil Mitchell on 3AW on 14 February 2020 that he will not rule out further taxation increases in the upcoming budget.

I could speak for half an hour on each and every one of those six items, but I have obviously got to curb my time to just a few moments. I particularly want to look at the recycling crisis, but before I get into that I think it is important to set the context—that we have here the highest taxing, highest spending government in Victoria’s history. The reality is that if we were getting value for money we would probably be far less concerned, but we are certainly not getting value for money; we are getting waste, we are getting budget blowouts, we are getting overruns. On the major projects we have got budget blowouts equivalent to approximately $25 billion. If I get time later, I might touch on some of those.

The one thing we know and certainly the residents in my district of Forest Hill know is that the cost of living continues to rise under the people opposite, and it is making it more and more difficult for them to make ends meet and to pay all their bills. That is where the matter that I am going to be particularly focusing on, the recycling, is of such importance.

Before I get to that I just want to touch on a situation in relation to the hospital waiting lists. That is a matter that I had direct experience with in the last couple of weeks, where I had a family member who had to go out to an emergency department of one of the hospitals in the east, which will remain nameless. The child involved had a broken bone. We sat around there for hours and hours and hours. The staff were lovely, the doctor was lovely as we saw him walk past going to attend to all kinds of other patients—people having babies and all sorts of things. But the reality was that the service level was not up to scratch. To keep people hanging around in pain, hanging around in that sort of situation in the middle of the night for hours and hours and hours, to me just epitomises where we are with the health system. That of course is before the savage $4 billion cuts come in, and heaven help all of us if we have got to present at an emergency department of a public hospital subsequent to May’s budget.

In relation to the recycling, as I said, I want to touch on that. This is a matter that the government would have us think arose the day before yesterday, but it is a matter that has been brewing for years and years and years, and I will provide the evidence in relation to that very shortly in my contribution. It has been a matter that has been coming on for years, and the government has just been inert. It has not responded. The writing has been on the wall, and they have just chosen not to take the necessary action to deal with this crisis. As a result, when they finally do take some action, what is that action? The action is another massive tax hike. So we have got the bin tax to be increased by over 90 per cent—a massive increase from $65.90 a tonne to $125.90 a tonne. That is going to be the equivalent of about $200 million a year being ripped out of the pockets of Victorian families. As I said before, the reality is that that is the last thing Victorian residents and taxpayers need at this stage—more overheads, more cost-of-living pressures. I like the saying that has been coined, particularly in relation to the bin tax. It is that the Andrews government is more interested in emptying your wallet than your bin. I think that epitomises this government. Every time you move they have got their hands deeper into your pocket. It is just an outrageous situation, and it has got to stop.

If we go back and have a look at the history of how we got here, we can see that in February 2019 there were 22 000 tonnes of recyclable materials sent to landfill because there was a failure in the system in relation to the management of waste here in Victoria. But it should not have been used, because the market had already flagged that that was not going to be received many, many years earlier. So we are now seeing 4000 tonnes of recyclables going to landfill every week. Interestingly enough, the Environment and Planning Committee of the Legislative Council put out an interim and final report into Victoria’s waste crisis.

That is really a damning verdict of the government’s failure to manage the waste and recycling industry. The report reveals a complete failure of the regulatory system. Let me read some quotes from it. The final report is dated November 2019. At page 3 it says that the committee raised concerns about ‘a lax system of enforcement’ and monitoring of chemical waste storage. It goes on:

Without proactive enforcement and monitoring … legal and illegal operators worked with an assumption that they were not likely to be caught or fined for poor storage and fire risk prevention behaviour.

We have seen numbers of crises, with fires that burned for days and weeks in these recycling depots. We have seen total mismanagement in relation to the storage of chemicals and other things. So the report is a great asset to the state because it shines a light on the Labor government’s failure to manage a safe and effective waste and recycling system, and as a result of the failure, again it is the community that pays the price.

In June 2019 there was a damning Auditor-General’s report, which I have in my hand, Recovering and Reprocessing Resources from Waste. It certainly is a damning document. It refers back to the fact that it was July 2017 when the Chinese government said they would not be taking any more waste from Australia. So the obvious question is: why did it take the government so many years to join the dots and to work out that we were going to have a problem, rather than just allowing the problem to accumulate to a point where we had massive warehouses full to the roof with recyclable products. Then we have had fires, we have got storage inside and outside and we have got stuff going in all directions.

This report I think puts a tremendous spotlight on the history and the facts in relation to the crisis that we are now facing. It examines whether the responsible agencies are maximising the recovery and reprocessing of resources from Victoria’s waste stream. The conclusion on page 9 of this document says:

Victorian agencies responsible for managing the waste sector are not responding strategically … As a result, they are not minimising Victoria’s need for landfill nor maximising the recovery …

of waste and waste resources, and:

A significant amount of the waste that Victorians send to landfill could be recycled or reprocessed …

It goes on:

DELWP has not fulfilled its leadership role …

and there has been no policy in this area since 2014. What a damning statement that is. Under the previous government there was a very clear policy that was dealing with the issues and dealing with the matter of recycling and waste management, but this government has completely and utterly dropped the ball in the last six years. It is a disgraceful reflection on the government and all those opposite in relation to how to fumble a key area of public policy.

