Tuesday, 2 June 2026

 Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:47): I am pleased to rise on the Appropriation (2026–2027) Bill 2026. A budget is not a press release. It is not a highlights reel of press releases or time to recut ribbons already cut – or at least it should not be. The state budget is meant to be a plan. It is the document in which the government tells Victorians how it will manage their money to make their lives better, easier, safer and more affordable. It is a statement of priorities, and it is a test of competence. It is a discipline families struggling under a cost-of-living crisis display every day, because they know there are choices of priorities that have to be made. Why? Because there is no endless pot of money to casually dip into. Our business owners know it too, because if you make a mistake in business, it costs you your own money or it costs you a penalty or even a criminal charge. You cannot wish away your financial responsibilities, and you have to quickly and permanently learn not to make similar mistakes again. The authors of this budget have never felt that discipline. They have never sat a week out from paydays wondering whether they will make wages for their staff. They have never reached the end of their overdraft, because all they have to do is raise a new tax or borrow more, and they can do so endlessly because they can.

In Victoria we have endlessly raised taxes and we have endlessly borrowed, and look where it has led us. This is a budget that lashes together a disintegrating ship just enough to hold it together and to keep it afloat until the next election, but not one day of planning beyond it. When Labor came to office, net debt was $21.8 billion – less than 6 per cent of the economy. On this government’s own numbers that net debt is heading to $199 billion by 2029–30. Debt is climbing by $27 million every single day, and the debt is not free. The interest bill is now approaching $9 billion, which is $32 million a day, and the Auditor-General’s figures have it heading towards $10.6 billion a year eventually. By 2028–29 close to 10 per cent of all that Victoria raises will go not to a hospital, not to a classroom and not to a police station but to a payment of interest to our lenders. Next year this state will spend more on servicing interest than it spends on Victoria Police, Ambulance Victoria and every kindergarten in the state combined and will still have $1 billion of interest left to pay beyond that. It is more in interest than we raise in land tax. If you did not have this interest, you could literally abolish land tax and the budget would be no worse off. That is the opportunity cost of this debt. Every paramedic we cannot roster, every classroom we cannot fund, every station that is without a PSO, every police station closed – that is the interest bill at work. And how did we get there? We got there through a decade of taxing more and producing less. This is the highest taxed state in the nation, with 67 new or increased taxes since 2014. Payroll tax has more than doubled and land tax bills have quadrupled. For all of it, our productivity has lagged the rest of the country for 10 full years. A state that once ran a trade surplus now runs a trade deficit.

We are taxing a stagnating economy and claiming the debt-fuelled spending as growth, which brings me to the headline this government most wants repeated: a surplus. The number the government is promoting in this budget is a net operating surplus of under $1 billion. The cash deficit, meanwhile, this year is $7.7 billion. The operating costs result for 2024 was a loss of $2.6 billion, worse than forecast. Over six years, accumulated operating losses came in at more than $50 billion. This state has run a cash deficit every year for nine years. One thin, singular, artificially constructed operating surplus in half a decade is completely meaningless. It is a nominal surplus that depends entirely on unlikely events, generous assumptions and the government’s hope it can shuffle money around so that no-one notices where the gaps are. In the government’s own papers, spending growth will suddenly fall to 2.5 per cent when it has averaged 7 per cent. It is a surplus propped up by a billion-dollar backroom lottery deal that needs serious scrutiny, a surplus engineered the way struggling householders engineer one, by not opening some bills.

That brings me to where some of these bills are kept. Treasurer’s advances are, when applied correctly, according to convention, meant to be a contingency, money set aside for genuinely urgent and unforeseen circumstances to be spent before the Parliament can sit and accounted for afterwards, for floods, for fires, for natural disasters, for the unexpected. In this budget the Treasurer’s advances will be around $10.3 billion. Of that, the amount actually set aside for genuinely unforeseen matters is just $100 million, literally under 1 per cent of the total. Ninety-nine per cent of Treasurer’s advances is money this government already knows is going to be spent. More than $5 billion of it is ordinary operating spending, the running costs of health and education parked in a central line and released to departments quietly during the year away from the estimates process. This is how the fudge works historically. In June 2023 the Minister for Health had to reach for emergency Treasurer’s advances of up to $1.179 billion so public hospitals could meet their payroll and pay their creditors. Hospital wages are not unforeseen; they arrive every month or fortnight with predictability. If projects are running under departments, the budget allocations should reflect this transparently. But this is a government effectively and purposefully avoiding genuine budgetary process and rigour. The most insidious thing about this abuse is that the Victorian people do not get to see where the money will go, do not get to comment on it and do not get to judge it, not now and not this year. It is a crude, aggregated total not broken down by department or purpose. The detail is only ever reconciled in future appropriation bills roughly a year or more later.

We are not, in this chamber, approving this spending; we are signing off on cheques already handed out two years ago. And that is not an opinion: the Auditor-General has pointed out that for this government ‘unforeseen’ simply means an item that has been left out of the budget, whether they knew it was coming or not. When the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, VAGO, investigated how these advances were approved, two-thirds had not followed the proper process; a Treasurer’s advance was picked as a funding source after the decision was made. The Centre for Public Integrity has described this practice as the equivalent of a slush fund and warned that Parliament has lost control of the public purse. The economist Saul Eslake called it a derogation from the basic accountability we owe the public over public money. And it is not normal: while the federal government is busy racking up record debt, it has not used Treasurer’s advances at all in the last two years. Victoria has run $12 billion to $14 billion through Treasurer’s advances year after year. But bad practice routinely performed is not the same thing as normal, it is just a lower standard normalised – it is an abuse. I guess at this point it would be appropriate to circulate our amendment regarding Treasurer’s advances, if I could ask the clerks to do so. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with ‘this house refuses to read the bill a second time until the government legislates to require the Treasurer to publicly report on Treasurer’s advances within 30 days of approval.’

The point of the amendment is simply this: given that the practice of Treasurer’s advances has been changed by the government and it is not following convention, there needs to be a counterbalancing mechanism to re-establish and restore transparency and accountability around Treasurer’s advances. It is a fairly simple mechanism so that if you are going to order one, if you are going to engage that mechanism, then it should be reported. It should be publicly available to the community and to the Parliament as to what that advance mechanism is and what has been requested. If in the fullness of time the actual transfer does not occur, then that can be also announced. There is no harm in transparency and reporting. We would like to see – and we think it would be of great benefit to the people of Victoria and to budgetary transparency, probity and rigour – is that we simply know what, when and why Treasurer’s advances are pulled out of that aggregate slush fund and applied or requested to be applied.

With this bill before the chamber, let us consider what we are being asked to do under this appropriation bill. We are being asked to approve a budget where a significant proportion of this appropriation is not defined and is hidden in advances. This is an abuse. We are being asked to approve a budget where key line item matters are buried by aggregation under meaningless titles and indecipherable categories. This is an abuse. We are being asked to approve a budget where, in estimates, half the ministers and department secretaries could not answer basic questions on how they reached certain figures or what the efficacy of their spending would be and even palmed off questions between them, with no-one taking accountability. Many figures in the budget are almost impossible to reconcile back to the figures in press releases and public statements. This is an abuse. We are being asked to approve a budget management process that adds further catastrophic debt to our balance sheet while claiming this is part of a debt stabilisation plan – a debt stabilisation plan that has run up record state debt in six successive budgets. This is vandalism.

