Thursday, 19 June 2025

Appropriation (2025–2026) Bill 2025

Second reading

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (14:20): I will sum up on the appropriation bill that we have just been discussing. The Appropriation (2025–2026) Bill 2025 creates authority for expenditure in the 2025–‍26 financial year, so in that sense, although the budget is wideranging, the bill before us today is less so. The bill provides appropriation authority for payments from the Consolidated Fund for the ordinary annual services of the government, for the Parliament and entities related to the Parliament for the 2025–26 financial year, and they reconcile expenditure for Treasurer’s advances in the 2023–24 financial year. Advances during 2024–25 from the Treasurer’s advances and those available under section 35 of the Financial Management Act 1994 are not brought to account in the annual appropriation bill; they are tabled in the Parliament as part of the financial report for the state of Victoria 2024–25 and formally brought to account in next year’s appropriation bill.

Advances relating to 2023–24, which were published in the financial reportfor the state of Victoria 2023–24, are brought to account in clauses 7 and 8 and schedules 2 and 3 of this bill. The bill carries funding decisions from this year’s budget and previous budgets where that expenditure falls in this forthcoming financial year. The bill does not authorise the expenditure outlined in this year’s budget for the years beyond 2025 and 2026 – I am just setting the parameters of what this bill actually does. However, appropriation bills are more than just a financial statement; they do put into effect our plan for the future of the state, and that is a plan that is shaped by discipline, guided by care and defined by a clear focus on delivering for Victorians.

Across our state and of course across the country there are families that are doing it tough. Household budgets are under pressure, prices are rising, wages are stretched, and many Victorians are working harder than ever before to make ends meet. Of course this means that they look to their government for practical support and responsible leadership. This year’s budget and the expenditures approved in the bill aim to deliver both. It provides real cost-of-living relief for households and free public transport for every child under 18, which as Ms Payne has indicated, not only is a popular cost-saving measure but brings about equity for many young people, particularly vulnerable young people. There will be free weekend travel for seniors, a $100 power saving bonus for concession card holders and rebates to support the switch to solar and energy-efficient appliances. These are direct savings, and they will have a big impact on many people.

The budget does not stop at relief: it lays the foundations for a stronger, fairer and more resilient state through investments in the services and infrastructure that Victorians rely on each and every day. In health we are investing in new hospitals and community care across the state, from Footscray to Frankston, from Geelong to the Latrobe Valley. We are expanding mental health services and making common treatments available free at pharmacies, easing pressure on the health system and on household budgets alike. In education we are backing every student in every classroom. We are delivering free kinder for all three- and four-year-olds, extending free TAFE and supporting schools with investments in teacher training, year 12 completion, vocational learning and classroom resources, as well as a lot of infrastructure projects. I take the opportunity to point to some of the projects in the electorate of Northern Victoria, projects that I have been working on for some time. Seeing the funds for the upgrades at Broadford Primary School and Wangaratta High School are certainly highlights of the budget for me personally but also planning money for Yarrawonga P–12 and Broadford Secondary to accommodate and plan for the futures of those towns are welcome additions.

We are ensuring no child misses out on shared school experiences, with $400 in support for camps, excursions and activities. I have spoken at length in many forums on the difference that that makes in the lives of kids so that they do not miss out on the opportunities that others get. We are supporting jobs, growth and innovation with $240 million to back Victorian businesses, including targeted support for exporters, manufacturers and regional industries. We are helping businesses reach new markets, create new jobs and adapt to a changing economy. And of course we are building for the future, funding major transport infrastructure like the Metro Tunnel, the West Gate Tunnel, the Sunshine superhub and the Suburban Rail Loop. These projects are not just about getting people from A to B, they are about connecting communities, supporting housing growth and unlocking long-term economic opportunity for Victoria.

On housing we are taking a comprehensive approach, from the direct support for first home buyers through stamp duty relief to public housing supply and streamlined planning approvals to get more homes built faster and where people want to live. For those doing it toughest we are expanding food relief, supporting interest-free loans through Good Shepherd and funding programs to prevent homelessness before it occurs.

Crucially, we are doing all of this whilst returning the budget to surplus. This budget returns Victoria to surplus in 2025–26, with an average of $1.9 billion across the forward estimates. Net debt is declining as a share of the economy, and government spending is being brought back to sustainable levels. We are reducing temporary pandemic-era expenditure, eliminating duplication and ensuring that every dollar is invested where it will deliver the greatest benefit for Victorians.

This is a budget defined by responsibility and reform. It reflects the priorities of a government that is focused on delivery and on making lives easier, communities stronger and our economy more secure. It backs our nurses, our teachers, our apprentices and our essential workers. It supports small businesses and growing industries. It puts families at the centre of our decisions, and it charts a clear course towards long-term prosperity. This bill deserves the support of the house, and I believe we have got there. I think we will get it through committee. I do thank members for their engagement on the development of the budget and indeed in preparation for the committee stage.

The bill represents a fiscally responsible budget. It delivers on priorities that matter to Victorians. It is about easing pressure on households, backing vital services and building the infrastructure and creating the jobs our future depends on. It is not just a budget of numbers, it is a budget of choices, and it makes the right ones – targeted investment, disciplined spending and a focus on what will deliver the greatest benefit to the people of our state. It supports Victorians through the challenges of today and lays the groundwork for a stronger, fairer, more resilient Victoria in the years ahead.

I might leave my comments there, as I understand we can have a fairly wideranging conversation in the committee stage.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (14:29)

Jaclyn SYMES: As members will appreciate, this is the first time in a long time that the Treasurer is in the upper house and therefore the first time for a while that the committee stage has involved the Treasurer, and I wanted to acknowledge and thank –

David Davis: I remember the last one.

Jaclyn SYMES: Of course you remember. How long were your committee stages then?

David Davis: They varied.

Jaclyn SYMES: Okay. I make these comments because I have actually been the responsible minister for the appropriation bills for the last four years I think, but this is the first time in the seat as Treasurer. In that regard, there has been some heads-up on the topics that members want to cover in today’s committee, and I appreciate that, and I have certainly gone to lengths to obtain information so that I am ready for some of those discussions. But I do want to indicate that that is a demonstration of good faith. There is the ability for me to confine this to the Appropriation (2025–2026) Bill 2025. I am not intending to be overly strict in that regard, but I am not the portfolio minister for every portfolio in the government. So where there are topics that are appropriately Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) style questions for relevant ministers, I will hopefully have high-level information that I can provide, but I just want to caveat my attempts to be helpful. I am going to be more generous than the confines of the bill, but I expect probably a little bit in return in regard to that as well.