The report goes on to talk about the findings and the fact that there is no overarching statewide policy. As I said, Victoria has not had a statewide waste policy since 2014. The roles and responsibilities in the waste and resource recovery sector remain unclear. It says that Sustainability Victoria:

… is not effectively implementing its four strategies guiding the waste and resource recovery sector in Victoria to ensure waste to landfill is minimised.

It goes on:

… three years since their publication, SV does not have a clear plan to implement …

all the actions that are required. It goes on and on, and time is going to be against me in relation to dealing with some of the other matters that this very important and very comprehensive Victorian Auditor-General’s Office report identifies. I commend it to members. In particular, perhaps the minister might want to have a read of this report, and other members of the government might want to read it as well, because they will actually learn something in relation to the history of this matter and the warnings that were put out so very long ago.

In conclusion, how does the government respond to a matter like this? How does it decide to tackle this very important issue? It said, ‘Righto, we’re going to put another tax on ordinary Victorians. We are going to put another $1 billion bin tax on Victorians. We’re going to give them another bin. We’re going to complicate everything just that little bit more. We’re going to give people less room to manage their bills’. There has been no thinking about how to deal with this effectively and efficiently. It has just been a response that the government knows so well, which is to tax people more. The reality is that we have got money in the Sustainability Fund which has not been used, so they are accumulating that money, and yet here they go putting their hand further and deeper into your pockets again with another $1 billion of tax. It is just symptomatic of this government. When they get into any sort of difficulty they decide to tax Victorians more.

Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (15:04): Goodness me. It is their own matter of public importance. The mover of the matter of public importance has not even been able to get through the third speaker before walking out. It is their own MPI, but there are more of us in here than them.

Mr R Smith: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, we have TVs in our offices. She is probably watching there. You do not have to be in here. You do know that, don’t you?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Warrandyte, through the Chair.

Mr R Smith: Are you aware of that? You do not have to be in here to listen to it—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Warrandyte, through the Chair. There is no point of order, and I ask members not to raise frivolous points of order.

Ms GREEN: I think it just says it all. The MPI moved by the potty-mouthed member for Ripon—she dropped at least two lots of unparliamentary language in her contribution—

Mr R Smith: On a further point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member knows full well that those sorts of prefixes are unparliamentary.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Yan Yean has been a member of this place for a long time, and I ask her to stick to the rules of the house.

Ms GREEN: So words beginning with ‘B’ or using the word ‘crappy’ are parliamentary, according to that side of the house, but when I respond and say it is ‘potty-mouthed’, that is a problem. It is just errant hypocrisy.

Let me go on to the National Party. To have the Leader of The Nationals—he is pretty quiet these days; he has pretty much handballed to the member for Euroa—come in here and lecture this government on cuts to agriculture, he should tell that to every person working in agriculture that lost their job on his watch. Just because you have been a farmer does not mean that you are immune to criticism when you have cut and closed agricultural assets in this state, and that is exactly what the Leader of The Nationals did when he was Minister for Agriculture. Almost in his home town, in Kerang, there is a perfectly fantastic government building that used to have 40 staff in it, and now it is empty. That was closed by the Leader of The Nationals, the member for Murray Plains. The National Party is the job wrecker of the Victorian Parliament.

What we have seen on this side— the wedge that is here and on this side of the house— is huge growth in jobs in regional Victoria. The opposition will talk about decentralisation, but they never do anything. We are actually delivering. Our projects being built in Melbourne and regional Victoria are generating jobs across the board. One in seven jobs in this state did not exist when we came to office, and the jobs that we are creating with our public sector projects are actually generating more jobs in the private sector. We have seen record low unemployment in our regional areas. It is the lowest anywhere in the country.

You would think you were in a parallel universe if you were the member for Ripon or from the National Party. Just because you keep saying it, if you are a member of the National Party, does not make it true. The fibs that they are telling on regional road maintenance, on fuel reduction burns and on health have to be seen to be believed. Unemployment rising—what a joke.

On their watch, from November 2010 to November 2014, employment growth was 121 300 and the regional employment growth was 19 500—in four years. We have achieved more than two and a half times that, almost three times in regional employment growth. From November 2014 to now it is 74 000, and the total employment growth across Victoria is over half a million—533 200 jobs—on our watch. The overall growth in full-time employment has been 361 200 compared to a measly 45 500 on their watch. The errant hypocrisy is just mind boggling. And regional full-time jobs actually contracted—there was a reduction of 7500 jobs in regional Victoria. I reckon that that chief wrecker, the member for Murray Plains, would have had a hand in a lot of that. Compare that to us, with 58 000 growth in regional jobs. We are not going to stop there, because by 2022 the payroll tax paid by regional Victorian businesses will be 25 per cent of that in metropolitan Melbourne. That is the best decentralisation program that you can have to grow private sector jobs in regional Victoria, and we are doing it.

On regional roads, we have established Regional Roads Victoria. The members on this side—you would think they were not even in the chamber when we established that, when we had the long-term lease of the port and we identified that a third of the funding would be spent on regional roads, a third in metropolitan Melbourne and the rest on a needs basis, which is really important because when you get natural disasters and other unforeseen circumstances you can crank that up where it is needed. On the regional road maintenance spend, we have actually doubled it compared to the coalition’s regional road maintenance spend. In 2013–14 the coalition spent just over $200 million on regional road maintenance; in the 2019–20 year the Andrews government is forecast to spend more than $400 million on rebuilding, resurfacing and repaving our country roads. The coalition might try to score cheap political points and make up a story, but it is completely false, the premise that they are trying to propose.