We are being asked to authorise a budget that has to resort to the most elongated, spurious mathematics to explain away the debt burden in absolute terms by pointing to debt as a percentage of GSP. This is deception, and we will dwell on that just a little bit. The ratio under the forwards goes from 24.9 per cent of GSP debt to 24.4 per cent of GSP, so it is still over 24 per cent. What exactly is being claimed? The debt is still going up in absolute terms, as is the interest as a proportion of revenue. So are we claiming here the achievement of a rounding error? This is gaslighting. Debt to GSP used to be 6 per cent. Of course this assumes anyway that the forecast level of economic growth will actually be achieved, which is a heroic assumption. Why would we believe it? There is literally nothing in this budget that is specifically directed to structural reform to address the state’s poor productivity, the key driver of economic growth.

For a decade Victoria has had the lowest productivity in the entire nation, yet the government has, through this budget, not a single genuine measure to address it. There is no provision for the funding shortfalls under the NCIRS research programs, meaning our place as Australia’s premier research centre is in dire default and will likely be lost to New South Wales and Queensland. In this budget Victoria’s trade and investment budget has been cut by almost 25 per cent. It has cut off funding to our essential medical research institutes, nine of which say they will be forced to close. And after years of claiming how wonderful and successful they were, the budget folds LaunchVic and Breakthrough Victoria and replaces them with a new model with no clear mandate. There is no tax reform. There is no innovation policy that scales beyond selective grants. Anything done is a one-off intervention, not repair at a system level that makes the whole state more efficient and productive.

This is economic neglect at a structural level. It is neglect that means our state’s disadvantage to other states is now going to be generational and difficult to reverse. Our momentum is going backwards. Our families are going backwards. Our services are going backwards. The state’s dreams and pride are going backwards. Entire sectors of our society feel as if they have been forgotten and deprioritised or are expected to sit tight and suck it up. We are killing farmers’ hope. The taxman is at their door, and the land thieves of VicGrid are at their gate. Look at the queues at food banks – thousands of families lining up every night just to feed their children. Where is the budget solution for them? Or should they just accept it?

You are telling victims of home invasions, those maimed in machete attacks and those seeing their livelihoods firebombed to sit down and shut up because the criminals’ interests come first, but you are making such great progress via initiatives like machete bins. We are losing 150 police a month net. We do not bring in new recruits faster because the government cannot afford to pay their wages. You are telling teachers, whose pay and conditions have reached breaking point, that you are perfectly willing to drag out every negotiation point in your desire to keep our educators and school sector the lowest funded in the nation. You are telling local communities that their interests and concerns count for nothing through the brute force of planning powers, Melbourne’s anti-human anti-community activity centres and the usurping of farmers’ lands and their rights in the west. You have assumed a godlike arrogance over the rights and property of others. You lay out your rules, you enforce them, you take away the right to object, you use compulsory acquisition as a weapon and then you lie about your plans. You punish anyone who displays aspiration or who through their blood, sweat and tears might achieve a small advance in life – a business, a holiday home, providing rental supply – and along with your federal Labor Party partners you take perverse pleasure in taking the lion’s share of the rewards of efforts you had nothing to do with, you did nothing to contribute to and you have no right to. Who gave you the right? No-one did. You just took it.

To our businesses: what might you have hoped for in this budget? You might have hoped for some kind of understanding that we are the heaviest taxed state in the nation, that the tax burden on businesses in the state have brought them to crisis. It is frankly beyond belief and, left in Labor’s hands, beyond repair.

This is a budget full of Jacintanomics. We cut $3.8 billion from Victoria’s roads and bridges budgets but magically added exactly $3.8 billion in federal funding to the Suburban Rail Loop: that is Jacintanomics. We paid $200,000 for plastic pot plants in SRL offices during a cost-of-living crisis: that is Jacintanomics. We spent $70,000, apparently, on plaques because one word was missing from the Premier’s title: that is Jacintanomics. We spent $15 million on machete bins that prevented no crimes, and the crimes still go on: that is Jacintanomics. We withdrew a $12 million subsidy to the Avalon air show, an event that generates $240 million for the Victorian advanced manufacturing economy each event: that is Jacintanomics. We lost the motorbike grand prix because we could not manage the money to negotiate to keep it, abandoning the community of Phillip Island, but amazingly other states could afford it and took it: that is Jacintanomics. We oversaw and endorsed the cancellation of the Commonwealth Games and, after paying a half-a-billion-dollar penalty, paid Glasgow $200 million or more to host them on our behalf: that is Jacintanomics, with broken promises to the regions and our reputation as the sports capital in tatters. We oversaw $15 billion in taxpayers money going directly to organised crime, but somehow we are not willing to call a royal commission to get it back: that is Jacintanomics. We cut funding to Writers Victoria, leaving our creative industry sectors less supported than any other state: that is Jacintanomics, doing over the arts. We are being asked to authorise a budget where the Minister for Emergency Services did not even have a draft of a budget for the CFA or the SES: that is Jacintanomics. We do not fund our schools to the agreed total and miss out on $2.4 billion in federal funding under the Gonski agreement: that is Jacintanomics, doing over education.

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President, I have been listening to Mr Welch’s contribution in my office, and also I have just heard a little bit of it coming into the chamber. The use of the word ‘Jacintanomics’ I find sexist, and I ask that he refrain from using sexist language in his contribution.

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

Sonja Terpstra: Unparliamentary, then, but sexist language is also unparliamentary language.

Melina Bath interjected.

Sonja Terpstra: I do not need foot soldiers of the patriarchy on the other side of the chamber here groaning and moaning when I make a point of order.

Melina Bath: Acting President, a member may make a point of order; it is not an opportunity to then throw accusations or hand grenades over to the other side.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Thank you, Ms Bath, for the update. Can we just get to the original point of order. I will be back in a moment. I am not going to uphold the point of order. I do not really feel it is sexist or offensive. It is also a good time to remind people that we have a broad church in this place and to just be aware that what you say may upset other people. In this instance I find that it is a catchphrase more than something that is offensive.

Sonja Terpstra: Acting President, I might have a chat to the President. Perhaps this is an issue for the Procedure Committee to look at, the use of unparliamentary language, because it is about this place being occupied by a majority of women in the chamber. I reassert my point that language can be sexist and unparliamentary and it can cause offence. I think it might be something that may not be offensive to men in this chamber, but it certainly can be offensive to women in the chamber.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): You are well within your rights to ask the President and the committee to look into it. But if Mr Welch could just continue on, we will get through this.

Richard WELCH: I would, just for a point of equivalence, point out that in very recent times we have heard the phrase ‘Jess Kennett’ thrown around in relation to the Leader of the Liberal Party, and that did not seem to offend anybody.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Mr Welch, let us move on from the issue, and let us try and stick to the budget.

Richard WELCH: The use of the term ‘Jacintanomics’ is appropriate. I do not apologise for it. I think it is a completely useful shorthand, and I will explain why it is a useful shorthand. It is not just a budgeting technique; it is more a manipulation methodology that specialises in maintaining a narrative and weaving illusions through press releases, slogans and empty promises over hard economics, transparency, accountability and actual delivery. I think it is a phenomenon in our society. It deserves a name. You need to have names for phenomena in order to describe them.

Let us move on to another word with a contested definition, shall we? Say, ‘investment’. The government is very fond of using the word ‘investment’ to describe its spending. Fixing leaking roofs in schools – apparently that is not a basic everyday point of maintenance; no, that is ‘investment’. Doing routine, normal maintenance of roads – no, that is not just part of the job of government; that is ‘investment’. The community will do well to remember that every time the government claims ‘record investment’, it is inevitably treating normal operations of government as something extra, new or added – it is not, and that is deception.