David DAVIS: I understand the Treasurer’s points. This is the appropriation bill. It is a specific bill. There is an associated budget paper. In part of this debate we debate the budget papers bundled up, and the budget papers do lay out the government’s spending intentions in greater detail than the schedules that are attached. I just thought I might start with the obvious place, with the schedules, and that is the prior material, and that is the Treasurer’s advances (TAs). We can just take it in turns. I will have one go on Treasurer’s advances and then let you go, and I will come back to other things and maybe just do topic by topic. I do not think the Treasurer will be surprised that I will be asking about Treasurer’s advances. There have been forums held in this place about the widespread misuse of Treasurer’s advances, and I accept that this time period of the Treasurer’s advances, 2023–24, was before her time, so I do not hold her personally responsible for those decisions. But there are questions going forward. There are questions about these specific items, and I could start anywhere, but I might just start with a high-level general question: why on earth are so many items here that are nothing to do with COVID and nothing to do with urgency? I am just looking, for example, at page 22 on schedule 3, ‘Relating to contingency releases’ – I am sorry, I have just flicked to the wrong page – page 30, ‘Relating to decisions made post budget’.

On Treasurer’s advances, in schedule 3 and schedule 2 you see so many of these items. Look at ‘Complex inquests at the Coroners Court’, ‘Cyber security response’ – I am on page 18, schedule 3 – for example. There are literally dozens – ‘Children’s Court Clinic and Conferencing project’. If you turn over the page, there are other examples of Treasurer’s advances that have been made that just completely are not urgent – are not for some desperate need. We understand if there is a bushfire that has got to be funded. We understand if there is a flood that has got to be funded. We even understand a pandemic, but we do not understand these other points. And I just want the minister to tell us what is going to be done about this practice of spending $10 billion or $11 billion or $12 billion or $13 billion on advances.

Jaclyn SYMES: I appreciate the question that Mr Davis has put, acknowledging that he has identified that a lot of the examples he was referring to were from 2023–24. Since becoming Treasurer it obviously has been brought to my attention that there were concerns around transparency and accountability for Treasurer’s advances, and I have certainly taken steps in conjunction with the Department of Treasury and Finance to respond to some of those concerns at the outset. Treasurer’s advances are for, effectively, milestones, demand and the unforeseen. In this year’s budget you will see that almost 99 per cent of all contingencies are set aside for specific purposes and only 1 per cent of contingencies are unallocated. I would also point to the fact that, as a share of the total appropriations, Treasurer’s advances have fallen by about 50 per cent in four years, from 19.4 per cent in 2020–21 to less than 10 per cent now.

There is a new way of reporting in this year’s budget papers in relation to the contingencies. In particular, in relation to general government output contingencies not allocated to departments, you will see that we are breaking down contingencies into three categories. About the milestones, I think, Mr Davis, you would appreciate the milestones and when bills are due and the mechanism of Treasurer’s advances. The second category is future service demand allocation: that is predominantly around price and demand growth for sectors such as health and education. The category that I think we can all agree on, and I think that I agree with you on, Mr Davis, is urgent and unforeseen circumstances, which should be limited to exactly those.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Ms Purcell, just before you start. I omitted to welcome our guest who is in the gallery. We welcome the Honourable Veena George, who is the Minister for Health and Woman and Child Development in the government of Kerala, India. We hope you enjoy your time with us today.

Georgie PURCELL: I will be brief. Treasurer, noting your comments at the start, I have done my best to keep my questions relative to the bill or the budget and would appreciate any high-level overview. My first question is on dingoes, which play a vital ecological role as apex predators and hold deep cultural significance for many First Nations communities across Victoria. This year it was announced by the government that $9.2 million would be allocated in the budget to the vertebrate species management program to lethally control various species, including native dingoes. How much of this figure will go towards lethal control programs?

Jaclyn SYMES: The information I have is that we are providing an additional $2 million support package to fund trials, research and on-ground advice on nonlethal dingo management strategies.

Georgie PURCELL: My follow-up question was about nonlethal programs. Is there any figure in that allocation for lethal programs, noting that there is just one part of Victoria where the unprotection order has been revoked?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have a dollar figure for you, Ms Purcell. The aim is to strike the right balance between protecting the vulnerable dingo populations while giving farmers the ability to protect their livestock by remaking the dingo unprotection order only in eastern and north-eastern Victoria until 1 January 2028.

Georgie PURCELL: I have a question, unsurprisingly, on greyhounds. This year the budget allocated $122.9 million towards the racing industry for support and regulation. Could the Treasurer provide a figure on how much of this is dedicated to greyhound racing, particularly a breakdown on what these figures are used for by the industry?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have that granular level of detail, nor is it clear in the budget papers. But it will be forthcoming in annual reports of the racing agencies.

Georgie PURCELL: Given the Victorian government’s ongoing financial support for the greyhound racing industry, including a $3 million interest-free loan to GRV to meet short-term expenditure commitments in 2024, have any additional emergency support payments been provided to Greyhound Racing Victoria? If so, what were the amounts and conditions of them?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, Ms Purcell, that is not a level of detail that I am privy to. I would direct your question to the Minister for Racing.

Georgie PURCELL: Treasurer, one of the most serious and widespread animal welfare concerns raised during the inquiry into Victoria’s recreational native bird hunting arrangements was wounding – that is, when birds are shot but do not die. When the Victorian government did not ban duck shooting as recommended by the inquiry, they proceeded with the status quo in 2024 and committed to mandatory shooter education and proficiency testing by 2025. This did not happen, and the season has been and gone. This year the budget allocated $94.1 million to fishing, boating and game management in Victoria. How much, if any, of this funding is for this promised proficiency testing?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, apologies, Ms Purcell, that is not a level of detail that I have. The Minister for Outdoor Recreation and Minister for Environment should be able to give you more details in relation to that.

Georgie PURCELL: I have asked him as well, so hopefully we will get that answer. On kangaroos, $2.2 million over two years was allocated to continue the kangaroo harvest management program in Victoria. What has been the cumulative cost to the Victorian taxpayer to kill kangaroos through this program since it began?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, Ms Purcell, I understand your interest in these matters, but that would not be a matter for this budget. This budget is about the money that we are effectively putting out the door in 2025–26. In relation to a program that you are after a cumulative figure on, again I would direct your question to the relevant minister, who would be better placed to get you that type of information.