On health, on hospital waiting lists, let me remind the house they promised 800 new hospital beds. At the end of the term I think they had delivered a handful of hospital-in-the-home beds, counting Victorians’ beds as ones they had delivered—and a few li-los and a few banana lounges. That was their approach on hospital beds. We are truly building hospital beds in the face of population growth. We would welcome some unanimity and some unity of purpose in going to the federal government and asking them why they have cut grants in health to this state. In spite of record demand we are improving the hospital waiting lists—our throughput is much larger—and we are investing in capital.

Unlike on their watch, we are not privatising hospitals like they did in Mildura. I am sorry that the member for Mildura has been unwell for the last two days, but I lived in that town, and my mother and my younger sisters were there battling to get health services from a privatised entity. You can see in the health statistics that the people that live in that region are sicker, and we are turning that around and bringing that back into public hands.

We are building or creating through expansion 10 new community hospitals. You would not hear that from that side. They cut. We have got hundreds of new paramedics on the road, we have opened new ambulance branches and we have many more cars on the road. We are not fighting with our workforce. We have just settled their enterprise bargaining agreement. We are not having a fight with them and creating a crisis; we are actually fixing it.

The level of disinterest shown by that side of the house on their own matter of public importance, when the mover of it could not even stay in the chamber and they have only got two frontbenchers in here that even want to listen, shows they are not serious. They were not serious in government. They are not even a serious opposition. They are a disgrace.

Ms VALLENCE (Evelyn) (15:14): After the member for Yan Yean’s contribution, I can only imagine seeing the member for Yan Yean’s face drop when she heard the Treasurer announce $4 billion of cuts to their budget.

I am pleased to be able to stand up today and support the member for Ripon in this matter of public importance. It is refreshing to be able to get up and actually speak about addressing the concerns of Victorians, things that really matter most to Victorians, rather than the spin we typically hear from the members opposite.

This matter of public importance is around condemning the budgetary and project mismanagement of the Andrews Labor government, because all that we have seen in recent times is budget blowouts—over $25 billion over budget—the highest taxes in the country, a waste crisis and projects being ground to a halt.

Only a couple of weeks ago, in February, the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings were postponed yet again—not for the first time but the second time—to avoid scrutiny. Everyone in this house knows that PAEC is an important committee set up with the precise purpose to scrutinise the government’s spending of taxpayers money. But all they wanted to do was avoid scrutiny, because of course after that was postponed, a couple of days later, the Treasurer—‘Taxing Tim’—announced $4 billion of cuts.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the member for Evelyn to refer to members by their correct titles.

Ms VALLENCE: The Treasurer announced only a few days later—

Mr Battin interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Gembrook is not in his correct seat.

Ms VALLENCE: The Treasurer announced $4 billion of cuts, and of course this is a doubling of the $2 billion of cuts that the Treasurer handed down in the budget in May last year. He called them ‘efficiencies’, but the Victorian public knows when the government uses the term ‘efficiencies’ what they really mean is ‘cuts’.

I think the real question that the Victorian public want answered is: why? What has gone so wrong in the last nine months? The Treasurer, in announcing these cuts, did not mince his words. He said, and I quote:

I’m looking at every line item of expenditure and I’m looking to take something like $4 billion out of government expenditure going forward.

His exact words—‘$4 billion’. His exact words—‘every line item’. Nothing is safe—not our hospitals, not our schools, not our emergency services, not our roads. There are no guarantees. The Premier, the Treasurer—no minister in this government has provided any guarantee that anything that they have in this budget will not be cut.

It was like watching a scene from the television show Utopia when the Treasurer tried to clarify by going on to say that these cuts would actually be expenditure ‘redirected’, again trying to pull the wool over the Victorian public’s eyes. When you use the term ‘redirecting of funds’, what you really mean is cuts, and it is just more spin from this government.

Now, the brutal truth of the budget cuts has been exposed by the Parliamentary Budget Office. When the Treasurer handed down the budget, the Treasurer assured Victorians, and I quote:

We are not spending more than we earn.

But the Parliamentary Budget Office has exposed the real truth. The PBO has reported that the budget is headed for a fiscal deficit and that the government is spending $3.1 billion more than it is earning, a deficit-to-revenue ratio of 8 per cent. In short, the PBO found that Victoria’s fiscal position is weaker as a result of this budget. The government has lost control. Net debt is up 10.5 per cent over the forward estimates to almost $60 billion, and this government has no plan to pay it back. Again, the Victorian public wants to know why. What has gone so wrong in the last nine months? I guess we are going to try to look for some answers.

On the Melbourne Metro project, the flagship project for this government, the Auditor-General himself in a report last June announced that the Melbourne Metro project was $150 million over budget. That is up 31 per cent. The Auditor-General stated that:

The heavy use of project-wide contingency funds is an early warning flag for the project, particularly as there are at least five more years of complex and risky construction works ahead.

