Tuesday, 28 May 2024

Appropriation (2024–2025) Bill 2024

Second reading

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (15:32)

Richard WELCH: Referring to budget paper 4, page 5, it states:

The Government would welcome additional Commonwealth commitments towards –

Jaclyn Symes: We are doing the bill.

Richard WELCH: Sorry?

Jaclyn Symes: We are doing the bill.

A member interjected.

Jaclyn Symes: All right. Sorry. It sounded like a Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) question to me. But all right, let’s go.

Richard WELCH: Okay. The 2024–25 federal budget provided $3.3 billion for the North East Link but not a dollar for the Suburban Rail Loop (SRL). So the first question is: does the Suburban Rail Loop East still require an additional $11.5 billion contribution from the Commonwealth?

Jaclyn SYMES: I thank Mr Welch for his question and his interest in infrastructure projects here in Victoria, because obviously it is the Labor government that has a strong record of delivering the necessary infrastructure projects for the community to ensure that they can get where they are going sooner. The Suburban Rail Loop is certainly one of those projects, and that is what you were referring to. Is that what I heard you say – Suburban Rail Loop?

Richard WELCH: Yes.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes. It of course is one of those significant state projects. In fact it will be state-shaping. It will ensure that we have a rail network on par with the world’s biggest and best cities, and it is the expectation of the community that we do this. Early works are already well underway, and construction is to be complete by 2035. We have always been clear that it is our intention to fund this project through a range of funding streams, including state government contributions, Commonwealth government contributions and a mix of value capture opportunities. That position has not changed.

Richard WELCH: If the Commonwealth does not provide the full $11.5 billion your government expects it to, will state contributions make up the difference?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, we are focusing on this year’s bill, the Appropriation (2024–2025) Bill 2024, and the question as posed is speculative. My answer stands. It is the commitment of the government to keep this project on track. We have always intended to fund the project through a range of measures.

Richard WELCH: What proportion of the funding do you expect value capture to incorporate, and if there is a funding shortfall from the Commonwealth will you intensify that development to increase the value capture component?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, I can only refer to my previous answers. As I have indicated, early works are underway. This is a project that is state-shaping, state-significant and will take some time. The completion date is 2035, and as such the funding arrangements as I have said will be from a range of sources, through state government contributions, Commonwealth government contributions and a mix of value capture opportunities as they come to light. Your question is very much hypothetical in terms of if, when and what will happen, and today’s debate – I know it is your first one – it is about the committee stage that is in connection to this year’s budget and the question that you have asked is: what opportunities present themselves in the future, and I do not have a crystal ball.

Georgie Crozier: On a point of order, Deputy President, Mr Welch is asking the Attorney-General very relevant questions around this project that the government says is extremely important. She has talked about federal funding, she has talked about state funding and she has talked about value capture. The question was very simple in terms of: what percentage of value capture does the government think will be required? We are talking about budget, but the government is putting this onto the Victorian public.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Crozier, that is not actually a point of order, so what is your point of order?

Georgie Crozier: Well, my point of order is that I think the minister should be, when she is talking about these things, addressing those questions that she failed to answer.

Jaclyn SYMES: I answered his questions.

Georgie Crozier: No, she did not. It was a percentage – surely you have done a business case.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is not a point of order, I am sorry. Mr Welch to continue.

Richard WELCH: Thank you, Deputy President, and thank you, Minister, for your reply. Given that the federal government is not providing any of the $11.5 billion in this most recent budget, what are the implications for the appropriations required to fund the Suburban Rail Loop?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, we are talking about a project that is underway and will be underway for some time. You are asking about –

Richard WELCH: How are you going to fund it, I am asking.

Jaclyn SYMES: Well, I have explained to you there will be Commonwealth contributions, state contributions and value capture, and the question that you have proposed is a speculative question about future years, which is not under this year’s budget. We have constraints in relation to the bill before us today. You are asking me about speculative future value capture.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: It is not an SRL bill. It is a budget bill.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The Attorney is correct – this is the budget for 2024–25 so the Attorney can only answer questions on what is included in this budget. If there is something across the forward estimates, that is fine, but we cannot just ask general questions about future funding or future budgets. Mr Welch.

Richard WELCH: Can we clarify that within this budget year there are no funding implications for the SRL as a result of the lack of federal funds provided?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, that is okay.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, no change.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Welch, do you have any further questions? Do you want someone else to go? Ms Crozier?