In terms of actual capital investment, capital spending should return more than it costs. When you spend more and the roads get worse, when you spend more on roads but less roads are fixed, when you spend more and the surgery lists grow longer, that is not investment; it is giving yourself a trophy for coming last. This all has a consequence in our suburbs, in our regions, at the family table, on the shop counter, with the company accountant and in the paddock. This month the Victorian Regional Chamber Alliance surveyed businesses across regional and rural Victoria. Nearly one in four of them say they may not survive the next 12 months in this environment. That is what is being reported: one in four established regional businesses staring down closure within a year. The survey also asked how much confidence those businesses have in the state government. Fifty-six per cent had none at all. As the alliance put it, ‘These businesses are not entitled, they are exhausted.’ They need hope.

The government levies are at record levels of commercial and industrial land tax. Commercial and industrial land tax is a tax on a business’s working capital, the very money it needs to buy new equipment, to keep good staff and to make patient investment that keeps them competitive. But guess what, Victorian land tax is the highest in the nation. Payroll tax is a tax on the act of employing a Victorian. Guess what? Victorian payroll tax is the highest in the nation. We tax capital, we tax jobs and then we wonder why the patient capital never comes. We wonder why we are no longer competing with other states, let alone the wider world. It is the same story in every direction. New home building has fallen to its lowest level in more than a decade, while more than 56,000 Victorians sit on social housing waitlists and residential bonds have fallen for seven straight quarters. We are losing the next generation’s shot at a home. Crime has become a moral failure with a budget at its roots. 746 Victorians become a victim of crime every day, 41 police stations sit closed or on reduced hours, and a retailer who cannot keep the lights on past closing time is not investing and not hiring. These are not normal levels of crime; these are historic all-time highs. Where is the budget repair for this? The government cannot afford the salaries of new police. In health, more than 68,000 Victorians wait for elective surgery while in this state you wait 151 days for general dental care that takes eight days in New South Wales. Where is the budget repair for this?

This is what being economically adrift looks like as a state. The people have to work harder than ever and receive less, and there is the contradiction at the heart of the bill. You cannot claim to have delivered a surplus while running a $7.7 billion cash deficit. You cannot claim to be investing while the things that you spend on progressively get worse year by year, month and day. You cannot claim the mantle of financial responsibility while having to fund hospital wages through emergency contingency and keep any detail from this Parliament. You cannot claim to be a competent economic manager while believing, insanely, that you can tax your way to prosperity, you can borrow your way out of debt and you can somehow use government spending as the key driver of economic growth. We must be honest about the books. We must put productivity, not punishment, at the centre of how we tax. We must stop borrowing our children’s future to pay for our own present, because the pain of this budget does not fall on the people who wrote it. It falls on the young couple who will never own a home. It falls on the regional employer signing the lease for one more year and praying that they can handle it. It falls on the child who is not yet born but will inherit the debt and the interest. It does not have to be this way. The alternative is not altogether that complicated, and our leader Jess Wilson has made it clear.

First, let us reintroduce honesty and transparency to the budget process. Let us have a charter of budget honesty. Let us end the rule by Treasurer’s advance. Let us have accurate, honest statements. Second, we will bring back a productive economy. We will lift payroll tax to a threshold of $1.1 million and then $1.2 million and cut the metropolitan rate. We will progressively raise the land tax threshold back to $300,000, easing the squeeze on more than 270,000 taxpayers, many of them small businesses. And third – discipline – while the public service has grown 60 per cent against a 19 per cent population growth, we will bring it back to a sustainable size. This is a mature, reasonable and sensible approach to undertake a back office hiring freeze. There will be no staff cuts, no redundancies and not a single frontline job gone, and anyone who tells you otherwise is not telling you the truth. We will end the corruption on the Big Build and every other government project across the state. We will recruit 3000 police to reopen the stations Labor closed, and we will commit to what this government will not: a royal commission and a real cash surplus by 2032. Not an accounting surplus, not an operating surplus – a genuine surplus, because only a real surplus can begin to pay down the debt and only paying down the debt can free the money to fund the services Victorians actually need.

The opposition will obviously not stand in the way of the state’s supply – Victorians need their hospitals funded and their schools open. But we will not pretend this budget is worthy of them or the state’s future. Victoria can be a state that lives within its means, that rewards effort instead of punishing it and tells its people the truth about their own money. This is the choice before the state. It is the choice this government has failed to make. In 2026 it is the choice the Victorian people will make for them.

 Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:17): I rise today to speak on the Appropriation (2026–2027) Bill 2026 before us. Having spent many hours examining these budget papers through the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee process, I do not intend to spend more hours here today discussing the papers. I will keep my comments brief on behalf of my Greens colleagues, and no doubt my colleagues will have more to say on further take-note motions to come before the chamber.

Many people have lost faith in this government’s ability to make a difference in their lives. For so many people who are struggling with the cost of living, nothing for them has changed. They look at this budget and they see that structurally it does nothing to change the big problems that Victorians are facing. Instead, they see more special treatment for the major corporations, they see bandaids and they see election sweeteners. People can see that our schools, our hospitals and our public services remain underfunded. They can see that we are failing to preserve biodiversity and stop species extinction and that the damage of climate change is being felt across the state. At the same time, ultrarich corporations continue to rake in billions in profit and government keeps giving them what they want.

It should not be this way. It is time for a government that will improve people’s lives with permanently free and frequent public transport. It is time for a government that will take on the cashed-up interests to fund relief for people struggling to pay their rent, their bills or their mortgage; an economy that puts community wellbeing before shareholder wealth; and a government that puts nature before profit and protects our native ecology. The people in this room right now could make it happen if they listened to the community, who have made it clear they are not impressed by more of the status quo. But they will not. They will not because the coal and gas lobby, the gambling lobby and the billionaires have got to them first.

To anyone who is fighting just to keep a roof over their head or the heater on this winter, you are not alone. The Greens want to see our state build huge amounts of public and affordable housing to limit rent rises and to make sure that everyone can afford a home. We want to lower energy bills by making renewable energy cheap and accessible for home owners and for renters. We want to invest in preserving nature to protect the natural world that we are all a part of. All of this is possible if we tax the ultrarich corporations to pay for it. The biggest banks, gambling companies, the fossil fuel giants and wealthy property developers have been getting a sweetheart deal from this government, and in return they donate to their campaigns – and let us be real, it would be the same under the Liberals. The Greens have a plan that would raise $18 billion from these megacorporations and these ultrarich developers. If we demand better, we can make sure everyone can afford to live a good life. Only the Greens have a plan and the vision to make this happen. That vision is not to be found within these budget papers. It was clear on budget day and it has been clear through budget estimates, and Victorians have noticed.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (16:21): I rise to make a contribution on the Appropriation (2026–2027) Bill 2026. There is a phrase often misattributed to ancient Chinese curses but was actually penned by Terry Pratchett: ‘May you live in interesting times.’ As the Treasurer alluded to in her budget speech, we are indeed living in interesting times:

… global pressures that once felt distant have started landing right in people’s everyday lives.

War in Ukraine. Tariffs and instability in the global economy. War in the Middle East.

At a time like this government should not stand back. She conceded:

Government can’t solve everything – we know that.

It is true: government cannot solve everything, and it is no secret that this one is operating within very, very fiscally restrained environments, but again, as the Treasurer said, it can make life just a little bit easier.