Georgie PURCELL: Treasurer, on this year’s budget, do you have any more detail on how the $2.2 million for kangaroo management will be used?

Jaclyn SYMES: No. Again, Ms Purcell, effectively, responsible ministers are best placed to talk about what the funding will be used for. Obviously when they put in bids and it goes through the budget process, we have a look at that as a budget committee in determining it. But once it is approved, the responsibility of delivering the programs falls with responsible ministers.

Georgie PURCELL: Treasurer, I raised this one in question time yesterday for the Minister for Community Sport, but this year’s budget provides funding of $40.3 million for community sport and recreation. But it did cut the office for women’s sport and recreation and the prevention of violence through sports program grants, and there is no specific mention of supporting women’s sport in this budget. Does the Treasurer have any detail on how exactly the functions of this office will continue? With it being gone, what measures are in the budget for specifically supporting women and girls participation in sports?

Jaclyn SYMES: The government will always support women and girls participation in sport and recreation. The functions of the office for women in sport and recreation will continue but have been collapsed within Sport and Recreation Victoria. In relation to programs that actively prevent violence against women or address other gender-based issues through sport and positive programs for women, there is a whole-of-government approach to many of these initiatives, whether it is through the justice portfolio or the youth portfolio. I think you will find that there are a range of programs that go to these exact intentions and ambitions. There is not a view of reducing our attention in this space; it is just delivered in a more streamlined manner.

Georgie PURCELL: On the sex worker legal program – and I know the Treasurer is familiar with this topic – run by Southside Justice, providing critical support and free legal advice to sex workers in Victoria, particularly post the rollout of the decriminalisation of sex work in Victoria the service has been more in demand and more needed than ever before. Previously, in 2022, the government provided $156,000 for the running of the program, but this year, for the second year in a row, they did not receive any funding within the $40 million provided to community legal centres. Is there any reasoning for why this decision was made?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Purcell, the advice I have is that the initiative at time of decriminalisation received program-specific, time-limited funding just for the transition to decriminalisation, and it was certainly made clear at the time that it was a time-limited program. The funding was to support sex workers during the reform process and transition to full decriminalisation, which occurred on 1 December 2023, by providing legal assistance to sex workers during that transition, which is an explanation as to why funding was ceased and did not continue. St Kilda Legal Service had an existing practice of providing legal assistance and outreach to sex workers prior to the commencement of the reform process. Now that decriminalisation has been implemented, it was in line with the commencement of the program that it would cease at that time. I understand your advocacy for legal representation for sex workers, whether it is related to decriminalisation or not, and I would encourage you to take those representations up with the Attorney-General.

Georgie PURCELL: I have just got two more to go, thank you, Treasurer. Since the end of native forest logging on public land the government provided $1.5 billion in forest industry transition and $44 million under the future forest banner, promoted as a legacy investment in forest restoration following the end of native forest logging. How much of this funding has actually gone towards ecological restoration and what outcomes have been achieved?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, apologies, Ms Purcell, I am not in a position to provide you with that detail in the context of the committee stage of this bill.

Georgie PURCELL: I thought that might be the case for that one. Just finally, could the Treasurer outline why the government has not included any funding to create the Wombat–Lerderderg, Mount Buangor and Pyrenees national parks in this budget, just particularly noting that there was a commitment to introduce that legislation this year?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am not in a position to give you a policy rationale in relation to that matter, except to confirm that it is not part of the 2025–26 budget.

David DAVIS: I should be a little bit clearer about a few points here on schedule 2 and schedule 3. In schedule 2, ‘Payments from advances pursuant to section 35’, which you mentioned earlier before – if we just stick with schedule 2 for a moment – which is page 17 for those watching, ‘Relating to decisions made post budget’, how is it that the ‘Metro Tunnel readiness’ or ‘Additional authorised officers’ are made in this way? ‘Metro Tunnel readiness’ must have been an item that was understood to be forthcoming – ‘Metro Tunnel readiness’ here in the contingency releases is $135-and-a-bit million – and ‘Switching on Big Build’. These all must have been known, and why are they not acquitted in the normal way when they are known ahead of time?

Jaclyn SYMES: The practice is to withhold funding and contingency until milestones are met, and that is for a number of reasons. Generally it is because it is not yet to be paid, so it is actually financially responsible for that to be held centrally rather than dished out ahead to all of the departments, so it is about discipline in that regard. A lot of them are known and often disclosed in the total estimated investment (TEI) –

David Davis: These were in effect and already authorised.

Jaclyn SYMES: You can still know the amount and withhold it and –

David Davis: Authorised subject to completion of X, Y and Z.

Jaclyn SYMES: Correct – that is exactly how it works. So once a milestone is reached it can then be released, and it is just that it happens to be released through the same mechanisms as TAs as to why it is reported in this way.

David DAVIS: The point is that that, in effect, is money that has previously been authorised in principle.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, in effect. The way it would work, without going into deliberations of cabinet, is that the budget and finance committee submissions will often have a project that has a number of steps. You might make a decision to release the first step, then you actually agree to withhold the remaining in contingency, and then the minister will come back and ask for a release of the contingency – you know what it is, it is just not released until such time as it has reached the point that it needs to. It is actually part of our high-value, high-risk gateway process for major projects.

David DAVIS: On the schedule 3 matters – so this is payments from advance to Treasurer – some of these relate to decisions made post budget. I mean, if I look again – this is on page 18 – at the Courtlink mainframe replacement, to be honest it is hard to think of anything that is less urgent in the sense of –

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

David DAVIS: No, I am just making the point that it is not in the mode of a flood or whatever. This could have been made at the normal time and could have been appropriated in the normal way, with a special bill or a whole range of different points. This is actually expenditure that occurred in 2023–24, so that is a long, long time ago. This is the first that it is being brought to book now – is that correct? Or it has already been in the budget, but it has not been appropriated. For example, for this 2023–24 period, why was some of this not in the budget last year? I am picking that one only because it is top of the list.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, that is fine. I think it applies for many of them, I agree. It is retrospective reporting. The expenditure was in the 2023–24 budget. Some of these will be held in contingency for a range of reasons, whether it was subject to a tender process where you did not want to forecast or telegraph to the world what you were willing to pay for that work. Some of those, I think, like cyber security response in particular, falls within your urgent and unforeseen. So they would have come out of different buckets, but they are reported. They came out of contingencies, whether they were milestone payments or whether they were held back for commercial-in-confidence reasons or they were urgent and unforeseen, and that is why they are reported now.