And we are seeing now with this project that even construction companies are refusing to continue works unless they get another $300 million. But will it stop there? After $300 million, how much more will they need to get on and get this job done for the government? The government even know how big a problem they are in with this Melbourne Metro project, that they have hired the most expensive lawyers in the state to try to salvage something out of it, to try to broker a deal on this damaged project.

We look for other answers as to why the Treasurer wants to cut $4 billion. Fines Victoria: the Attorney-General in this Labor government has herself admitted that the Fines Victoria IT system is buggered. It has never worked; $328 million this government has to write off because the Fines Victoria IT system does not work and is unable to recover money. Council revenues are down, and they are hurting. Police and sheriffs are manually having to go after fines. No wonder there are not enough police on the front line keeping Victorians safe if police and sheriffs are having to sit behind a desk to manually recover fines.

On hospital waiting lists, there has been a 27 per cent blowout in waiting lists in the last six months. If you talk to anyone in the healthcare sector—the health services sector—they scream out for funding. They are saying that the reason that they are not keeping pace with our growing population, with the healthcare and health services needs of Victorians, is that there is a lack of funding.

The Victorian government cannot pay its staff. Surgical hygiene is compromised. Fifty thousand Victorians are on waiting lists. The Maroondah Hospital, which is not far out of my electorate, has a 70 per cent increase of patients on waiting lists. In this place I raised a matter of serious importance to women in my community who have endometriosis and are on waiting lists and urgently seeking treatment and surgery for endometriosis. I raised that in an adjournment matter, and the Minister for Health cares so little about the women in my electorate that 177 days have passed and the health minister has not even bothered to answer that and has failed women in my community.

We go to unemployment. The Victorian economy is beginning to slow and show real signs of weakness, with unemployment in Victoria now above the national rate of 5.4 per cent. This government is not doing much better—well, 1 per cent more—than New South Wales. Youth unemployment has risen sharply up to 13.3 per cent, up from 10.9 per cent, and there are now 22 000 more unemployed youth in Victoria than at the time of the state election. And regional unemployment is on a bad trend, increasing in Bendigo. Bendigo’s unemployment is up by 1.4 per cent over the past year; Hume is up 1 per cent; Victoria’s north-west is up 1.3 per cent; and Warrnambool and the south-west are up almost 1 per cent. We only recently saw 137 people lose their jobs on the West Gate Tunnel Project because the Andrews government signed up to a project that failed to adequately assess the risks of health and safety.

Now, boring machines on the West Gate Tunnel Project have sat idle for nine months. They have not even been turned on. Not one sod of dirt has been dug to begin that tunnel because it is contaminated by toxic chemicals. And perhaps if Taxing Tim—or the Treasurer, as we might like to call him—is so comfortable with the levels of toxic soil, he should get out of Williamstown and into Werribee for a change and start digging the soil himself.

Victorians are living in the highest taxed state in Australia—27 new or increased taxes under the watch of this Labor government. All Victorians will experience is higher taxes and cuts—$4 billion of cuts quite clearly and distinctly announced by this Treasurer. This is the real cost of Labor. Already we are seeing the wages slashed. Officials in the MFB, CFA, Environment Protection Authority Victoria, V/Line, VicForests and SES have all had their wages slashed. Forest Fire Management Victoria and Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning staff were not paid by this government. The government could not even pay the people who went out and put their lives on the line in the bushfires. This is the real cost of Labor.

Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (15:24): That was an entertaining contribution from the member for Evelyn but regrettably not one grounded in reality. The member for Evelyn asserts that the government has engaged in a process, vis-a-vis the West Gate Tunnel, that has us taking on health and safety risks. Now, I do not know if the member for Evelyn does know but I am sure there are members in the coalition parties that do know that the structure we set about putting in place in relation to the West Gate Tunnel was the sensible structure. It is a structure that transfers project risk to the private sector. Now, I would have thought that those who have come through the Institute of Public Affairs school of public policy might support a situation where you transfer that risk to the private sector. That is the appropriate response, and I ask what they would have us do. Would they have us assume the risk on behalf of the taxpayer? Would they have us do as we have done and transfer the risk sensibly, placing that risk with the private sector via a tendering and contracting process?

It just speaks to the general hypocrisy that is being inserted into this debate by the coalition when on the one hand they claim that we ought to be good fiscal managers, that we ought be prudent with the application of public fund, and on the other hand that when the Treasurer says, ‘Well, I’m going to go through the budget line by line’—square bracket, that is, do his job, end square bracket—and when he suggests that he might do something so outlandish as carefully review government expenditure, he has implicitly done something wrong. What a load of nonsense; nothing could be further from the truth.

I found it extraordinary that the member for Murray Plains also teed off on the fiscal discipline of the government. He seeks to characterise the Treasurer’s actions in looking for fiscal discipline, in looking for efficiencies within a budget and in carefully reviewing the expenditure of public funds as something bad—and he is just wrong. I think it is a source of great frustration to the coalition parties that Labor has delivered surplus after surplus after surplus. It is a source of great frustration to them that it is not since the national economy was contracting that there has been a deficit budget delivered by Labor in this state, and that was a very, very long time ago indeed, back in 1992. So do not believe the rhetoric for one second. This is not an opposition who believes in their hearts that you have to deliver surpluses. They would much rather that we deliver deficits in order that they could feast upon a perceived political opportunity. They would rather we run deficits so they can hammer us on them, so they can talk at length—as they attempt to via this, frankly, overreach of a matter of public importance (MPI)—about the need for fiscal purity. But the minute fiscal discipline is applied, they just pile on to the Treasurer and start running this nonsense rhetoric about austerity and cuts and tax increases, and it is all an absolute absurdity. They believe in surplus budgets for reasons only of optics and politics, not because of a belief set or values.