No doubt the community, legal, disability and alcohol and other drug sectors and others that work at the pointy end of disadvantage are relieved that their programs will be funded for another year or so, but in real terms much of this funding amounts to a decrease in investment, as it does not factor in CPI increases. Across the board the structural investment needed to sustain current demand for vital services, let alone to meet ever-growing demand, is simply not there. Maybe government cannot do everything, but with a projected $2 billion surplus over the course of the forward estimates it could be doing more. There is also the small matter of nearly $5 billion buried in the budget, sequestered for projects yet to be announced, no doubt to go on big-ticket items in marginal seats once they are in full election campaign mode.

One of the realities for all governments is that the demand for services always exceeds the funds available. They are forced to ration services, be they elective surgery, infrastructure projects or the number of police and ambos. Budgets are about what governments choose to do with their given bucket of money, about the priorities and the values that are prime to a government. For every investment there is an opportunity cost – that which you spend on one thing cannot be spent elsewhere. So what does this budget say about what the government values and the corresponding opportunity costs? It certainly values big infrastructure projects. This government has I think a chronic addiction to big things and being seen to get big things done. Under the Andrews government, throwing buckets of money at infrastructure projects was a highly successful electoral strategy, largely applauded and electorally rewarding. The Level Crossing Removal Project is an obvious example. But in these interesting and uncertain times, when Victoria is mired in debt and taxpayers are forking out $24 million a day to cover interest payments alone, how many big infrastructure projects can we really afford, particularly given the obvious supply constraints that exist within the economy?

Take the Suburban Rail Loop. That seemingly bottomless money pit is looking less like a smart investment in the future of the state and more like a giant albatross around the government’s neck. Early estimates put it at around $35 billion for the east section alone, but that figure has certainly blown out significantly, as the government is relying on 2020 figures. This is frankly astonishing. No government would ever accept a tender with a five-year-old cost plan attached. It might be a perfectly good piece of infrastructure linking multiple electorally marginal seats, but with benefits that are debatable and unlikely to materialise for some decades, it should simply no longer be a top priority for this government, particularly not when you weigh up those opportunity costs.

Consider public transport – something very pertinent to my constituents in the west. During the 2014 election campaign, Labor promised to electrify the Melton line. Thirteen years later, not much has happened. We have trains coming from Ballarat that are already full by the time they reach Melton, and when I say ‘full’, I mean no standing room; I mean people literally forced to stand in the toilet cubicles at peak hour. Thanks to Jeroen Weimar, we now know that construction on that project will not even begin until after the Sunbury transport hub is completed around 2030.

What about buses? Remember that comprehensive bus reform proposed by the Department of Transport and Planning back in 2023? The fast, frequent and connected grid of buses would have been transformational for so many communities in the west, but this was rejected by cabinet on a cost basis and in favour of tipping more money into Big Build projects. I have spoken many times in this place of the excruciating state of the western bus network. In place of a properly functioning bus network we get a few additions to the timetable or the odd route modifications. This piecemeal approach is like putting a bandaid on a bullet wound. It is a source of bitter hilarity among my increasingly cynical constituents that for each piecemeal change there is a photo-op for whoever the local member is. The record currently stands at three MP photo-ops for one bus route amendment, but odds are that it will rise to five seats before election time. While commuters fight to get on a train or find a bus, the government has awarded billions of dollars to the operational consortium for the Suburban Rail Loop, which will not even open before 2035. It is basically a poison pill for future governments and exactly the sort of action we all condemned Jeff Kennett for with the east–west tunnel, only on steroids.

Then there is the public housing tower redevelopment project. As I said before, level crossing removals were a great idea, but demolishing 10,000 housing units, most of which are entirely habitable, in the middle of a housing crisis is simply insane – doubly so now that we are seeing Homes Victoria compete against first home buyers and renters to buy private dwellings to house public housing tenants evicted from the towers. I mean, in what world does that make sense? Seriously, did the department not have an alternate accommodation plan or option? We have 65,000 people on the ever-growing public housing waitlist, with 100,000 Victorians accessing homelessness services each year. These are people. These are families. They are sleeping in cars, in tents, in refuges or on the street. People can wait for up to eight years for housing. It is a disgrace, and it is the product of decades-long neglect by governments of both persuasions.

In this context we see the government’s repeated refusal to produce even the most modest documents to justify the demolition of the towers – business cases, decanting schedules, building conditions, reports. The process has been shrouded in secrecy, and it is not good enough. This is not an isolated case. There are many areas where this government simply refuses to release information to public exposure and public scrutiny. It is little wonder people have lost faith in it. It is equally clear that the government has no faith in the common sense of Victorians.

Labor regularly frames itself as the party of working people. As Premier Allan boldly declared at this year’s ALP state conference, ‘We are not just a government, we are a movement powered by workers.’ It is an incredible statement when we have all witnessed the shameful spectacle of Victoria’s frontline workers – its health workers, its teachers, its ambos and its police – needing to take industrial action to get a wage increase that barely covers inflation from this Labor government. Sector responses to the budget have a depressingly similar theme – it is enough to keep the lights on, but that is about it. To quote Uniting Vic.Tas CEO Carol Jeffs:

Sadly, these measures are a drop in the ocean and do little to move the dial to reduce poverty and disadvantage in the community.

… families and individuals doing it tough continue to fall behind.

Investment in the alcohol and other drugs sector is a record $415 million, a 4.244 per cent increase on previous funding. It sounds like a lot, but it is not enough to keep up with inflation, let alone the growing community demand for treatment. Median wait times for treatment remain at around 40 days. On any given day some 4500 people wait to access AOD treatment. This budget does little to address the strain on resources and frontline workers and means that many Victorians will be unable to access the services they so desperately need.

The disability sector welcomed investment in inclusive education and some funding for Thriving Kids, but at the same time the government has reduced its spending on disability programs and services by $68 million. This is at a time when federal funding for the NDIS is being rolled back. It is also tragic to see the closure of over 90 supported living disability homes, with a further 450 at risk of closure. This government simply says it is a federal problem. Minister, stand with some of the 70-year-old, 80-year-old parents whose kids, who are 50 or 60, are being thrown out onto the streets, as they weep and ask ‘What do I do?’ and tell me that that is a compassionate Labor government.

Equally disturbing is this government’s lack of actions to address our mental health crisis. Mental Health Victoria wonders if the royal commission reforms have been benched:

At the midpoint of Victoria’s Royal Commission implementation, the 2026–27 State Budget outcome for mental health limped across the line aided by a handful of hard fought and worthy investments but weighed down by a heavy burden gifted to our future selves.

The Centre for Multicultural Youth has noted:

Targeted youth mental health support, a recognised national emergency, has not received the increased investment the Royal Commission promised, and that families and young people urgently need.

It is a far, far cry from Victoria’s youth strategy, released in 2022, which promised young Victorians:

… inclusive and accessible support to achieve their goals and feel optimistic, motivated and inspired about their future.

It was one of those whole-of-government strategies full of worthy aspirations and bold actions that the government has basically walked away from. I suspect young people would find little inspiration in this budget.

By the way, are we still the Education State? I know it is a tagline on our number plates, but with the state’s record of inadequate and inequitable public education funding, and with Victoria lagging behind every other state in terms of funding its Gonski commitments, surely that slogan is not merely redundant, it is an embarrassment. We cannot afford to fund education, public transport, health services or housing, but at least there is no shortage of change to fund the government’s much-vaunted tough-on-crime policies. While frontline services struggle to stay afloat, the budget has hundreds of millions of dollars for prisons and policing and for responses that have proven over and over to be useless in preventing and reducing crime. This includes $720 million to increase the number of prison beds. While these regressive laws create further need for legal services, the budget fails to fund these services. The Federation of Community Legal Centres noted the lack of new investment in community legal centres and Aboriginal legal services to meet the growing needs in Victoria:

For every client a community legal centre takes on, two are turned away, illustrating the chasm that exists between need for the holistic legal and community support … and the limited resourcing these centres have to meet it.