Georgie CROZIER: If I can just follow on from that, budget paper 4, ‘State Capital Program’, has a graph. It talks about the Commonwealth infrastructure funding to the states in dollars per capita. And as you can see in the graph, that funding for Victoria is less than Queensland and New South Wales in the national partnership.

Jaclyn SYMES: Could you say that a bit louder?

Georgie CROZIER: Well, it is. It is there in black and white. It is your budget papers.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes. It is poor, isn’t it? Not getting our fair share, are we?

Georgie CROZIER: But the issue here is, Mr Welch was asking about the Suburban Rail Loop and the government has clearly said, ‘We need federal funding,’ so we are asking: what are those implications for the value capture to taxpayers and to those impacted around the Suburban Rail Loop, and what are the government’s contingency plans if those value capture initiatives do not materialise? What does the government plan to do? I mean, I understand we do not have a business case, but it is all here around partnering with the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth have not come up with the funds. We are just trying to get to an understanding of what the government is going to be doing in this budget and the forward estimates.

Jaclyn SYMES: Thank you, Ms Crozier, for your further inquiry along similar lines to Mr Welch. Many of the questions are speculative, but I can point to the fact that the SRL project will be incredibly attractive for private investors when we are talking about value capture. There are going to be precincts that will be highly attractive for businesses and commercial properties. And it is not the first time that government has had experience in value capture methods. Even the city loop used a levy back in the day. We have got more work to do on this, and we have been up-front in the SRL business and investment case. Our value capture measures will be targeted to commercial properties. There is no intention to have a measure targeted at home owners or residents. This is going to be a world-class public transport option that produces doorstop convenience for Victorians, and a lot of Victorians are really excited about this, and I think it will generate a lot of interest in business. But this year’s budget does not outline the specifics of that. I am also not the minister responsible for transport infrastructure. I am here today representing the Treasurer. Your questions are speculative, and I have given you all the answers that I am able to in relation to the future of a project that is going to take some time to do.

Georgie CROZIER: There lies the problem. The minister just said that she cannot answer the questions. It is actually outlined in the budget paper 4, page 187: the ‘Suburban Rail Loop – airport’, to be confirmed; there is the ‘Suburban Rail Loop East – main’, to be confirmed. There are a whole range of things in this around projects that need to be confirmed in this budget paper.

Jaclyn SYMES: Which reflects my answer.

Georgie CROZIER: No, it does not, because what we are trying to get to is: what are the impacts to the taxpayer, given that there is that additional funding that is going to be required given that the Commonwealth has not provided any funding that the government thought was coming? And that is an implication to this budget. I mean, the federal budget was handed down a week after this budget, so whether you were expecting money to come out of that budget that would assist with this project, which I suspect is the case –

Jaclyn SYMES: We just got $3.5 billion from the feds for other projects. You can shuffle money around.

Georgie CROZIER: Is that what you are going to do – you are going to shuffle money around? Could you explain that to the committee? You are going to shuffle the $5 billion around. How?

Jaclyn SYMES: What we have said in relation to SRL is there will be a range of budget measures that will go to the delivery of that project, whether it is state, obviously – I have just outlined some of the value capture opportunities – and we would like the Commonwealth to come on board, but whether the Commonwealth come on board in relation to this project or North East Link, which they have demonstrated, there are always opportunities for partnerships with the Commonwealth government.

As you have indicated, we have not received our fair share. We particularly went down under the Morrison government, and we would like to see more of that come forward. So when we are in a position to present good projects that are of importance to the Victorian community, who also vote for members of Commonwealth Parliament, we would like to see greater investment across the board in Victorian projects. And of course the SRL project is a fantastic project that we are committed to, and we will fund it from a range of sources, which I have already outlined.

Georgie CROZIER: This is all speculative. You cannot give us the answers. You were expecting money to come from the Commonwealth. You are blaming a previous government from a few years ago. You are not even talking about your own mates in Canberra – Albanese, Chalmers and co. They are the ones with the Commonwealth chequebook, Minister – not Scott Morrison or Josh Frydenberg. They have gone. Your people are in power in the Commonwealth, and you are blaming others.

Jaclyn SYMES: No, I am not.

Georgie CROZIER: You are.

Jaclyn SYMES: I am reflecting on you.

Georgie CROZIER: What I am saying, as Mr Welch was saying, is the value capture is going to impact communities where this project is and they do not have a clue what you have planned, because the Commonwealth is not putting the money in, the state has put in a little bit and it is all to be confirmed, so it is all on the never-never. No-one is the wiser and that is the point. Based on your answers, do you concede that this is purely speculative and this whole project, which you say is going to be delivered in 2035, I think you said – really? When you do not know where the funding is coming from? Really?