David DAVIS: With respect, Minister, this is 2023–24 – this could have been a decision made on 2 July 2023. It could quite conceivably have been in July 2023, in that financial year, and we are now in 2025. It is a hell of a long way later. Why is a lot of this not brought to book, as it were, in the 2024–‍25 budget? Just the same as I would ask the question now: where are the payments advanced to Treasurer that are in the current year? I accept the current year is not over, and there could be a flood or something still to come, but most of the year is over, a lot of the expenditure – why is that equivalent amount not brought forward this year? The known ones that have already been committed, why are they not brought forward?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think in relation to some of these initiatives, they are made public in other ways in terms of whether it is just literally as part of a press release for a flood response or something like that or indeed in annual reports of appropriate agencies and the like. As I said, this is not necessarily the first time they have been reported; they are first reported in the annual financial report (AFR) in most instances, so this is just making sure that the accountability is all cumulated into one place in terms of – it is a bit hard for me to determine, because obviously I was not the Treasurer at the time. A lot of these, just looking at them, I know have been made public in terms of the money that has been spent on them. If there are any that have not –

David DAVIS: Let us just take the period from when the Treasurer came into her role in December through until the tabling of the budget. There have been decisions made in that period. Am I to conclude that those things will not be brought through in a budget like this until next year? That seems to me to be a problem. Why couldn’t something that is a February item this year –

Jaclyn SYMES: I understand what you are saying. That is why I am trying to make the point that I do not think there is anything new in this reporting; I think it is just the way that it has all been finally tallied up as one. You will see the 2024–25 Treasurer’s advances in the September–October AFR. As I said, it is a little difficult for me to see to see whether there is anything in here that is not already public. I do not know the answer to that, but my advice is that not a lot would be because it has already been disclosed in other forums. But this is, I guess, a responsible way of tallying it all up and making sure that everything is together.

David DAVIS: Perhaps in response to the minister’s point – I mean, I am getting a halfway answer, and I think I understand she is saying, but it does not seem to me to be quite a satisfactory answer. Perhaps as a question on notice you could tell me – somebody could do this – which of these has not been announced previously? I am not expecting you to do that now.

Jaclyn SYMES: Let us do it another way; I will make you an offer. My understanding is that this is a mechanism of providing full accountability. I reckon what I can do going forward is, in looking at what I will be disclosing through the AFR in 2024–25, I will take on board your comments in relation to whether is there anything that would not be there that would then subsequently take two years to be disclosed. I will do it that way.

David DAVIS: I thank the minister for that, because I think it is an important point, and I think if I can just perhaps relay to her, and this is perhaps partially known: the Australasian Study of Parliament Group and others like the Centre for Public Integrity are looking at these matters. I am sure she has seen the correspondence, as I have, and perhaps even had some of her staff attend the seminars and look at the sorts of improvements that could be made. For example, when a major decision is made, perhaps over a certain threshold, it could be notified to the house quite quickly, within 30 or 60 days. You are saying within the quarterly period; that is certainly a vast improvement. If that was achieved, that would certainly be a significant achievement, and I would be very happy to say that.

Jaclyn SYMES: I have been open to ideas about greater transparency and accountability, absolutely. But if we knew everything that was not known, if we were able to know everything that is not known, we would do it differently of course. But we cannot fully predict all of the unforeseen circumstances, milestones et cetera. We do have greater transparency than ever before. This is probably one of the best conversations I have had about TAs, because at least there is a recognition from you, Mr Davis, that it is appropriate to have financial discipline of keeping things to the centre. Other conversations I have had with people are that ‘You should give it out and report it.’ That is not something we think is a responsible thing to do. So I am open to ideas. I have tried to demonstrate that the budget papers are different this year, for that very reason. I have been working with the department. I want to present that this is the appropriate, responsible way of doing things, and that is what I am attempting to do. It still seems to be not quite hitting the mark for everyone, so I am open to those continued conversations.

David DAVIS: I am happy to put on record my thanks to the minister for that and her openness on discussion on this. As I say, the centre for integrity and others are looking at a lot of these matters, and I thank Mr Limbrick for the forum he ran at Parliament recently on some of these exact and related matters. But let me just move to another example here. This would be on page 32, relating to contingency releases. This is still schedule 3, so we are still doing the Treasurer’s advances from 2023–24. For example, here there is a ‘Level crossing removal program’ allocation of $2.195 billion; it is a hell of a lot of money. I ask the minister: what is that for? Yes, it is for the level crossing removal program, I get that, but what is it for – which crossings? And there is a further, deeper question, and I have asked her before in this chamber about completed projects. I think there are 88 crossings that have been completed now, and we still do not have a completion cost on any of them – not one. I would have thought where there are completed crossings, perhaps with the effluxion of a certain period of time, that the actual final cost could be known. Many of them have blown out massively, and I think that is a point that the public are entitled to know, that taxpayers are entitled to know. But on this, what is the $2.195 billion, and does it relate to completed crossings, continuing crossings – what?

Jaclyn SYMES: In relation to this particular item, Mr Davis, it is likely that the TEI has not changed, and that would have been potentially made public. These will be milestone payments – 100 per cent that is what these will be – in relation to again that releasing of the funding when certain parts of the project have been met. They are reported in other ways, is my understanding, but this contingency will definitely be released as milestones, and all of these are certainly subject to our requirements under the high-value, high-risk framework.

David DAVIS: I just make a point – and I do not hold the Treasurer responsible personally for this – the crossing programs and the high-risk, high-value payments have generally not constrained the cost blowouts in this particular program. But my other point is: with these crossings, many of them – 88 I think is the number that have been completed – is there an intention on the government’s part to eventually, at some time, release the cost of the completed crossings?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, you talked about cost blowouts. I would refute the accuracy of that comment in relation to level crossing removals. Again, there is an annual contingency release for the level crossing program; that has been happening for some years. In relation to the reporting and how it is broken down, I think I would have to get advice or direct you to Minister Williams.