Of course Aboriginal people in particular bear the brunt of the government’s punitive new laws, which will drastically increase the number of adults and young Aboriginals incarcerated. Yet the combined funding received by the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service and Djirra is less than 1 per cent of the $734 million allocated to community safety measures and Victoria Police. The hypocrisy of a government who pledged that the Statewide Treaty would make real, practical changes to achieve better outcomes for First Peoples in Victoria and close the gap introducing laws that disproportionately impact First Peoples was not lost on Nerita Waight, CEO of VALS. She said:

Signing a Treaty doesn’t mean you’ve signed away problems you’ve created … The government can no longer claim that the harm caused by their policies and investments is ‘unintended consequences’, when it is clear the outcome will be the mass incarceration of our people.

The investment in the violence reduction unit and modest investments in early intervention show that this government knows that funding directed at addressing the root causes of crime, poverty and disadvantage does work. But they have placed it all on being tough on crime, which is a sad joke when you consider that Victoria Police is 1500 officers down, morale is at rock bottom and so many senior and experienced officers are on the verge of retirement.

These policies lead to greater and unsustainable costs, with the ever-increasing cost of jailing people, of refurbishing old jails and building new ones, of keeping people on remand. Based on current trends, we will shortly see nearly 50 per cent of our prison population simply in remand, neither tried nor found guilty of any offence but incarcerated nonetheless, often for extended periods. The government knows all this, but these are the choices that have been made. These are the priorities that have been accorded. In this election year they have hedged their bets on punitive laws and big announcements and $5 billion worth of projects yet to be announced, while Victorians across the state are wrestling with cost of living, housing and a chronic lack of services. Time will tell if this budget is enough to convince that exhausted and increasingly disillusioned electorate to give this government another shot.

 Lee TARLAMIS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:38): I move:

That the debate on the motion to take the budget papers 2026–27 into consideration be adjourned until later this day.

Motion agreed to and debate on budget papers adjourned until later this day.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (16:39): I thank the initial speakers on the budget take-note motion and in advance thank the speakers to come. As has been recent practice, given the passage of the Appropriation (2026–2027) Bill 2026, it is appropriate to move to committee so that members have got an opportunity to discuss issues. Obviously I have given an extensive second-reading speech in the form of a Treasurer’s speech in the Assembly, so it is not my intention to reprosecute the budget and all of the policies contained therein. But we do have an unusual situation where I need to address an amendment in my summing-up because it has been proposed as a reasoned amendment, which is somewhat unusual, given if it was proposed as a normal amendment it would be out of scope.

In terms of the ability to move such an amendment, I would put to the opposition that there is an opportunity to move a private members bill. There is an opportunity to have this amendment dealt with as an amendment to a bill that would be probably much more appropriate, which is currently in the Legislative Assembly, which deals with some financial matters, tax matters and the like. It could have been open to the opposition to move an amendment to that bill. Instead what we have is an unrelated reasoned amendment that is trying to put forward – they do not even want to legislate their own amendment.

The proposal is that the appropriations not proceed until the government legislate to require ministers to publicly report on Treasurer’s advances (TA) within 30 days of approval. I would assume that that would take an amendment to the Financial Management Act 1994 (FMA). We dealt with this a little bit last year when we dealt with the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, because we had a lengthy conversation about the reporting. In fact I worked closely with the crossbench, I think led by the Greens, in relation to an amendment to bring forward some of the reporting responsibilities for greater transparency in relation to Treasurer’s advances. I do think the discussion around that at that time resulted in the government saying, ‘Yes, we could agree to that.’ Whereas the opposition’s strategy is to move a reasoned amendment, which I was not even shown until I went and asked Mr Welch, ‘I am hearing that there’s a reasoned amendment. Would you like to talk to me about it?’ I asked crossbenchers and the Greens party, ‘Do you know anything about this reasoned amendment that apparently is happening?’ No-one knew anything about it. When you are proposing to hold up the appropriation bill at least have the decency to back in your strategy and at least have the decency to talk appropriately about what you want to achieve through a reasoned amendment.

The consequences – yes, they are hypothetical, but effectively what you are trying to do is hold up supply. Everything that people welcome in this budget, if you had your way, would be paused: do not pay teachers, do not pay nurses, do not run hospitals, police – do not worry about it. You are proposing to hold up the bill. As I said, it is a hypothetical because we cannot withhold supply, but effectively that is the message you are sending to the public: ‘We have a reasoned amendment. We demand that the government do our job for us and legislate something that we would like or we’re not going to support the appropriation bill.’ I think your strategy is juvenile. You could have actually had a conversation with me about some of these matters, and I would have been happy to have the conversations, just as has been proven with my past conduct with those that choose to perhaps adult in a more appropriate way.

Addressing the amendment, I just want to make some points. Again, I will just repeat some of the past experience with the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. There was an amendment to that bill which added a requirement for the midyear financial report to include reporting on Treasurer’s advances approved in the first half of the financial year. As I said, this is an amendment that we worked on. We discussed and got advice on how it could be implemented, and the government agreed. It aligned with my view as Treasurer and the intention of the bill to improve financial reporting and increase transparency over Treasurer’s advances. I have never, ever suggested that we should not be as transparent as possible when it comes to Treasurer’s advances, and you have seen that I have made changes, in the short time that I have been Treasurer, to come through on that commitment.

On some of the things that continue to be misunderstood, there are a couple of things. Departments are expected to use up funding from appropriations before accessing TAs, even when a new use is approved in principle. Therefore that is why we get this unusual situation with not that many TAs approved in the first six months of the financial year. In terms of the proposed requirement to publicly report on Treasurer’s advances within 30 days of approval, it is really misunderstanding how the system works. Putting aside the confusion that would arise if you were required to publicly report on TAs that were never used, never required or indeed perhaps less than what was approved in principle, it would create confusion and it would create financial burden and cost for departments – for what real benefit? TAs in real time could jeopardise commercial in confidence. It could undermine negotiations with vendors. It could cause issues with negotiations that you have with the federal government on bilateral funding agreements. Reporting TAs is provided on a line-by-line basis in the annual financial report, which has more transparency than is provided for funding appropriated to departments. In terms of where these details become public, you have the AFR that comes out in October, and that is where the detail is. As is custom and practice, this year’s appropriation bill contains a full reconciliation of Treasurer’s advances from 2024–25, and I know, Mr Davis, last year we had conversations about the appropriations from 2023–24. This year many more of them were in my time, so I am a little more familiar with them and we perhaps may visit those in the committee stage.

It would also be worth just touching on, again, the reason we have Treasurer’s advances and how they work. There are different categories. This is where I get feedback from those in opposition saying, ‘You’ve got more than you’ve ever had.’ Well, that is because we report and do things in a more financially responsible way, particularly in relation to major projects. We have the three categories of things that are held in contingency. The vast majority of output and asset contingencies relate to delivery of milestones. As I have said before, when you have a large project, the Department of Treasury and Finance’s firm advice to me is, ‘We don’t give the whole bucket to departments. We wait till negotiations are continued, finalised, contracts are let.’ Then you release the money as is appropriate, so that you have got greater control and greater accountability over that funding. It includes funding contingencies upon meeting specified conditions, such as formal report-backs, the outcome of legal or similar deliberative processes – again, as I said, the completion of a particular program of development or those procurement milestones. The other category is future growth allocations. Again, this is something that has been done for some time in relation to ensuring that you withhold an amount of money on the expectation that you might have a change of circumstances. One of the most common ones is in relation to education and allowing for future enrolment growth in schools, for example. And then there is the one that I think actually everybody gets: you would be required to sign off a Treasure’s advance in the event of an emergency to ensure that the disaster response was appropriate. I think that one is well understood and people are pretty accepting of that.