Richard Welch: But you are signing contracts.

Georgie CROZIER: But you are signing contracts, correct.

Richard Welch: That is not speculative. The contract is not speculative, the funding is.

Georgie CROZIER: Do we know how many contracts have been signed, Deputy President?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Crozier, was there a question?

Georgie CROZIER: Yes. How many contracts have been signed?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Crozier, I have been reasonably generous in the conversations that we have been having in relation to the relevance to this year’s budget. SRL East is 2035. I have gone through the value capture opportunities. I have gone through the commitment from the state government. There are plenty of opportunities for the federal government, regardless of who is in, to go through their own processes in respect to Infrastructure Australia’s advice and the like and I would expect that there will be lots of opportunities for them to partner with us on a project that is really important to the Victorian community. That is why we have signed up to it, because Victorians want us to.

Georgie CROZIER: I would like an answer to the question: how many contracts have been signed?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am sorry, Ms Crozier, I cannot direct the Attorney in how to answer, but the Attorney looks like she is willing to answer.

Jaclyn SYMES: Look, the contracts are publicly disclosed, and I would point Ms Crozier to financial reports. It is not a matter for today’s committee. If she has more questions about SRL and the specifics, perhaps she should direct them to the relevant minister who can point her in the direction of any of the publicly available material.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Attorney, you have stated that the Victorian government is not receiving its fair share. The Treasurer has said something similar. In 2019 the Victorian government spent $1.7 million on an Our Fair Share campaign to run taxpayer-funded ads and commercials during an election campaign. Why isn’t there any money in the budget for such a campaign if the government still believes it is not getting its fair share?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think he is seeking an opinion.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Could you repeat the question, please?

Evan MULHOLLAND: Attorney, you stated that the Victorian government is not receiving its fair share. The Treasurer has said something similar. In 2019 the Victorian government spent $1.7 million on an Our Fair Share campaign to highlight that it is not getting its fair share and to run taxpayer-funded ads during an election campaign. Why isn’t there any money in the budget for such a campaign? And is there any money in the budget in commitments not yet announced for such a campaign, given that you feel so strongly about it?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think I was coming off the back of a contribution from Ms Crozier who had called out how compared to other states Victoria has not received its share of infrastructure funding. But that is improving. We welcome the North East Link contribution. People have been talking about that missing link for 60 years, so it is well overdue. We are certainly very happy that the federal government has joined with us to get on with that important project and what that will deliver for those local communities and the broader Victorian public. I do not think, Mr Mulholland, that your question warrants an opinion from me, apart from the fact that it is –

Georgie Crozier: That was the question: why didn’t you?

Jaclyn SYMES: He is seeking an opinion, and I have said that I very much welcome investment from the federal government. Whether you are in the portfolio of Attorney-General or emergency services or whatever, we always welcome more investment from the federal government here for Victoria. They have got some catching up to do but we are seeing improvements across the board, and the North East Link contribution demonstrates that.

Richard WELCH: Minister, the funding required for the SRL is described in the 2024–25 budget as ‘to be confirmed’, as we all know. What will Victorian taxpayers pay for the SRL in 2024–25?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, in relation to your question, there has been no change in the allocation or the estimates of the $30 billion to $34 billion in relation to the project. We do not outline the amounts to be expended each year because, as you have correctly identified, they are subject to negotiations in terms of tenders and contracts and as the work is let. As the tenders are awarded and the contracts become public, that is when each of the amounts would be disclosed. But obviously to protect the negotiation position of the state, the global figure is public but what is available in contingency each year or what would be expended each year becomes public when it is appropriate.

Richard WELCH: Given that the cost figure is unknown and is to be confirmed, as you have just described, it seems incongruent then that you are signing contracts with forward liability. Does that imply, or does that actually say, that the liability of any cost blowouts going forward will fall with the government rather than the supplier?

Jaclyn SYMES: I would take your advice, Deputy President – but no, it is not. But the line of questioning is in relation to some specifics of contract that are related to a project that is – well, you know. We could spend weeks talking about everything that the government does, but this is about the appropriation bill, and we are getting to the specifics of contracts – whether it was a contract for anything. He has asked me about contract terms as opposed to the appropriation bill. There are numerous packages on a large project. Things become public in the ordinary way. There is no different approach to this project than there has been to numerous other large projects.