Ms Green: Unless it’s their mates in Canberra.

Mr FOWLES: Unless it is their mates in Canberra, and then they may well have a different view. This is the federal government of course, member for Yan Yean, who delivered a surplus which they have not yet delivered. They budgeted for a surplus, but that is actually different, as it transpires. Those of us in the Labor Party understand that actually projecting something and delivering it are different, in the same way that members over there projected that the Napthine government was going to deliver airport rail. Well, that was a projection! I wonder whether Scotty from marketing had a hand in that one too, because as pieces of advertising puffery go, that was epic—to actually go out there and have the graphics, the television ads saying ‘Airport rail is coming’. It was nothing more then a brain fart coming out of the Liberal Party strategy room. It had no basis in reality whatsoever.

Speaking about no basis in reality, the member for Forest Hill complained in his contribution on the MPI—his passionate contribution on the MPI that I note the member for Croydon was yawning through, audibly and frequently—about the complication of having a fourth bin. Oh, it is tough to be the member for Forest Hill. You have got this ever-shrinking electorate and you have got all these difficult responsibilities to wrap your head around. And a fourth bin—well, it might just tip him over the edge. To have to consider how you would pull the glass out and put it somewhere else, I mean, it is just very, very, very challenging.

Of course it does not recognise for a moment the outstanding package that Labor has delivered to improve recycling in this state. Yes, there was a big externality: the Chinese government had a change in policy. We all know that. These things happen. But we have delivered a $300 million package, the largest recycling reform and investment in the state’s history. As much as it might be a source of great distress and concern to the member for Forest Hill, as much as it might cause him to fret, the reality is that the fourth bin is a sensible and logical extension of our recycling initiatives. And it does not end there: we are establishing a new waste authority to improve the market transparency and the accounting of the recycling sector. We are building a strong foundation for its evolution, investing $135 million in the industry, more than any other government in the state’s history.

The reforms extend to the household—those household recycling reforms I have foreshadowed. It is not just the four-bin system. It is the container deposit scheme—another opportunity to make sure that high-quality recyclables, like glass, are separately placed into their own recycling stream. And the re-use development happens—that we actually invest as a state in the re-use and recycling of these materials, making sure that we have got creativity and innovation there to develop those local jobs.

We are also going to tackle waste crime, and I think that is an important point. When the coalition parties talk about us not having solved the recycling crisis, as they allege in this pretty shoddily drafted MPI, they fail to recognise that we are actually getting serious about waste crime—very serious about waste crime. A $71.4 million commitment to waste crime is proof positive of our determination to make sure that those in this industry who break the law and who seek to behave unethically in the furtherance of their own commercial interests are brought to heel. That is an entirely appropriate response, and it is the Labor way.

Mr Battin interjected.

Mr FOWLES: Well, yes, an extraordinary set of interjections, as always, member for Gembrook. Not based in reality, not based in any facts there—just an opportunity to tee off with the usual dishonest narrative that burbles out of you and your colleagues. It is pretty special stuff.

Mr Battin interjected.

Mr FOWLES: Well, that is of itself of course a wildly dishonest statement, member for Gembrook, as you well know.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Burwood, through the Chair. I ask you not to respond to interjections.

Mr FOWLES: He is being very chippy down here today. But we have an initiative here around the recycling system, a plan that has reliability at its core—and that is what it is about. Separating the waste streams into four separate bins, investing in innovation in the sector and working with local councils to make sure that they can offer all of those appropriate responses is exactly the sort of response Victorians want to see from their government. They want to see a government that is taking on the challenge of waste broadly, be it waste crime, be it recycling, be it re-using, be it waste reduction or be it appropriate management of our landfills—to take on all those issues—in the furtherance of a better, cleaner and stronger environmental sector for the benefit of not just us but our children and their children.

Ms SHEED (Shepparton) (15:34): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance. I will say from the outset that I do not support the matter, not really because I am throwing my towel in with the government on this but rather because I am totally tired of the party politics that goes on during MPIs. I think they are unproductive, and it is for that reason I have long been advocating that we have general business on a Wednesday afternoon—general business where we get to introduce bills, where we get to debate petitions, where we get to debate motions that are relevant and up to date and that are brought on by members, that relate perhaps to their electorate, that perhaps relate to regional Victoria, rather than just the bit of mud-flinging that seems to go on in this place on Wednesday afternoons.

I will nevertheless speak to the budgetary issues that have been raised. There is no doubt that the state budget is facing increased challenges, partly due of course to the bushfires and to the totally random impact that we now have with us of the coronavirus on not only our economy in Victoria and the whole of Australia but globally. We are really seeing very significant issues around that. I say that that necessitates this government continuing to look after the most vulnerable in our communities, to look after those people who have been impacted but also to continue to invest and complete projects on time and on budget, as it must.