It does continue to cause me frustration that there is this expectation or this sense from the opposition that something about future growth allocation and holding on to money in advance of milestones is somehow improper. I contest that, and I will continue to contest that. But as I have indicated, we made amendments to the FMA last year in relation to transparency and accountability, and also in the budget – my first budget – I sought to break down these Treasurer’s advances in the manner of reporting so it was clearer and more understood in relation to the different categories and how they are used. Treasurer’s advances are just the release mechanism. When you hold back something in contingency, it is only actually called a Treasurer’s advance because of the mechanism of going out the door. I think that is what creates most of the confusion, particularly when people refer to a so-called slush fund that I have – that I just get to write cheques out and advance the money as Treasurer. That is just not how it works. I have attempted to explain this in the simplest of terms. It still creates some confusion. I continue to offer further briefings as an example of how the system works, because we are on the same page in relation to transparency and accountability.

What the opposition are proposing to do – as I said, if they put it to me in a more appropriate manner, I could have had a conversation about why it is unworkable and had that debate. But instead it has been thrown in as a frustration or in a manner to somehow stop supply of what can flow in the appropriation. I do not like the strategy. I do not like the message it is sending to the public, that you are attempting to hold up the budget bill. I think there are many other ways you could have advanced this amendment. If you tried to advance it, as I said, it would have been an out-of-scope amendment. I hope that we do not see a practice in this chamber where out-of-scope amendments all of a sudden start appearing as reasoned amendments for every piece of legislation. I can see the clerks shuddering. That is effectively the precedent that you are potentially copying here, I think. I am concerned about the practice, but perhaps I will not provide any more commentary on that, because I do not want to see any more of them come. In relation to that, I hope, Mr Welch, that has given you a little bit of explanation as to why it is not appropriate to put a reasoned amendment. Even if it was, the outcome of this reasoned amendment is misinformed. If you had taken the opportunity to have a conversation with me, we could have had that. You did not afford me, nor anybody else in the chamber, that opportunity. We will not be in a position to support the reasoned amendment for reasons I believe I have comprehensively covered.

Council divided on amendment:

Clause 1 (16:59)

Richard WELCH: Treasurer, we might as well start with Treasurer’s advances (TA), since it is a hot topic. You mentioned that the amounts put into Treasurer’s advances are for meeting milestones and things of that nature. The question is: does that reserve assume all the milestones will be met across all initiatives?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, your question I guess lacks a little bit of detail in terms of milestones. Milestones can mean a range of things in terms of when contracts are let and the like. You might have work packages that are bundled up into one, two, three types of separate projects and things like that. In terms of milestones that meet what is anticipated to be caught by the TA, yes. But you do not necessarily know the milestones at the time of the contingency. This would also be similar to bilateral negotiations with the feds just in terms of – with the national agreement for foundational supports, for example, we have got an allocation for that. That is effectively why our contingency in this year’s budget is as large as it is. But we do not know what that is going to look like, so it is a bit hard to be specific in that, because if we were specific, you probably would not have to do it in the way that we do because you would know the information before. We do not know the detail in advance of the negotiations for both a lot of contract negotiations and negotiations in relation to agreements.

Richard WELCH: Thank you, Treasurer, for the answer, but that raises other questions. If, say, the operating reserve is an aggregate and you have not disaggregated it, you do not provide any specificity around what that aggregate is made up of –

Jaclyn SYMES: No, well –

Richard WELCH: And you are saying you do not know the milestones and you do not have enough detail on the milestones to total it –

Jaclyn SYMES: Sometimes you might. You said ‘all’.

Richard WELCH: I thought it was implied, but I was not clear enough. If you do not know what the milestones are, how do you know that the total, whether in part or in aggregate, is going to be enough for all the milestones you are aiming to meet?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think we are getting there through clarification with each other. Enough money is included in the Treasurer’s advance appropriation to meet anticipated milestones. It is often the case that the allocation is a ceiling and less gets used. We do not provide any specificity of the amount provided to each department either.

Richard WELCH: Anticipated milestones – just for clarity again, the total amount held is sufficient for all anticipated milestones?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes. Or completion of TEI.

Richard WELCH: But not more? Is there any amount held in excess of that?

Jaclyn SYMES: Many projects have contingency withheld for matters that arise, yes, which is again why often the ceiling is not met.

Richard WELCH: Okay, so there are additional amounts. Are you able to provide the difference between anticipated milestones and contingency funding that you have in that reserve?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think I might need you to explain to me what you mean by milestones and in which particular department and which projects, because as I said, milestones in relation to TAs might be an infrastructure project or a funding agreement.

Richard WELCH: You are sort of pointing to the problem in your answer in that we do not know.

Jaclyn SYMES: What do you mean?

Richard WELCH: We cannot point to anything because we do not have any figures, because they are all aggregated. There is no way to disaggregate by department or by project, so –

Jaclyn SYMES: That is why they are released in account.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Treasurer, when Mr Welch has the call, can you just wait for him to finish before –

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, sorry. I do apologise.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Because Hansard cannot get it down.

Jaclyn SYMES: I do apologise, Deputy President. I just need to bring Mr Welch back, because he is misinterpreting the conversation that we are having, I think. Mr Welch, budget paper 5 details the allocations. The reconciliation is accounted for in this year’s budget for 2024–25, for example. The annual financial report has all of the details. So the accountability of how the money is expended is always disclosed.

Richard WELCH: Yes, but that is in retrospect and we are doing appropriations of forwards, so therefore we do not have transparency. Okay, you are saying they are for expected milestones to be met and deliverables to be met, but we do not know what they are – what proportion is actual, what proportion is contingent. We do not have that transparency, so that is why I am asking the question: what proportion of what there is going forward is contingent and what part is for expected milestones?

Jaclyn SYMES: That is not how it is accounted. As I said, budget paper 5 is forward looking; it anticipates all of the categories that I went through before. And again, the point I think you are trying to make is a reprosecution of the reasoned amendment. The arguments against your reasoned amendment are perhaps appropriate here. If you were to outline all of the anticipated costs for a particular project, a particular program or a particular negotiation, you would be undermining the position of the state, because many of these projects, if they are infrastructure, involve contracts and tenders. You kind of do not want to telegraph to the world what you are prepared to pay, because you want to get better value for dollar for taxpayers. In relation to our negotiations with the federal government, you have still got to hold back in contingency. Again, you want to get the best deal you can for the Victorian public. That is why a lot of this is detailed in accounting after the fact.

But we do publish in the papers what has been withheld for those anticipated expenditures. That is then fully accounted for, fully transparent, in a line-by-line item in the appropriate way. Again, as I said earlier, more transparency is a feature of our budgets in recent times, certainly compared to former coalition governments’ reporting of these matters.

Richard WELCH: Look, I think the commercial in confidence and damaging our negotiating position would be a stronger argument if we did not have so many blowouts on all the projects. We are clearly not doing the best –

Jaclyn SYMES: Where?

Richard WELCH: North East Link, West Gate Tunnel.

Jaclyn SYMES: Tell me a recent one.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Treasurer, if you can just let Mr Welch ask his question.