Georgie CROZIER: Can I say, before I go to community hospitals, that it is an important part of what we are trying to ascertain here, Minister, in relation to what the government has produced for the Victorian public around budget expenditure. I think the line of questioning by Mr Welch was completely in line, because –

Jaclyn SYMES: How did you go at PAEC with the relevant minister?

Georgie CROZIER: Well, with great difficulty – that is our problem. PAEC was not so great either with the answers that came out. It is like the FOIs; we never get anything out of you. This is important, as you see, because of these line items: total estimated investment (TEI) – to be confirmed; estimated expenditure to 30 June 2024 – to be confirmed; estimated expenditure 2024–25 – to be confirmed; remaining expenditure – to be confirmed; and estimated completion date – to be confirmed. The budget papers actually mean nothing when you just write ‘to be confirmed’ on the biggest project that you keep spruiking. Victorians do not actually know what you have signed them up for. That is why we are asking this line of questioning. Nevertheless, I will move on because we have got not very far. Unfortunately, you are not the Treasurer; I think we understandably would be grilling him. I mean, he signed us up for this, along with the Premier; she was the infrastructure minister.

But nevertheless, if I can go to community hospitals –

Jaclyn Symes: On a point of order, Deputy President, just in relation to that commentary, I would not mind having an opportunity to respond to some of the comments about the TBC elements of a budget. The way you have characterised that is that it is something new and it is something different and there is something to be hidden. It is normal practice. The 2024–25 budget capital contingencies are lower than previous budgets. This is not about hiding the information; this is about how projects need to be delivered. Capital contingencies have fallen by 30 per cent, which is the information that I have, since the 2022–23 budget, which reflects the maturity of projects and the fact that more and more money goes out the door as you are signing contracts and as you are signing up to construction companies and the like to deliver projects. The funding allocated to departments and the project’s TEIs are not mutually exclusive. It is progressively allocated to departments as milestones are achieved, and we have hit a lot of milestones recently. If you look at a couple of other budgets versus this one, that is what you will see more and more, time and time again. This is not new. This is the way governments deliver projects. They allocate funding and they negotiate, and the money goes out the door as things are being built.

Georgie CROZIER: I will move on to community hospitals, but I do think there is a lack of transparency around the government’s commitment in terms of taxpayers funding this project, and that is a huge concern. But if I could go to community hospitals –

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Attorney, Ms Crozier has the call.

Georgie CROZIER: I am happy for you to respond. I think the frustration that we have is that you were expecting Commonwealth money to come in, and that has not come in. You want this value capture, but you cannot give us the details around that, so therefore those communities do not actually know what they are up for. What are they going to be taxed with that value capture? They do not know. There is just such a lack of detail – and that is not our fault, that is the government’s fault. You actually have not explained to the public, with this Suburban Rail Loop, what the contracts and the money are that are assigned to it. The Parliamentary Budget Office has given a figure. The Grattan Institute is saying it is going to be way bigger than that. That is why we are asking these questions, to try to ascertain what on earth is going on here around the contracts and the money that has been allocated and that will be allocated, given that you say, ‘Trust us, don’t worry – this is how budgets are written. It’s all in black and white, to be confirmed.’ That is why we are asking these questions around what you have signed us up to. You still have not provided, I think, any assurances to the house or to the Victorian public through this questioning, but I will leave it at that. I will move on to community hospitals after you respond, if you like, Attorney.

Jaclyn SYMES: I think the only point I would make, Ms Crozier, and I accept that we will just go back and forth a little bit, but I want to make the point that ‘TBC’ is standard protocol. It was a feature of the 2014 budget when the coalition were last in government and had the opportunity to do a budget, so I merely make the point that this is not an unusual practice. Governments of all colours, when they are negotiating, when they are delivering projects – this is how it is reflected in the budget papers.

I understand your questioning, I understand the information you want to seek, but to imply that it is somehow different to past practices – I just wanted to make the point that it is not. Transparency and accountability are of course important, but they cannot come at the expense of being able to negotiate good outcomes for the community.

Georgie CROZIER: I will move on. Attorney, the government announced 10 new community hospitals as an election commitment in 2018 – with great fanfare, I might add. None of them have been built. In this budget three of them – Torquay, Eltham and Emerald Hill – have all been scrapped. In fact there is confusion down in the Emerald Hill precinct; people do not know what is going on. My question is: why have these three community hospitals been cut when billions of taxpayer funds are being pumped into the Suburban Rail Loop?