My electorate, Shepparton district, has been in the midst of a very long-awaited overhaul over recent years, and there has been a lot of spending in the region to deal with issues that my community had been calling out for for a very long time. Health, education, transport, infrastructure investments cannot be allowed to stall midstream just because the Treasurer has said he is going through the budget with a fine-tooth comb and needs to cut. This is simply not a time to cut. This is a time when we even have the federal government looking at an economic stimulus for the whole of the country. This is not a time to start cutting back, to pare back projects that might be underway. It is very important that projects that have been started are completed and that people have confidence in the state and in our economy.

In Shepparton, for instance, we have got the Shepparton Art Museum. That will be completed in December. This is going to be an outstanding art gallery in regional Victoria—dare I say ‘the most’ to you, Deputy Speaker, sitting there from Bendigo. It will certainly be the most modern and truly outstanding. It is great to see that up and going. We have got the first stage of Goulburn Valley Health just being fitted out now—a five-storey building being fitted out now to serve the needs of our community. The master plan for stage 2 is underway at the moment, and it is so important that stage 2 occurs and that we get the infrastructure and the investment in health in our community so that people in our communities can be looked after there.

We have got the Munarra Centre for Regional Excellence, money dedicated to our Indigenous community to create opportunities for further education broadly and with many ideas of what will actually be able to go into that to advance our local Aboriginal community, which of course is the largest Aboriginal community outside of metropolitan Melbourne. But there is much more that we need. We are waiting on a business case for the Shepparton bypass. We have long advocated for a mother-baby unit for our region to help those young mothers and families who are not coping immediately after the birth of a child. This is something really important for our community.

Because of all the projects that are happening in Shepparton we actually have traffic problems, can you believe, and we need something like $11 million in this Victorian state budget to deal with major intersections along the way to the new Shepparton Art Museum, the new hospital and the new secondary college that is to be built. On the issue of education, of course the Shepparton Education Plan is being rolled out. Greater Shepparton Secondary College has commenced according to plan, and we are awaiting an announcement of $100 million approximately in the budget to commence the building of that new school to open in 2020—something that I believe the state government is very committed to. These are all very important projects. They all take money, and that money needs to be spent.

I often talk about water, and I often say that it is not about money or a budgetary bottom line, but the reality is that our agricultural community contributes so much to the wealth of not only this state but the whole of this nation. It is essential that regional communities are invested in so that they can continue to contribute to the wealth of the nation and to produce food. It is interesting that in times like this we will be starting to think about food security, when borders could be challenged more and more. When we see production in China being reduced dramatically and stopped in some areas, then we understand that what we produce in this country could become critical and that not only might we want to be exporting but we might indeed need the produce we have just to support our own people. So we are very important in regional Victoria, and again we do not have enough opportunity to debate and discuss that in this place.

Water policy is of course fraught in so many ways. There is the Murray-Darling Basin plan and the inflexibility in the rollout of that. There are the transitions that are going to have to occur in our regional communities because of climate change. We are seeing that in the dairy industry. We are seeing predictions that if our temperature increases by 1.5 degrees by 2040, it will become untenable for our dairy cows to actually be out in the open in paddocks all the time. They will need to be under cover. They will need to be fed under cover. They are currently milked under cover. This will change the nature of a dairy operation. It will be more expensive to provide the infrastructure that is needed, but these are all changes and transitions that we are all having to face.

We are facing the loss of water in our region as water is being pulled down the Goulburn and Murray rivers to service foreign-owned, huge almond plantations further down beyond the Barmah choke. That is having a very significant impact on our region and it is also having a very significant impact on the Goulburn River and on the Broken Creek. The banks of those rivers are being eroded beyond all belief, and yet the Murray-Darling Basin plan was put in place largely out of the damage that was seen to the Coorong back during the millennium drought. While that was well intentioned, I am sure it was never intended that we would have to damage our own environment upstream to deliver water down there. These are really important issues that need addressing.

The flood plain harvesting we are seeing in the north of New South Wales and Queensland at the moment is horrifying in the sense that the first flush is going into dams—dams like Cubbie Station—rather than running down our rivers to the sea at least once. Surely at least that first flow should have gone down our rivers, but it has not.

We have had something like eight water ministers in nine years. I am not sure of the exact figure, but you can see why this is such a troubled area when we have those issues. On a smaller local level we have something like the Murchison nursing home—currently empty, likely to be closed, with attempts being made to keep it open. The local neighbourhood house has nowhere to go as the liquidator sells it off. It sells off the nursing home, sells off the neighbourhood house and sells off the medical practice of a small community in a regional area. It is just an example of the hollowing out in so many other small communities that is occurring as I speak. These communities need to be supported because they do form the backbone of that whole rural economy.

We are seeing terrible threats in relation to regional media. We have seen the closure of AAP, which employed something like 180 journalists nationwide, which supported not only our major print and online media organisations but many of the smaller ones. The Shepparton News has relied on AAP constantly, and it has since the 1970s, for much of its news. The impact of that will be really very hard-felt, and people are feeling very sad about that loss in the face of other losses and in the face of what has happened with the ABC. We have lost Radio Australia, located in Shepparton—gone. The ABC is under pressure in so many ways. There is much more I could say, but I would say this is not a time to cut. This is a time to spend.