Richard WELCH: What, there have not been blowouts? Clearly the process is not working. I do not want to be argumentative about it, but I think the flaw in your argument is that you have not achieved those things at all. That is why greater transparency over what you are planning to do would be in the interests of the Victorian people.

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Welch has the call. He has the right to make a statement and then ask a question. Mr Welch, if you can get to your question, please.

Richard WELCH: I am happy to move on. In regard to the sale of the lottery licence for 40 years, in which financial year will the payments from that be recognised or received?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is a shame that you left the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC), Mr Welch, because I feel as though your FOMO is going to play out in this committee stage. I am more than happy to spend some time on the lottery matter, because the way you have even articulated it demonstrates that you have not actually caught up on how this deal has come into fruition. The mere fact that you have just described it as a sale is probably, first of all, incorrect. So let us perhaps start with the misinformation that your side has been prosecuting, and let us get to the real nub of the issue in relation to how you think it would be –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can everybody please refrain from interjecting and let the Treasurer answer Mr Welch’s question, please?

Jaclyn SYMES: It was not a sale, it was a lottery licence extension.

Richard WELCH: Agreed. It was a licence extension.

Jaclyn SYMES: Very good. In relation to the concern I have about some of the misinformation about the fact that this contributed to the surplus, for example, it is false. It is misinformation and wrong. I can take you through the history of how we got here. I can take you through some of the probity examples in relation to it, and I can also explain how it is taken in an accounting measure. So if you want to ask me a specific question without your commentary, perhaps let us start there so I can be very responsive.

Richard WELCH: All I really want to know is: in which financial year do the funds get reflected?

Jaclyn SYMES: The payment is recognised over 40 years from the commencement of the licence in 2028–29.

Richard WELCH: What amount will be reflected in 2026–27?

Jaclyn SYMES: I will repeat my answer to your question: the payment is recognised over 40 years from the commencement of the licence extension in 2028–29.

Georgie CROZIER: I have just been listening to Mr Welch’s questioning around the budget. I am just wondering: in relation to the contingency have there been any requests from ministers for Treasurer’s advances? I make that comment in relation to obviously health, because as you would have heard in question time today, I have got hospitals that are asking staff to take leave and cancelling surgery. Services have been cut right across the state, so I am wondering: have they got enough money, or are they waiting for 1 July?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Crozier, as is repeated this year, like last year, record funding has been provided to the health portfolio and our hospitals. I think you understand that the model budget process in relation to what hospitals will be provided in the next financial year is in its final stages of being worked through. But it does not involve a TA discussion, no.

Georgie CROZIER: Thank you for that clarification at the end because I was –

Jaclyn SYMES: Sorry. That was your question.

Georgie CROZIER: Yes, it was. So given you did discuss with Mr Welch Commonwealth negotiations, and obviously health comes into play with those negotiations – and clearly there are some discussions around federal funding that is coming forward given the commitments by the federal government – are you satisfied that all of that money will be provided to Victoria on time?

Jaclyn SYMES: Sorry, Ms Crozier, are you saying: do we believe that we will receive our federal allocation for health or will hospitals receive their allocation from the feds in time?

Georgie CROZIER: Yes.

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have any advice that it would not be.

Georgie CROZIER: Good. Thank you for the clarification. Treasurer, can I just move to Albury Wodonga Health. In 2022 your government committed $225 million towards the redevelopment of that hospital site, but four years later no-one seems to know where the money is – it certainly does not appear in the budget – and yesterday in response to a journalist an Allan government spokesperson said the money was being held in contingency. New South Wales say Victoria has the business case, and in the past that was always used as the excuse for why the money had not changed hands nor appeared in budget papers. So if it is being held in contingency, why?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Crozier, can you give me 5 minutes on that because there has been an update. I just want to get you the most contemporary information in relation to that.

Georgie CROZIER: I would appreciate that, Treasurer, as there seems to be some real confusion, given what the New South Wales government is saying you have. I know the Deputy President two years ago asked for the master plan around Albury Wodonga Health and it has never been provided, and yet New South Wales is saying the Victorian government has the business case. There is just a lot of confusion around this, and now we have got this additional confusion around the contingency. Is there anything else in that contingency fund that should be made public for Victorians regarding this project?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I said I just want to check what I can provide you in relation to the latest update. In relation to that project, you are correct: the money was held in contingency and still exists. There is no issue there. I just want to get you the latest update in relation to the timing, and I just want to get confirmation so that I am very clear. I take your point that I do not want to add to any misinformation or confusion, so give me 5; we are just checking.

Georgie CROZIER: I just need some clarification, if I may. In a response to Mr Welch you talked about the anticipated expenditure and how that is held in the treasury funds. It is not necessarily in the budget papers or not forthcoming in the budget papers. Am I correct in my assumption of what you were referring to?

Jaclyn SYMES: Let us try and get on the same page. Yes, the budget contains contingencies. We have indicated what a lot of those are for, particularly foundational supports, but have not articulated a figure at this point in time, as is appropriate. The budget is annual. If you know something is coming, it is prudent to allocate it or account for it in this year’s budget so you know that it is anticipated to be drawn down on. You might not know the exact details of that. You might not be in a position to publicly disclose that because you are still working through details that might be jeopardised if the numbers are put out too early – that kind of thing. So it is the anticipated expenses – you have got a fair idea of what they are going to look like, but that is why you withhold it. Does that make sense?

Georgie CROZIER: Yes. Is any of that money held back for election commitments? Will any of that money be held back? It will not be in terms of what you have put in the budget papers, so is it withholding money for those projects that are highlighted in the budget?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes. Indeed it would be improper to have an election commitment slush fund in the budget.

Georgie CROZIER: I agree with you, but we are taken by surprise at times in relation to how the financials are administered in the state. The reason I ask that is sometimes the budget papers can say things – I will give you an example – like ‘cancer care’, and there is not a line-by-line item as there was in budgets of years gone by, so sometimes it can be quite difficult to anticipate what that looks like and what they are getting at. I asked PAEC to ask on my behalf around proton beam therapy for children’s cancer. There are cancer treatments. That is why I asked that question around election commitments and whether it is hidden in the budget somewhere, but you have assured me that that is not the case.

Jaclyn SYMES: I am just a bit confused by your line of questioning, to be honest, Ms Crozier. In terms of what is withheld in the budget, it is contingencies for things that will be delivered by government, which is slightly different to a proposal of what a re-elected government would do.

Georgie CROZIER: I understand that, but it can be unclear in some of those explanations in the budget around what it will actually deliver. That is what I was anticipating from you in relation to how that budget funding is allocated and if there is room for it. That is why we asked the questions in PAEC.

Jaclyn SYMES: Is there money left over?

Georgie CROZIER: Yes.

Jaclyn SYMES: As I was explaining to Mr Welch, many of the contingency items have underspends because you get a better deal. You have got to allow for a likely outcome, and it is Treasury – they are usually conservative in that. So there could be money left over, but any money left over goes back into consolidated revenue.

Georgie CROZIER: The budget has funding for community health, but there was a $51 million cut in that budget. What advice have you received as to the impact of those cuts to community health on the acute healthcare system? Can you explain what that $51 million cut was in relation to?

Jaclyn SYMES: Can you give me a source for your –

Georgie CROZIER: Performance statement, page 61, I think, has the reference.

Jaclyn SYMES: The health performance statement?

Georgie CROZIER: Yes – the performance statement, page 61, for health.

Jaclyn SYMES: Let me add that to Albury Wodonga.