Jaclyn SYMES: I thank Ms Crozier for her question. I will just start at the outset by clarifying that to describe the projects as scrapped is not appropriate. They are under review, of course; that is correct.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: Well, let us not editorialise here. What I would point to is the community hospital program should be viewed alongside other investments such as priority primary care projects and investments in other hospitals, and what we want to do is ensure that we are responding to the needs of families and Victorians when they need health care. Obviously minor illnesses and injuries and the like that can be dealt with appropriately as opposed to by the emergency services is one of the benefits of being able to do this. Before I get into a bit more detail about the community hospitals, I would preface this by saying we all want to forget it, but after this announcement we had the pandemic, which obviously shook up the health sector enormously.

Community hospitals are something that the government is keen to deliver. This is just one part of the world-class Victorian healthcare system, and it is something that we want to get on and build. We are progressing Whittlesea, Craigieburn, Cranbourne, Pakenham, Phillip Island, Point Cook and Sunbury. The Craigieburn, Cranbourne, Phillip Island and Sunbury community hospitals are due to be completed this year. The Whittlesea, Pakenham and Point Cook community hospitals will be completed in 2025 and 2026.

As Ms Crozier has identified, one of those under review is Eltham, and I would point to investments in both the Austin Hospital and the Northern Hospital, which are no substitute because you want to consider making sure there are lots of avenues for people to access health care. But I would point to the fact that the benefits to the community, the Eltham community, of improvements or expansions to the Northern and the Austin cannot be viewed in isolation.

Torquay – we want to talk to the community and figure out the best possible care options for the community. Obviously there has been a lot of investment in Barwon Health, in their facilities as well, so really, as I said, it is under review and we are talking to those communities about that. Emerald Hill is also under review, and we are talking to the community about their needs as well. I hope that clarifies some of your concerns, Ms Crozier.

Georgie CROZIER: Attorney, the Northern Hospital and the Austin Hospital have been there for many years, long before the 2018 election commitment to build a community hospital in Eltham, so to say that you are actually now putting the money into the Austin makes no sense.

Jaclyn SYMES: That is not what I said. They benefit from that investment is what I said.

Georgie CROZIER: But they have been there, and then you promised the community you were going to build these hospitals. You are now saying they are under review. So could you provide to the committee when that review will be complete for each of them – Eltham, Torquay and Emerald Hill?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have that information as part of –

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: The person in the box is not from the health minister’s office. The person in the box is from the Treasurer’s office.

Georgie CROZIER: Would the adviser please be able to take that on notice and get back to the committee when that review will be completed, because as you have just stated, ‘They’re not being scrapped. They’re under review.’ They are not in the budget paper – well, they are in the budget, I should say, but I think those communities need to understand. They were told they were going to be built and now they are saying they are under review, and I think they have an expectation that that timeframe be known. So if the Treasurer’s office has understood that to be the case, then I am sure they will know when the review will be complete and whether there actually is going to be more money in the budget for next year or not.

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Crozier, I am reluctant to ask the Treasurer’s office to take on notice questions for other ministers’ responsibilities. My understanding in relation to the reviews of those three community hospitals is that they are separate projects. They are all very much independent of each other, because it is about those communities and the needs of those community members. So to suggest that there is a review of the policy intent is not correct. There is a review of what is best for each community, so in that respect there is not a review timeline that is one. This is my understanding. The information you seek would be best directed directly to the health minister’s office, and there are a variety of ways to do that. I can let them know that it is coming, if you like, but I am certainly not proposing to load up the Treasurer’s office with responsibilities that are very clearly in the remit of other ministers.

Georgie CROZIER: Just to clarify, it is the Department of Health that will be conducting those reviews independently?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not know.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, I am trying to work it out. You just said if you want the review, it is not out of the Treasurer’s office; it is coming out of the Department of Health, and there are various ways –

Jaclyn SYMES: Ask the Minister for Health’s office – they will know.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, I might say to myself, ‘Good luck with that.’ I get nothing out of them. Has a cost–benefit analysis been carried out on the three scrapped hospitals?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is impossible to answer a question that has no factual basis.

Georgie CROZIER: I will ask again: has a cost–benefit analysis been carried out on the Torquay, Eltham and Emerald Hill community hospitals that are now no longer in the budget – as you have just said, they are under review?

Jaclyn SYMES: In terms of what I have said, how I have received information in relation to those reviews is that they will be looking at the benefits and the needs of a community. The Victorian Health Building Authority will be well placed to assist the minister’s office and the health department in relation to those inquiries.