David DAVIS: Perhaps the minister can take this on notice. What would be helpful for the chamber and for the community would be for the 88 completed crossings to have a conclusion of the cost of each of those. I get that if they are done in a pair or a triplet there would be a cost across that arrangement. No, it is not easily trackable in there. There were two big level crossing program tranches; there has never been a full reconciliation across them that you can track in the budget. Trust me, I have tried and have had other people try for me. If you are fearing that I might be a dunderhead and not able to understand it, I have had numerous others try, and nobody can track the cost, the money. You pick a level crossing at Toorak Road – that is one that is on its own; it is a single crossing. How much was that meant to cost? Yes, you can get the figure out there when the tender went out, but nobody can tell me what the cost of the Toorak Road level crossing was. I am just picking that as an example. It has been completed now for some years, but nobody can tell me what the cost of that was. And the government must know – Treasury must know, because as you correctly say, Treasury has let the money out in tranches.

Jaclyn SYMES: It is not for me particularly to take on notice questions that should be answered by other ministers. It might be difficult to break some of them down by individual project, because some of them are grouped together as individual tenders and the like. There is probably greater capacity to do the full tender things as opposed to the individual projects, because that would probably be a matter for the delivery agencies in relation to it, because they can buy all of the concrete in one lot and not necessarily be able to allocate it by cost per each project. So it might be difficult to do each project. What I can do is ensure that your views and comments are passed on to Minister Williams in relation to any greater transparency that she can provide in relation to the cost of individual projects.

David DAVIS: That is the furthest I have got on this matter, ever. Nobody has ever, including the Premier when she was the minister, provided the slightest bit of information about the cost of any completed project, and I think this applies more generally.

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

David DAVIS: Well, if you were proud, you would probably be prepared to tell us the numbers. My view is that the first tranche of crossings blew out massively and there was a cross-subsidy from the second tranche, and we have never been able to unscramble that omelette. In that sense, nobody has ever been able to get to the bottom of the actual cost per crossing or even per line or per project or whatever. However, that is probably enough on that – I thank you.

The next question I had related to Helen Silver and her review. We asked a question of you about that yesterday, and you have given us a bit more information. The report will come at the end of June. The government is intending to put a response with that. What was not quite clear is when that would come out into the public domain. Perhaps you might want to give us some better indication of that.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, I am not in a position to give you a specific date. The reason I cannot do that is that, although I meet regularly with Ms Silver, I do not know what is going to be in her independent report. Therefore it is a little difficult for me to pre-empt how long it is going to take to develop a government response. But I will say to you exactly what I have said to the media, who have asked the exact same question, which is that everyone will know that I have got it, and it will not be my intention to have to defend sitting on a report that people want to see. It is my intention to make sure that the response and the report are made public in a timely fashion. But again I am just not prepared to give you a date because I do not want to get caught out and it being said that I have not released something by a couple of days or something like that. I am not talking six months in any way, shape or form. In fact I am hoping that her report will inform the budget update, for example. Maybe that gives you an indication of my intentions.

David DAVIS: I understand what the minister is saying. She does not want to get caught on a precise trip date, and I can completely relate to that. Notwithstanding that and notwithstanding your point that there will be an impact on the budget update, as I understand it, this report, or its iterations, its progress, has already had an effect on the budget. I think that you have had input from Ms Silver already and that it has helped in the framing of the budget. Could you enumerate exactly how and what we can see in the budget from the Silver input, if I can put it that way?

Jaclyn SYMES: As indicated when I made the announcement about asking Ms Silver to do this work, she did present some initial findings part way through her work, which was able to inform some of the budget saving measures that were booked in this year’s budget. A lot of that work was done in collaboration with departments in relation to some of the thinking that they had been doing that she could pick up and have a look at and reaffirm, for example. There is around $3.3 billion worth of savings. Some of that is informed by Helen’s work, but not all of it.

David DAVIS: Given that it has been implemented in part in the budget, is it possible to have a list of those items that have been, as it were, actioned or partially actioned already?

Jaclyn SYMES: There was never a commitment to make those findings public. They were delivered in a paper I think –

David Davis: A presentation.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, not part of a report. It was not an interim report; it was interim findings, if that makes sense, which will be rolled into her final report. The totality of her advice will be in her final report. It is not as though the interim findings are a separate process. They form her final report. It was just some early things that could be identified that we were able to book.

David DAVIS: I thank the minister for that elucidation. With the Silver material, is she being supported by others in this process? Who is supporting her in this particular process? Is it the secretariat, is it part of Treasury, is it part of DPC? What is it?

Jaclyn SYMES: They are questions that are probably best put to Ms Silver herself because it is an independent review. But there have been some seconded positions from within government, including from DTF and DPC. In relation to who she has engaged, that is predominantly a matter –

David Davis: What number? Half a dozen?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have the details of how many people she has engaged. We will obviously disclose all of that in due course because that is fine.

David DAVIS: We will look forward to that point. I wanted to talk about some of the sensitivities that are analysed in the budget, and I asked a question around these matters earlier. The sensitivity analysis at the back of budget paper 2, I think from memory, lays out the sort of impact of a 1 per cent change in certain interest rate parameters and a range of other points. One of the questions I asked yesterday was around the impact of energy. It is actually quite a serious point – and I referenced an earlier comment in the budget paper in that supplementary. I am just interested to understand what analysis has been undertaken about energy costs on one hand and interruption of supply on the other – the lack of reliability of supply on the other. Have they been really formally, carefully analysed in the sensitivity sense?

Jaclyn SYMES: I offered to get you more advice on the sensitivities analysis, Mr Davis, but I think when it comes to things such as interest rate changes, that is certainly factored in. Inflationary factors are factored in, and I would put energy costs very much in that inflation space.

David DAVIS: It is just one that you put into that inflation.

Jaclyn SYMES: That is my understanding.

David DAVIS: In terms of the Commonwealth contributions, which are a large input into the budget –

Jaclyn SYMES: Grants.

David DAVIS: Grants of various types – I am not going to break them down; I could go for a while. My question is: is the government looking at an aggregate outcome for the state from the Commonwealth government? For example, our GST share improved. It has historically for a long period been quite low –

Jaclyn SYMES: It has.

David DAVIS: This is a point of bipartisanship, I think. In fact now it has come up to not far from par, but that is only one –

Jaclyn SYMES: It has not fixed the historical –

David DAVIS: No, not the losses that the state has suffered over 125 years. But the other streams – is there an attempt to aggregate this and look at this as a share overall for the state? Is this done? To say, ‘Well, look, we’re about 25 per cent of the economy nationally. Do we get about 25 per cent of overall federal government grants or not?’

