Tuesday, 28 October 2025

 Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (12:59): Pursuant to section 35 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, I table a report on the 2025–26 budget estimates, including an appendix, from the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, and I present the transcripts of evidence. I move:

That the transcripts of evidence be tabled and the report be published.

Motion agreed to.

Richard WELCH: I move:

That the Council take note of the report.

First of all, I would like to thank all the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee staff, who worked very diligently for some very long hours for a couple of weeks as we went through PAEC. It is an arduous thing. I would also reflect that the two weeks I spent there on PAEC, I probably learned more about more portfolios than I had learned in the previous year. I found it an incredibly valuable, eye-opening and rewarding experience.

A member interjected.

Richard WELCH: Yes, the eye-opening part, I guess, is exactly that.

I saw that PAEC is sort of a crucible of government, and I saw in that period something that probably reflects the state of the government as it staggers into a final year. The primary concern I had was really around the accounting standards. Time and time again across departments, line items were amalgamated – were compounded into meaningless figures that could not provide any transparency. This happened from department to department. The whole point of PAEC and the whole point of government in liberal societies is you are meant to have transparency, and transparency provides accountability. We saw in the way that the financial reporting is done now that we get neither: we get neither the clarity of accounting standards and line items that provide good governance nor the ability to scrutinise those numbers in an appropriate way. Anyone who has been in business or who has been on audit committees within businesses would have been incredibly frustrated by the way government works. It seems odd, if not simply wrong, to me that government works in a way where the standards are lower than what we expect of civil society in accounting.

One of the really notable things that came out of those discussions was, first of all, how clearly adrift we are in terms of economic management. There is no clear, overriding sense of purpose or mission in the Victorian economy, such that really so much of the discussion ends up being about how we will maintain our credit rating, how we will not address debt but simply rein in the speed at which debt is accumulating. Now, if that is your highest economic aspiration in the state, the state has got a problem. I reflect that it is not unlike Victoria in the 1980s, when we started the decade as the financial capital of Australia and through a lack of purpose and a sense of drift we ended the decade with Sydney being the financial capital of Australia. I think we are in a very similar situation now. Economic policy is not simply a matter of issuing selective grants, creating statutory bodies or issuing Treasurer’s advances at random. That is not economic policy. Economic policy talks directly to matters of productivity, to the working capital of industries and to the ability to create wealth. That was very apparent by its absence throughout all those two weeks of discussions. We also see of course that major expenditure – we are talking about many tens of billions of dollars – was covered off with entries ‘to be confirmed’. The Suburban Rail Loop, the single biggest economic footprint in our budget, was ‘to be confirmed’, simultaneously within the same financial year we are signing contracts on it. If that is not an abuse of the accounting process of government, I do not know what is. It does not provide transparency. We also had the incident where the state government cut education policy by $2.4 billion by not taking up its entitlements, yet I was confronted with the situation where asking whether the minister had received advice on that cut was met with obfuscation and evasion, to the point where I think in retrospect it should have been a matter of contempt of Parliament that that was not revealed. It was a material issue with a material question that did not get answered, and the Victorian people are the worse for it. I would like to commend the report to the house.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (13:04): I am also pleased to rise to speak on another report of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, another budget estimates report, and a report I am happy to commend to the chamber. Indeed it has been, as Mr Welch said, quite a fascinating process, as it always is. I am not sure if you will be joining us again next year, Mr Welch. Hopefully we will see you there. If not, we might have some new friends from your side. I know Mr McGowan is desperate to stay on the committee if he possibly can.

It is a very worthwhile exercise that PAEC undertakes on behalf of the Parliament each year, and I look forward to diving into some more details in a contribution later on where I will have more time to do so. But I do wish to acknowledge and thank in particular the very hardworking secretariat – Igor Dosen and Charlotte Lever, who is the lead analyst for this element of PAEC’s work, and all the team. We are very fortunate to have such a strong, hardworking team supporting the committee. I would also like to acknowledge in particular the Chair, the member for Laverton Sarah Connolly, and all other committee members. We will of course be back in the LCCR in just a couple of weeks for the other side of this equation, which is the budget outcome hearings – those financial and performance outcomes for the 2024–25 financial period.

I have spoken in this chamber many times about the topic of this report, and that is the budget for this year. Indeed, as we know and as this report verifies as well, the government is on track with its five-point financial fiscal strategy for recovering from the COVID years. We heard extensive evidence from the Treasurer, who is in the room with us, on that strategy but also on her priorities to ensure that the budget is in good shape because we know that the Victorian economy is in extremely good shape, and it continues to go from strength to strength. I look forward to discussing this report at a later date.

 Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (13:06): If you had one question, one opportunity, to ask everything you ever wanted of a minister, would they answer? Or just let it slip?

The room’s ready, briefs stacked, graphs are heavy.

There’s info on the slides already, that tax and levy.

It’s PAEC – and on the surface we are calm and ready to get answers, but ministers keep on forgetting what they wrote down, the government talks so loud.

They Dixer and shout, but the facts won’t come out.

We’re asking how, ministers deflecting now.

The clock’s run out, time’s up, it’s over – wow.

Snap back to reality – whoa, no transparency.

‘Oops,’ goes the government.

They know we’re so mad, but we won’t give up that easy.

No, we won’t have it, we know we want answers.

They don’t think they matter.

It’s cope. Government morally broke, and so stagnant they know, when they go back to electorates, that’s when it’s back to the polls again.

Time for transparency.

Better fix this broke committee.

People hope for good government.

We’ll never lose ourselves, in the room, in this chamber.

Reform it, you better fix it while you can.

You only get one shot. Do not miss your chance for change.

This opportunity comes once in a budget cycle.

I would like to thank the secretariat for all your hard work. Keep it up.

Motion agreed to.