Georgie CROZIER: So I take it, then, there has been no cost–benefit analysis on probably any of these community hospitals, given that answer, Attorney?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Crozier, I am trying to be helpful by relaying to you information that I have at hand. You are getting into information that is best placed with the Minister for Health. I have outlined that there is a review of those three sites. We have been very transparent about this. My understanding is that there will be major consultations with the communities about what is best for them. I think I have been as helpful as possible. What I would ask you not to do is draw conclusions of your own based on the information that I am presenting to you, because you are incorrect in doing so. If you want to interrogate the detail of the information I have given you, I have given you an invitation to take that up with the Minister for Health.

Georgie CROZIER: I will endeavour to do that, Attorney. The 240,000 elective surgeries that failed to be delivered and the revised figure of 200,000 surgeries to be delivered – is there any modelling being done on that, given that the minister said in November that 20,000 surgeries would be delivered each and every month to get to 240,000 year on year? Just now, they have failed by 33,000 and the target has gone back to 200,000 elective surgeries – or in your government’s terms, planned surgeries – to be delivered. Could you provide the committee with the modelling for those figures or an analysis of those figures, given that they got it so spectacularly wrong on the 240,000?

Jaclyn SYMES: Just give me 2 secs to find some information.

I thank Ms Crozier for her question in relation to planned and elective surgery numbers. What I can provide the committee with information on is in relation to the Labor government’s $12 billion pandemic repair plan. It is certainly wanting to make an impact on Victorians who need health care, particularly where and when they need it. It includes the record $1.5 billion COVID catch-up plan to boost surgical activity across the state. Since this significant investment through the dedication of our health sector – and we cannot underestimate those hardworking staff – waitlists have decreased by 30 per cent since March 2022. In relation to hitting the – I think you asked about the 240,000 planned surgery target revision. Is that correct?

Georgie CROZIER: Correct.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes. We are on track to do more planned surgeries than ever before, this financial year, despite the ongoing impacts of the pandemic on the system and also the well-publicised workforce shortages. When we announced the COVID catch-up plan in April 2022 the waitlist was over 88,000. It has been reduced by, as I said, 30 per cent, so we are now sitting around 62,000 as of the last quarter. Almost 80 per cent of all patients are treated within the clinical recommended period of time, and so far this financial year over 1,708,000 Victorians have been supported to receive the planned care they need. This includes over 153,000 surgeries, 10 per cent more than the same time last year, as well as diverting patients to non-surgical treatment pathways and optimisation to better prepare them for surgery and therefore get better outcomes and get people home sooner. We made the right investments at the right time in a really challenging environment as part of the COVID catch-up plan for not only recovery but also reform, and we have changed the way we deliver planned surgeries in Victoria to support people, predominantly around identifying the right time and the right place for as many patients as possible.

Georgie CROZIER: The COVID catch-up plan has been in place for a number of years, and you cut money from that because the pandemic was over. You said in last year’s budget you would get 240,000 – you failed to do that by 33,000. You have decreased the number by a further 7000, to 200,000. Yet five months ago the minister said you would deliver 20,000 surgeries a month and 240,000 would be delivered year on year. A few months later she is blaming workforce shortages, and you mentioned workforce shortages. Where are the workforce shortages that have caused a decrease of 40,000 surgeries being provided to the Victorian community? Are they in metropolitan regions or they are in rural regions predominantly? What are the estimates from Treasury around that?

Jaclyn SYMES: The labour shortages are clear across the board. I know you visit hospitals – I certainly do in Northern Victoria – and everybody is looking for ideas to attract and retain all sorts of health professionals, from OTs to surgeons. We know that we need more and more health professionals, and that is only one contributor to not being able to reach what we had planned, and I explained that. But what I do want to detail is that the number of Victorians waiting for planned surgery is now at its lowest level since the pandemic began. We are certainly not trying to pat ourselves on the back – there is lots more work to do – but it is just a fact that I am putting on the table.

In 2023–24 the COVID catch-up plan supported over 178,000 Victorians to receive the planned care, and it obviously is important that it also includes non-surgical treatments. More than 50,000 patients have been treated every quarter since June 2023, and we are seeing more patients treated every quarter than before the pandemic, so we are getting back on track. Victoria’s new public surgical centres in Blackburn and Frankston and our 10 rapid access hubs across the state are certainly also helping streamline services and free up theatres in our busy hospitals.