Jaclyn SYMES: No, we do not. We have seen some improvements in recent times – that is certainly acknowledged. I hope that we have continued productive conversations with the federal government in ensuring that we can get better outcomes that reflect our population in a range of matters. I think in infrastructure we are certainly underdone – we continue to be underdone. Obviously the federal budget recently, in relation to some of the Sunshine hub and some roads announcements, is starting to see improvements there, but we are still short-changed as compared to other states, particularly New South Wales, and certainly we would ask for that to be rectified at some point. There are a number of bilateral agreements that are currently in discussion, whether it is education, health or disability. There is a range of these that we are continuing conversations on and looking to get the best deal possible for Victoria. I put at the outset – not at the expense of other states. That is not necessarily our intention, but we have been underfunded comparative to others for a very long time, and we do point that out.

David DAVIS: I accept what the minister said. Has there been some attempt to aggregate that, as it were, and say, ‘For Commonwealth grant funding of all types we get 17 per cent’ or whatever?

Jaclyn SYMES: Definitely in infrastructure, yes.

David DAVIS: No. I mean an aggregate figure. You are not sure? Maybe it has.

Jaclyn SYMES: On budget paper 5, page 7, we have got the forecast of Commonwealth grants, which puts out what we would expect. In relation to deducing from that our fair share, we consistently receive the lowest per capita nationally in almost every metric, which in one sense demonstrates that we are pretty good at looking after ourselves, but they are constant conversations for nearly every minister with their federal colleagues in relation to attracting the investment that we think Victoria deserves.

David DAVIS: I think what you are telling me is that we can look program by program, but there has not been any attempt to aggregate that up into an overall outcome for the state. It seems to me it would be very useful for the state.

Jaclyn SYMES: Budget paper 2, page 47, has got a graph that is quite useful. This is a good indicator of the interstate comparisons, which certainly demonstrates that we are behind in that regard.

David DAVIS: Yes. Tassie. The predictable ones are better in the dark colours. This is on page 47, box 4.1.

Jaclyn SYMES: Correct. For Hansard, we are in budget paper 2, chapter 4, page 47, looking at a table of interstate comparisons of state government revenue.

David DAVIS: And that is recording that we receive the least revenue per capita of all states – a trend which has persisted over the last 10 years, and I think even longer than that. The amount we receive is 5 per cent less than New South Wales and 20 per cent less than Queensland. You have mentioned some steps that are being taken to remedy that by individual ministers. Is there a statewide approach to trying to remedy that?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is certainly a conversation that the Premier and I have, yes.

David DAVIS: I also wanted to ask the Treasurer about the process of forming the budget with the Silver input. Has there been discussion about the final numbers in the public sector? There are suggestions in the budget, but that is not the final Silver report. Do we know what number of public sector employees are likely to be retrenched, for example, or some other mechanism? It seems, from what I intuit and what I hear, that the Silver report will recommend a substantial reduction in public sector employees. Is that correct? And do you have a number?

Jaclyn SYMES: First of all, it has not been a secret that the work that I have asked Ms Silver to do will result in a reduction of full-time equivalent across the Victorian public sector and their agencies. What I set her a goal of was reducing the VPS to the share of the economy it was in prepandemic times. In relation to the interim findings and what was identified in the budget – and it effectively explains why there is not granular detail in there – there are around 1200 positions that are included in the $3.3 billion of savings in this year’s budget. Obviously it was not our intention to telegraph to people through a budget process that their positions may no longer be there. There are obviously appropriate industrial relations and human resources processes to go underway. What I would say is that the departments have been working for some time in relation to identifying their own duplication and opportunities for collapsing programs and the like. There are a range of vacancies that have not been filled as well, because everyone knew that the expectation was to slow down recruitment with a view to reversing the number of VPS both internally and in agencies. The specific term of reference was to look at reducing FTE across the board. In relation to the final numbers in her report, I will await that report.

David DAVIS: Treasurer, does the budget contain a contingency for redundancies?

Jaclyn SYMES: The answer is yes. But I would also bring to your attention that we have already had a series of early retirement invitations and some redundancies across the public service in the last couple of years. So we already have a central way to deal with the financial implications and to fund redundancies and the like. There is an existing bucket. This year’s budget contains a contingency to add to that.

David DAVIS: The last set of figures I saw were the budget outcomes report from PAEC, which actually showed the public sector had grown by 59 employees. It is a very small number, but that was not a reduction, it was actually an increase. And what I would be very cautious about here is: what process does the government have to ensure that good key people are not lost in this process? I am perhaps more cautious in this than many and more concerned to see the quality of the public service is protected. I think there can be blunt instruments that do not assist and actually can be counterproductive in certain circumstances. I guess what I am asking is what steps the government will take if this is the process it is going to go down, and I am not necessarily endorsing that or otherwise. What are the protections for the quality of the public service being preserved?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, I just want to put the 59 employees into context. Yes, you are right. It is a tiny increase when you compare it to the fact that there are 55,000 in VPS or 260,000 in the wider public sector. A lot of those increases would be attributed to health, education, justice and frontline services. Core frontline workers have been excluded from the Helen Silver review. I accept what you have said in relation to wanting to ensure you have got the best and brightest people in the public service and you do not want reductions to be attractive to those people; you want to retain them. Part of the Silver review is not just reducing the number of people – it is about bringing in efficiencies. It is about making sure that the Victorian public sector is the best it can be. It has a great reputation around Australia as having really good people. We do want to keep those people; in fact we want to make their jobs rewarding and want to reduce some of the bureaucratic processes that tie them up. There is a lot of frustration in duplication. When you have got so many layers in the public sector it can be frustrating about the number of steps that you have to take to achieve what you want to achieve. Secretaries and agency heads will certainly be working through these types of issues very carefully, and I guess that is about as far as I can go in relation to that at this point in time. With my industrial relations hat on, first of all, I want to make sure that anybody whose position is no longer available is treated fairly, with empathy and has opportunities to perhaps identify other opportunities in the public sector. That is certainly something that I stand by, but in relation to keeping the best and brightest, we want to keep the best and brightest by having the best public service in the country.