Ms THOMAS (Macedon) (15:44): I wanted to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Shepparton. It has certainly been my pleasure over the last six years or so to visit Shepparton on a number of occasions and to see the way in which that important regional city is being transformed by the investments being made by this Labor government into that town following the advocacy of the member for Shepparton. What a contrast to the previous members for Shepparton. This was a seat that was held by the coalition partner, the National Party, and taken absolutely for granted. Scarcely a dime was spent in that economy and that community despite there being many particular social needs requiring to be met in Shepparton. I congratulate the member for Shepparton.

This matter of public importance (MPI) is without a doubt a complete waste of the house’s time. I stand to oppose it and in doing so join my colleagues on this side of the house. We want to ask the question: how seriously do the Liberals take this issue? Let us have a look. Right now there are three in the house. The proposer is not here. The member for Ripon got out as soon as she could. Right now we are down to one frontbench member, and he is only sitting in here because he has to, and two rookie MPs. That tells you all you need to know about how much the Liberals actually care about this supposed matter of public importance.

I also want to bring up some issues raised by my friends the member for Burwood and the member for Essendon. Let us be very clear: the Andrews Labor government from the get-go has run every year a strong budget with a strong surplus, and every year its budget has been focused on delivering on the promises that it made to the people of Victoria, because that is the hallmark of this government. We are a government that delivers what we say we are going to deliver. We can be trusted to deliver on each and every one of our election commitments. It is what we did from 2014 to 2018 and it is what we are getting on with and doing right now.

While we are talking about surpluses I did want to pick up on the member for Burwood. Let us be clear again: when we look at the federal government they have a sham surplus, and it is a sham surplus underwritten by ripping off the most vulnerable members in our community. This surplus is propped up by national disability insurance scheme funding that should be in the hands of people living in this nation with disability. It is an absolute disgrace that these accounting tricks are used in this way so that that incompetent government can use—

Mr Rowswell: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I may be a rookie MP, but even I can recognise that the motion before the Parliament at the moment does not refer once to the federal government’s circumstance, and I would ask you to draw the member back to speaking about the motion that is before the chamber.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Kilkenny): Thank you. It is a broad-ranging debate. I will ask the member to continue. There is no point of order.

Ms THOMAS: Thank you very much, Acting Speaker. The point I was making is that when it comes to the economy, when it comes to telling the truth about the state of the economy and when it comes to being truthful in your budget there is only one party that can be trusted, and that is the Labor Party and the Andrews Labor government. So I am very proud of the work that we are doing and continuing to do.

I note in recognition of the member for Sandringham that this MPI talks about regional road maintenance. Let me tell you about what is going on in regional roads in Victoria. There has never been a better time to be a driver or a road user in regional Victoria. In my own electorate let me tell you what we are doing. It is quite astounding. We have delivered a roundabout in Daylesford for the Midland Highway and East Street, just near the Farmers Arms Hotel. The owner of the Farmers Arms told me that people used to sit at the bar and watch the crashes on the roads that we inherited from this mob. Now we have a roundabout, and there have been no accidents.

We are building a roundabout at a notorious intersection in Gisborne on the Melbourne–Kilmore road. That is fully budgeted and the work is underway. We are putting traffic lights on Station and Saunders roads to keep pace with the growth we have seen in Gisborne. In fact three notorious intersections in Gisborne are all being upgraded courtesy of this Andrews Labor government. The upshot of this has been that due to the work being done contractors are in town from across my electorate, many of whom I am very happy to say are Ballarat or Bendigo based, and they employ local people or they employ workers from regional Victoria. In fact at a project I was at recently with the Minister for Roads when we announced the halfway stage on our safety upgrades across the state there was a worker from Corryong. I am very happy to see regional people being employed right across regional Victoria. Do you know what? They stay in our motels, they head out to the pub at night and they order a counter meal, so the flow-on impact from the investment that we are making in roads is truly fabulous.

I was talking about the road maintenance blitz in regional Victoria, and the minister did join me, as I said, to acknowledge the halfway mark. Let me tell you what we have been doing: 40 000 potholes filled, 10 000 signs repaired or replaced and 750 kilometres of roads upgraded. They have been resurfaced, resealed or rebuilt. So do not come in here with a nonsense MPI purporting that roads in regional Victoria are not being attended to, because as the member for Yan Yean said, we established an agency, Regional Roads Victoria—country people who know country roads—to manage country roads projects. And we have done an excellent job. We are employing locals and we are getting on and delivering.

Members interjecting.

Ms THOMAS: I am listening to those on the other side, and I will reflect on one of the interjections about the road toll. There is no doubt whatsoever that more needs to be done in terms of the tragic road toll in Victoria, but let us be clear about some of the causes. What we know is with distracted drivers, people who are on their mobile phones, people who are speeding, people who are using drugs and driving, what we need to see in order to ensure the safety of all road users is a change in people’s behaviour when they get behind the wheel. That is the real challenge, and that is one that this government is certainly willing to face up to.