Georgie CROZIER: Just for the committee’s benefit, I note that there were record numbers of Victorians on the elective surgery waitlist pre COVID.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I have just got a couple of questions on the growth areas infrastructure contribution (GAIC) funding in the budget. If you need a reference, it is budget paper 5, page 203, for those following at home – I am sure at least one is.

Jaclyn SYMES: Your electorate office.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Yes. On 24 April the government reannounced a $400 million package for growth areas. What is the period the funding will be spent over?

Jaclyn SYMES: Just let me clarify something.

Mr Mulholland, I have just conversed with the box because I could not determine your connection to this year’s budget. What you are referring to is GAIC. GAIC is effectively a tax, and the allocation that you have referenced is the previous budget’s, not this budget. I do not think that I can provide an answer. Can you rephrase the question, perhaps?

Evan MULHOLLAND: If I can refer you to budget paper 5 – supposedly budget paper 5 – page 203, in regard to the growth areas infrastructure contribution, can I ask how much of the GAIC the government intends to spend in the following financial year?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, I am happy to see if we can get you some material offline, but it is a little bit difficult, because you are asking how we will spend money that has not yet come in through a tax. So I can provide you the guidelines and things in relation to GAIC, but because it is not forecast in this budget, I cannot give you a figure because we do not know what we are going to bring in yet.

Evan MULHOLLAND: According to budget paper 5, page 203, the government is expecting to receive another $245 million in financial year 2024–25.

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Yes, it is there. How much do you expect of that to be allocated to growth area projects?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, sorry, my understanding of the GAIC is that it can only apply to growth areas. But I cannot give you an outline of the projects that it will fund, because the projects that it funds are projects that are put up and applied for as part of the allocation. They invite project considerations and the like, so I cannot pre-empt what those communities are going to be seeking.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I understand that, but that is kind of the point – previously I know the 2022–23 Department of Transport and Planning annual report had the GAIC having $535 million in uncommitted funding; $400 million of that was allocated in the government’s recent announcement of funding. So I am attempting to extrapolate how much of that $245 million in the upcoming financial year will be allocated, given in the past there have been funds in the GAIC left uncommitted.

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, my answer is the same, Mr Mulholland: unless there are projects sought, they are the ones that get funded. I do not have a list of proposed projects in the growth areas. All I can confirm is that the hypothecation rules of the GAIC fund require it to be spent in growth areas, and as you well know – and so do I, given it is the south end of my electorate that meets the north end of yours – there is a lot of need in growth areas. We welcome consideration of projects that are important to those communities.

Evan MULHOLLAND: You touched on projects that are considered and put forward, and I want to see if I can ask on one particular one. Given the recommendations of the Auditor-General’s 2020 report Managing Development Contributions, which recommends seeking greater council input into selecting GAIC-funded projects, the Wyndham City Council put forward quite a reasonable business case for a Tarneit indoor recreation centre, which has been actually endorsed by the council and includes a $35 million contribution. If you look at the Department of Transport and Planning website, there appears to be around $177 million of projects funded in Wyndham, but curiously around $135 million worth, or 77 per cent, of these projects are actually located in the Werribee district, despite Tarneit’s rapid growth and a lot of the collection coming from there. Can you, Attorney, explain either the selection process or the budget process under which these projects were funded in Wyndham – under the Growth Areas Public Transport Fund or the Building New Communities Fund – in regard to how they were selected through the budget process?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, I am not in a position to confirm the selection processes of those projects, nor is the Treasurer, because neither he nor I make determinations in relation to those matters.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I think the Treasurer would have had a big say given that 70 per cent of that area went to his electorate –

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: It is 77 per cent. $177 million collected from Wyndham council, but $135 million to go to projects within the Werribee district. I do not believe it is appropriate in terms of selection process to go against the advice of the Victorian Auditor-General’s recommendation, which was pretty clear about consulting with council. The councils do not seem to be too happy with it.

Jaclyn Symes: On a point of order, Deputy President, I would just like to point out that Mr Mulholland is reflecting on the massive investment in the west and would just like to congratulate him on attributing that to our government.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order. Mr Mulholland to continue.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I think Mr Welch has a question.

Richard WELCH: Attorney, apologies, I want to go back to the SRL. It would bug me if I did not ask this question, so I want to ask it. We know significant contracts for the SRL are due to be signed in the next quarter – I think that is accurate. You say that the financial impost of these contracts is to be confirmed because they are in negotiation, and I can accept –

Jaclyn SYMES: That’s one reason.