David DAVIS: And protecting frontline services. I am almost done. I want to come back to these major project issues. There is an enormous amount still being spent on major projects. I understand your desire to reduce it and so forth, but a key question is the quality of the outcomes and the value for money. I understand the high-risk, high-value processes, but it seems to me, Treasurer – and I am not holding you personally responsible for this; much of this happened before your time – that almost every single major project is over budget and in some cases massively over budget. What is the government doing more generally to try and wrestle with this problem and deal with these cost blowouts, because it is going straight onto the state’s bottom line – it is debt. Perhaps you would like to give us your prescription.

Jaclyn SYMES: There is a little bit in that. At the outset I do not necessarily accept the premise of the question. It is undoubtable that around the world projects are costing more. The cost escalation in relation to materials, particularly after COVID, impacted every major infrastructure project. Labour shortages have an impact in relation to that as well. Some of the –

David Davis interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: But as I said, I do not necessarily accept your proposition that there have been cost blowouts in that program. But again, I will leave that for discussions with the relevant minister. Some of the measures that we do take – obviously you have identified the high-value, high-risk framework, which is all about ensuring that you are asking people to meet milestones so you can keep an eye on the project as it is going ahead. The changes to the Financial Management Act 1994 are all about ensuring that agencies and departments can start to red-flag any issues in relation to programs that they have delivered or budgets that they are not meeting, so that we can get in and make sure that we can see what is going on there.

I would come back to the importance of investing in infrastructure. Thank you for acknowledging that we are on a trajectory of reducing our infrastructure expenditure. That is an appropriate thing to do.

David Davis: We’ll see if it’s true yet. But where in the –

Jaclyn SYMES: It is in my aggregates that the infrastructure spend will come down. But I do not shy away from being pretty proud about being a government that has made investment in productive infrastructure. That is about ensuring economic growth. We have got Metro Tunnel, West Gate Tunnel, Footscray Hospital – these are generational projects that are good for people now and will be setting us up for the future. It will ensure that the economy continues to grow. It addresses population growth. Has it contributed to debt? Yes, it has, but productive infrastructure is something that responsible governments should invest in.

What we have done has been very aggressive in that regard, because we have had a lot of catching up to do. I understand that. That is why we are reducing our public sector spend on infrastructure. It gives an opportunity for the private sector to also come in and pick up a lot of the skills in relation to the power of construction work that has been going on in the state of Victoria for the last eight years or so. There are other opportunities for us to ensure that we have accountability and discipline in the expenditure of projects through public–private partnerships and different contracting arrangements and the like. So there are a range of measures to make sure that costs are kept within the forecasts that are set at the time. But again, we want to make sure that we are always continuing to make those appropriate, responsible investments, because it in turn is the best outcome for the state of Victoria.

David DAVIS: I am not sure I am assuaged in terms of feeling that the government has a tight, sharp plan to rein in some of these cost blowouts or has an understanding of the scale of the problem that the government faces. But in the interests of time I will just confine my set of questions now to one project, and that is the Suburban Rail Loop, and I do that because of its scale. The business and investment case suggests that it will be somewhere just south of $35 billion. I think the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) assessments are vastly higher than that. With construction costs and the general cost of construction inputs going up right across the scheme – and Mr Welch made commentary in this regard at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings – it seems to me, Treasurer, that what we have not seen from the government is an update on the true cost of the Suburban Rail Loop. Even on those modest estimates in the order of 20 per cent in construction costs increases, this would undoubtedly flow through to the Suburban Rail Loop. In that sense, can you provide the committee today with a clearer position of the true cost of the proposed Suburban Rail Loop?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, I note your interest in this particular project and that you want to focus on that, and that is fine. We can have a conversation about that. But in the –

David Davis interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: I just want to do some opening remarks in relation to where you have gone. It is frustrating that I was unable to convince you that the profile of our government infrastructure investment is moderating, because that is clearly what has been put in the budget papers. It is in the aggregates, and it is what I spoke to the ratings agencies about. I have a firm commitment to reducing our expenditure on infrastructure, but not at the expense of projects. We look at it more as a program of infrastructure, as opposed to individual projects. That is why our aggregates look at the total costs of infrastructure and can demonstrate that they are moderating. In relation to the costings that you have talked about, yes, the project is expected to cost between $30 billion and $34.5 billion. You referenced the PBO and their estimates being significantly higher. I do not think that that is the advice I have. I have got that they reported that the cost to build SRL East will be $32.8 billion from 2019 to 2025, so that seems to be pretty much smack bang in the middle of what our estimates were anyway. In relation to any further updates in relation to that, I can only confirm that the position is unchanged.

David DAVIS: I think what the Treasurer is trying to tell us is that despite all of the infrastructure costs around the nation – in our own state but around the nation – having gone up significantly since the estimates were made in the so-called business and investment case for the Suburban Rail Loop East, there has been no change in those costs. Is that what you are saying? I do not believe you, if that is what you are saying. But if you are saying it, there is not much I can do about that.

Jaclyn SYMES: Perhaps it would be useful to point out, Mr Davis, that to date, all SRL contracts have been awarded within existing budgets, and on the points that you are making in relation to cost escalations, inflationary pressures et cetera, these are what are built into contingencies of projects of this size and duration.

David DAVIS: What you are saying is all of the costs to date have been within contingency and that the government has no reason to believe that the future costs will be outside the envelope of the contingency. Is that what you are telling me?

Jaclyn SYMES: The answer to your question, Mr Davis, is yes. The delivery agency will continue to monitor market conditions, but the answer is yes.

David DAVIS: My colleague has handed me a note to say if you are quite so certain on the cost, why isn’t that in the budget? What is next year’s cost for spending for the Suburban Rail Loop?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, as you would appreciate, funding for this project has been provided in previous budgets. There is not a new allocation in this budget, but that is not to say that there would not be money in the 2025–26 year that is expended. I am not in a position to give you a specific amount.

David DAVIS: Can you give me a ballpark?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am also reluctant to do that because there are obviously potential tender packages and the like that are on foot.

David DAVIS: Tens of millions? Hundreds of millions?

Jaclyn SYMES: No, more than that.

David DAVIS: Billions?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes.

David DAVIS: Single billions or tens of billions?

Jaclyn SYMES: Let me take it on notice and see what I can get you. I do not have a problem with you finding out the figure of what goes to SRL this year. But I am not in a position to give you an indication at this point in time, given the sensitivities of the tenders or any of the other contracts and things. But let me take it on notice.