I am talking about roads, and I have talked a little bit in doing so about jobs, but again—I seem to be using this phrase a lot today—I will not be lectured by that lot on jobs. For heaven’s sake, in 2014 we had under their rule the highest unemployment rate on the mainland. That was the situation that Victoria found itself in on the eve of the 2014 election. Let me tell you, since that time the Andrews Labor government has been resolute. In everything that we do we are focused on job creation and job creation across the state. We are also focused on skill development, upskilling our workers for the jobs of the future and the work that we need right now, and we have programs in place to ensure that some of the most disadvantaged people in the state have the opportunity to develop skills and participate in all of the major projects that are happening across Victoria. So when it comes to jobs in Victoria let us get some facts on the table. Under the Andrews Labor government, and under the leadership of the Premier and the Treasurer of this state, we have seen 533 000 new jobs since we came to government, 361 000 of which are full-time. So let us be very clear: if you want a government that is focused on creating employment opportunities, growing our economy and ensuring the spread of prosperity, then there is only one choice. The people of Victoria know only an Andrews Labor government will deliver.

Mr ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (15:54): I rise to address this matter of public importance, a very important matter of public importance in my view, raised by the member for Ripon—the wonderfully skilled and competent member for Ripon—who has drawn, through this MPI, to the attention of this house some significant concerns that we on this side have with the state of Victoria’s economy.

Now, you might wonder why this MPI matters. You might wonder why the economy matters? Fiscal responsibility and good financial management matter to the lives of Victorians every single day. The core business of state politics, of state government, is the safety and security of its citizens. It is to provide core services to the people of Victoria: education services, transport services, police and emergency services. What have we seen under this government? What have we seen from this Treasurer? We have seen a commitment, a revelation, that in this budget there will be $4 billion of cuts to expenditure. You cannot tell me that essential services will not be cut as a result of these $4 billion of cuts, that essential services in this state will not be affected because of these $4 billion of cuts.

As I have been sitting in this chamber for the last 2 hours listening to the contributions—magnificent contributions actually—of the member for Ripon, the member for Forest Hill, the member for Murray Plains and the member for Evelyn, it has become apparent to me that the real cost of Labor is this: that when they run out of their money, they come after yours. They come after the money of everyday Victorians. Without even seeing the budget papers we know that the budget has been buggered. It has been well and truly buggered, and the reality of that is that everyday Victorians suffer as a result of that. What I would like to do now—

Ms Green: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I raised at the beginning of this MPI with the Speaker the offensive use of the word buggered. It should not be used in this place because of its reference to the now-defunct crime of buggery, which is completely hostile and offensive to the gay community. I would ask that it stop being used by the member for Sandringham, the potty-mouthed member for Ripon and any other Liberal that thinks it is appropriate to use that term.

Mr Battin: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, the Speaker actually ruled at the time that that word was not to be ruled out and was not unparliamentary and ruled against the member for Yan Yean. I would implore you to uphold what the Speaker has decided. It was not used in that context. It was used to describe the Victorian budget, which is stuffed or buggered, whichever way you would like to put it.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Kilkenny): On the earlier point of order, the Speaker, as I recall, asked members to refrain from using language that may be considered unparliamentary. I would ask members to respect that and to refrain from using that word if people are upset by the use of that word in this house.

Mr ROWSWELL: This truly demonstrates—this frivolous interjection, this frivolous point of order raised by the member for Yan Yean—just the extent and just the length that Labor members of Parliament will go to to stop the truth being put on the record, that under their financial management—

Ms Green: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I take offence at being identified as having raised a frivolous point of order. I have two sons: one gay, one straight. The use of the term ‘buggered’ is completely offensive to me and my family. I would say: do not cast aspersions on me and say that I raised a frivolous point of order. It was not frivolous. It is heartfelt by me.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Kilkenny): There is no point of order.

Mr ROWSWELL: Thank you, Acting Speaker. In addressing this matter of public importance today I would like to draw specific attention to the fact that the cost of Labor is growing surgery waiting lists and declining ambulance performance. Before the 2018 state election the Premier promised that all of Victoria’s hospitals would provide timely surgery. Just over a year later this commitment has been left by the wayside as our overburdened hospitals struggle to deal with these pressures. Victorian hospitals, Acting Speaker, you may be interested to learn, have suffered a 27 per cent blowout in their waiting lists in just six months. Almost 11 000 Victorians have been added to public hospital elective surgery waiting lists since 1 July last year, and on 31 December last year more than 50 000 people—50 000 of our fellow Victorians—were waiting for surgery, up from 39 000 on 30 June that year.

The member for Melton, who I see in the chamber, may be interested to know that new data reveals it now takes paramedics an average of 19 seconds longer, under this government, to get to critical code 1 patients than it did a year ago. Category 2 patients have to wait almost 2 minutes longer for an ambulance than in December 2018. Ambulance performance data from the last quarter paints a similar discouraging picture, with the time taken for a patient to be transferred from an ambulance to an emergency department increasing to an average of 23 minutes—3 minutes longer than when the Premier and his government were first elected in 2014.

I will draw another comparison—patients on elective surgery waiting lists as at 31 December last year in Box Hill. I note the member for Box Hill has left, but please, colleagues, pass this on to him. At Box Hill Hospital there are 2510 people as of December last year on that elective surgery waiting list, an increase of 93 per cent since 30 June—in six months.

I could go on, but the reality of this is that Labor members during the course of this debate have said that there are not any issues, that the budget is fine, the economy is fine in Victoria, but there have been examples time and time and time again of where essential services which the Victorian government is responsible for delivering have been cut. With $4 billion of cuts to expenditure on the table in this budget I am certain that Victorians in our communities are going to feel more pain than they ever have before, and that is on the Premier, and that is on this government.