Richard WELCH: Okay, and maybe you can expand on what the other reasons are.

Jaclyn SYMES: Because they’re in the future.

Richard WELCH: That is reasonable if they are in negotiation, but will any of the budget allocations for the SRL currently listed as to be confirmed be updated when these contracts are signed? Because presumably that will crystallise the financial cost. Effectively, will there be a budget update, and if so, when?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is somewhat speculative, Mr Welch, which makes it difficult to provide any certainty – there are lots of contracts and work packages, and some of them interrelate and the like. I do not profess to be an expert in this regard, but if there is any information to be confirmed in the budget process, we would do that in the ordinary way in the budget update later this year.

Richard WELCH: I think it is late this year.

Jaclyn SYMES: We have a budget update in December.

Evan MULHOLLAND: As stated in budget paper 2, chapter 1, on page 6:

Government infrastructure investment … is expected to peak at $24.0 billion in 2023–24 …

before it starts to come down over the forward estimates. How is the government able to forecast this figure without having provided funding for major infrastructure projects, including the Arden precinct redevelopment, North East Link and the Suburban Rail Loop?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not agree with his question. It is in the papers, and it is funded.

Evan MULHOLLAND: In budget paper 2, chapter 2, in the first table, the government proposes several external risks to the performance and growth of Victoria’s economy. There are other risk factors within the government’s control. Ahead of the budget it was acknowledged that one of these risks, the government’s record-level spending on infrastructure, is indebting the state and crowding out private investment – that is what the Treasurer had said – and that it was time to recalibrate. Attorney, under the existing projects table in budget paper 4, many of the government’s infrastructure projects are unfunded or only partially funded in this budget. Does the government acknowledge its unfunded infrastructure projects are a risk to Victoria’s economic outlook?

Jaclyn SYMES: I guess the short answer to that, Mr Mulholland, is that government infrastructure investment is coming down, and it says so in the budget paper that you have just referenced. Obviously we have done a lot in a small amount of time, and productive investments are what get the economy going and responding to a growing community and demonstrate the strength of the Victorian economy as well. Its recovery from COVID has certainly been something of note from commentators. We want to have a steady, sustainable pipeline of infrastructure because that is important for jobs. Obviously the job-creating benefits of infrastructure projects cannot go understated. You do not want to go back to not investing in infrastructure. That is what effectively lost the coalition government when they were last in. When you do not do anything, the public do not appreciate the fact that you are not responding to their needs. So we certainly had a bit of catching up to do after a small stint in opposition. We got on with it, and we are continuing to deliver the projects that are important to Victorians.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I refer to budget paper 3, page 75. The government has previously described the suburban development portfolio as one that helps suburban communities to thrive and has in the past espoused the virtues of the metropolitan partnerships program. I know previously several Labor members have chaired metropolitan partnerships committees, including Mr McIntosh. Can you confirm that this program has ended?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, what I can confirm is that the government continues to partner with councils and continues to support projects that are important to local communities, whether that is CBD, metro or indeed rural and regional. There are so many projects on the go across the state and so many opportunities for MPs to go and visit the construction of thousands of projects. Some of them are at ribbon-cutting stage, others are at sod-turning stage, and there is massive investment across the board. You have mentioned the growth areas infrastructure contribution. There is a lot of funding in relation to the GAIC projects which benefit your outer-metropolitan growth areas. There are numerous projects and much investment going on across the board. In relation to the portfolio that you have mentioned, I will have to seek advice from that minister in relation to the list of projects and support funds that they have. I do not have it to hand.

Evan MULHOLLAND: On page 71 of budget paper 3 it is indicated that in 2023–24 the Growing Suburbs Fund was funded for $10 million. Additionally, the item listed supporting our suburbs, which was the funding for the metropolitan partnerships program, which is now not funded. Would you accept that this represents a 73 per cent reduction in funding for the entire suburban development portfolio?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, my ears pricked up in relation to the number of programs that you put under that portfolio. I think you mentioned some that were outside that minister’s portfolio responsibility. I think some of them might be the responsibility of the regional development minister. In any event, the investments across Victoria are numerous and endless, and the Growing Suburbs Fund is only one fund. As you would appreciate, the minister for sports infrastructure, for example, partners with local councils and community groups in relation to sporting projects which do not necessarily come under the project title that you indicated. That does not mean that there is not a lot of investment and building and active projects all across metro Melbourne.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 10 agreed to; schedules agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (16:37): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (16:37): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Legislative Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.