David DAVIS: Thank you, Treasurer. The other point that I wanted to ask around the SRL in particular relates to the input funding streams. The government has made a great deal of the fact that it is a third, a third, a third – roughly $12 billion of state money, roughly $12 billion or $11.5 billion of federal money and something similar of value capture. I just want to come to those buckets one by one, beginning with the value capture one. Every expert around the land that I speak to – some do not believe that, but I was talking to people who are knowledgeable on value capture long, long before this government was talking about value capture – and none of them think that that figure is realistic, even over many decades. In that circumstance it looks to me like there is a hole in the government’s funding source there. Is the government intending to produce a schedule or an estimate of money that is provided through this value capture mechanism over time? When will that money start to flow, and of what will it be comprised?

Jaclyn SYMES: We all have the benefit of Ms Shing talking about these issues on a regular basis, often at the invitation of yourself, Mr Davis. It is without doubt that new train stations or a train line will bring new businesses, new homes and new shops. We anticipate – and I do not think many people would disagree – that SRL precincts will be highly attractive places to invest, whether it is through businesses or commercial property. We expect that because of that the value of those will be significantly enhanced because of that project. Value capture is not a unique concept and is used to deliver and fund a range of infrastructure projects. We do expect that those that financially benefit are in a position to contribute. There is more work to do in relation to the value capture opportunities, and I am sure that more information can be released as that work progresses.

David DAVIS: It seems to me there are a number of mechanisms of value capture. You can levy via a land tax or something on people’s rates. That seems to have been counted out. It might have been when I wrote to tens of thousands of people and suggested they were about to get a land tax put on them.

Jaclyn SYMES: Did you?

David DAVIS: I did. I wrote to about 80,000 people, and nobody seemed to be very keen. I do not think I had a single person say they wanted to pay more.

Jaclyn Symes: You don’t often find that, do you?

David DAVIS: No. You don’t often find that. The former Premier seemed to change his view on that, but leaving that aside, that seems to have been counted out. But what has not been counted out is higher levies or rates for businesses. That is on, and I wonder if you might tell me what that might be. How much? What sort of number? You know, a business that is paying $10,000 in council rates now, what will they pay? Or is it on their land tax forms? Is that how it is to be done?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, as I indicated in my answer to your question before, these are matters that are evolving. As you have indicated, it is not the government’s intention for existing home owners to contribute to the value capture, but those people that endeavour to make large profits from this project, it would be an expectation that they contribute.

David DAVIS: Okay. So that is one source. The other is value uplift that happens where a planning change occurs. So the windfall gains is one tax that will be collected on the Suburban Rail Loop – is that the intention?

Jaclyn SYMES: Well, windfall gains tax already applies to planning changes.

David DAVIS: This would be a special zone.

Jaclyn SYMES: I have got no announcement in relation to any special zones.

David DAVIS: So the Suburban Rail Loop rules apply to planning arrangements – 1.6 kilometre radius from the rail hub. Will the windfall gains tax apply in all of that region?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, just at first principles, value capture initiatives will accrue over many, many years – decades. In relation to the specific question about windfall gains tax and where it applies, it applies at the moment when you have a change to a planning scheme.

David DAVIS: Other than a growth areas infrastructure contribution area?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, correct, other than a GAIC area. So that is the existing framework, and there is no change at this point in time.

David DAVIS: So the answer is yes, it will apply in those zones.

Jaclyn SYMES: It currently does, yes.

David DAVIS: So there will be no other development levy or uplift levy that is applied, especially in these zones, on top of the windfall gain?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, I am not in a position to go any further than the conversation we have gone to in relation to development of value capture ideas. There are a lot of a lot of suggestions; if you have got any, you are welcome to feed them in. But there are no announcements in relation to that.

David DAVIS: One we heard about this week was the congestion levy. Will that apply in these zones? That is a new one for these zones; is that intended?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, we are very much straying outside the bill. As I said, I did invite general questions and in good faith have attempted to answer them. But what you are now asking me about is potential future policy.

David DAVIS: All right. I will take the indication but ask one further question on that matter. Is there any allowance in this year’s budget for a collection of value capture for the Suburban Rail Loop? Is there any line item? Is there an amount, or is it zero? It might be land sales, for example.

Jaclyn SYMES: Apologies for the delay, Mr Davis. I think the best way to answer this would be to draw your attention to budget paper 4, page 19, which has a breakout box for the Suburban Rail Loop, and in particular identifies that in relation to value capture, saying:

Mechanisms will include harnessing existing tax revenue collected within the precincts, along with additional measures to be progressed for detailed design and implementation.

You would appreciate I am not in a position to go into any greater detail than that.

David DAVIS: The conclusion is there is no additional collection. It says:

Mechanisms will include harnessing existing tax revenue collected within the precincts, along with additional measures to be progressed for detailed design and implementation.

The government is spending quite fast on this at the moment – some billions per year, or a billion-plus per year. When does it expect to start to receive some revenue from this value capture process?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I said, Mr Davis, this is ongoing work, and I refer you to the budget papers.

David DAVIS: I will leave the value capture matter alone and just return to the Commonwealth funding. Is the state government expecting – does it have reason, or has it had communication with the Commonwealth that would lead it to believe – it is going to receive $10 billion or $12 billion in additional funding?

Jaclyn SYMES: I can draw your attention to the initial investment from the federal government of $2.2 billion for this project, which is quite a lot of money. If you are investing $2.2 billion in a project, I think you have some views that that project is worthy of investment. I would point to some federal minister’s comments, particularly Catherine King’s, who has described the SRL as a transformational project for Victoria. We have got Clare O’Neil as the federal Minister for Housing – she is enthusiastic about the SRL because it will deliver 70,000 homes right where Victorians can benefit from them being close to train stations, services and jobs. Coming back to the conversation that we had earlier about receiving our fair share from the Commonwealth, in this year’s Commonwealth budget we received 21.4 per cent in infrastructure funding over five years compared to our population share of 25.8 per cent. So there is the argument that there should be some funding afforded to infrastructure in Victoria. I do expect that the Commonwealth will continue their positive partnership on this project.

David DAVIS: But, Treasurer, there is no immediate sign of a $10 billion cheque being written out to backfill this Commonwealth gap.

Jaclyn SYMES: I think what is important to note also, Mr Davis, is that the contracts signed to date are within the first third of approved state funding, so we are getting on with the project and we will continue the conversations with our federal colleagues.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 10 agreed to; schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (16:02): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (16:02): 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 Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.