Georgie CROZIER: That would be helpful.

Jaclyn SYMES: You would appreciate every department and every line item are not all in my head, but where I can assist, I will try.

Georgie CROZIER: I do appreciate it, thank you. Could I also go to another concern that was raised. If you had time to watch the PAEC hearings when my colleagues questioned the Minister for Health Infrastructure, and my colleague Richard Riordan –

Jaclyn SYMES: I did not.

Georgie CROZIER: I suppose you had better things to do on a Thursday night. Questions around Armstrong Creek’s long-promised and non-existent ambulance station were asked of the minister, and it went around and around in circles. But the question goes to the budget papers themselves. The project first appeared in the budget papers 2023–24 – $30.4 million. To go to your previous answers around anticipated spending and what is provided in the budget papers, the 2024–25 budget revealed that $2.4 million had been spent. The 2025–26 forecast spend was $3 million. Yet in this budget, paper 4, page 55, states the spend to 30 June is just $839,000. So where did the money go from the previous money that had been allocated? Again, I know they are figures over the last four years, but it just shows that there is $30.4 million. Bits and pieces have been spent, and there is no real explanation as to where the millions have gone.

Jaclyn SYMES: This is one project in a very large budget that I am just not in a position to be able to answer your question on with any specificity. But I would have thought that the relevant minister in PAEC with her officials was better placed than I am right now. I would be inclined to direct you back to that minister, but –

Georgie CROZIER: I have tried.

Jaclyn SYMES: I am not inclined to keep a massive list of ‘keep going’ and of ‘coming back to you’. I have already committed to two. As I said, I am more than willing to be of assistance, but I think when it comes down to individual projects that are not delivered by the Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF), it is a little bit outside my remit.

Richard WELCH: Treasurer, you would be aware of the reports of corruption on Big Build sites. Have you measured any budgetary impact of that corruption?

Jaclyn SYMES: Did you watch my PAEC hearing by any chance?

Richard WELCH: No.

Jaclyn SYMES: Because I had a bit of this from opposition members, so I dealt with that, and so did the secretary of the department. In relation to the sensitivity analysis that is contained in the budget, a range of factors go into that, but usually that is based on some evidence, some agreement on what should be modelled and the like. As we have already said as a government, any inappropriate conduct, criminal conduct, should be reported to the appropriate officials and acted on in accordance with that. But when we go back to figures that are put around that are untested, unfounded and not backed in with any evidence, doing modelling based on something that has no substance is not a good use of Treasury and Finance’s modelling expertise.

David ETTERSHANK: I have got a couple of fairly specific questions. The first one is about Taylors Road in Delahey. Can the government advise what funding has been allocated in the 2026–‍27 Victorian budget, including forward estimates, for the planning and development of upgrades to Taylors Road in Melbourne’s west as part of the $23 million metropolitan roads upgrade program?

Jaclyn SYMES: Not to be contradictory to my conversation with Ms Crozier, the reason I am in a better place to answer Mr Ettershank’s questions is that he gave me a bit of a heads-up about some of the topics he would cover. So he gets a level of specificity that I was not able to afford you, because I had the opportunity to have a look at a few things. That is not an invitation for a massive list next year, but anyway –

Georgie Crozier: You won’t be in the role, do not worry.

Jaclyn SYMES: I reckon I might be. Funding in this year’s budget is certainly contained for Taylors Road in Keilor Downs and Delahey. This is a project that was brought to my attention by the current member but also the candidate, Mr Rasic, who I understand grew up in the area as well. So he was able to really take me through the issues, which I think you are obviously familiar with, in terms of a fast-growing area, council road – where does it fit? Locals do not care; they just want it addressed. I can confirm that funding has been provided in the budget for planning. We have not allocated any money for redevelopment or the like yet, because we need to see what the planning says. But some of the money will also cover re-marking. So re-marking and upgrade planning and development of the road is what is contained in the funding allocation.

David ETTERSHANK: Is it possible, Treasurer, to disaggregate out of that $23 million how much has been allocated for Taylors Road?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, I do not want to be cute, Mr Ettershank, because I know the number, but because it will be tendered and subject to some procurement I am probably not in a position to disclose that publicly at this time. I can assure you it is a substantial amount of money. Planning is not cheap. I think that we will be in a position to perhaps disclose that pretty soon, but I do not want to put anyone in an awkward position. We will do that in due course at this point in time.

David ETTERSHANK: That seems fair enough. You mentioned, I think, line markings and a few other things, but could you outline what specific planning activities and potential works are expected to be delivered from this funding, apart from the line marking?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes. The line marking and the planning are both funded. What will be a matter for future budgets is what the planning demonstrates would be the best solution for some of those bottlenecks. I have looked at the maps. It is a complicated area in terms of overhead electricity and potential land acquisition issues. I think the request of the planning process will be to look at all options in consultation with the council, obviously, to see what we can do to best alleviate the congestion in that area.

David ETTERSHANK: Does the government intend for this planning investment to inform future construction funding for duplication of Taylors Road, and if so, when would further investment decisions be considered?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, the funding will look at all possible measures so that there are options for considerations for future budgets.

David ETTERSHANK: Treasurer, can you advise on whether it is the government’s intention to declare Taylors Road as a state-managed arterial road – I think you alluded to the council status at the beginning being rather problematic in this area – and how this consideration is being progressed as part of current planning and network development processes?

Jaclyn SYMES: I can confirm that those considerations are under active consideration. The Department of Transport and Planning and the Minister for Roads and Road Safety will consider all relevant network and planning considerations to find the best solutions for the community, which – not pre-empting – certainly may consider declaration of the road, for instance.

David ETTERSHANK: In budget paper 3, page 41, there is the homeless assertive outreach. The 2026–27 budget references funding for the expansion of assertive outreach services to address homelessness, and that is terrific. How much of this funding will be allocated to assertive outreach services in Melton and Brimbank?

Jaclyn SYMES: This was an initiative that a lot of people were really pleased was able to get through the budget process. Certainly within my office it was listed as one of the highlights for my team. The budget does provide funding for nine new assertive outreach teams to engage with people sleeping rough and connect them to housing support. The budget also provides funding for additional emergency accommodation. My understanding is that the funding for new assertive outreach teams is notionally split evenly between the nine new regions. However, the department retains flexibility to amend each region’s allocation according to factors like demand for service or workforce availability.

David ETTERSHANK: I might have misunderstood that, Treasurer. Are you able to clarify how those overlays would fit within the Melton LGA or the Brimbank LGA by any chance?

Jaclyn SYMES: I might have to direct you to the Minister for Housing and Building, Mr Ettershank. The advice I have is that the department has some flexibility to amend each region’s allocation, which I assume would be able to consider overlap.

David ETTERSHANK: Could you advise what service outcomes and performance measures will be used to assess the effectiveness of these assertive outreach investments, particularly in places like Brimbank, where there are very high levels of rough sleeping at the moment, which is a great concern to the community as well as the agencies in the area.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, the performance measures are included in the program guidelines for the assertive outreach program and incorporated into each funded agency’s service agreement. Guidelines are set out on the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing website. I can get you a link, or I can read out some more information that has been provided to me right now, if you would like. You choose.

David ETTERSHANK: I will choose the link, thank you. That would be fine. I am cognisant that there are others who would like to get some questions in. Treasurer, if I may, could I move on to Sunshine station and the Melbourne Airport rail. Can the government confirm if the previously announced investment in the Sunshine station precinct master plan, as referenced in budget paper 4, remains at $143 million, please?

Jaclyn SYMES: This work has now been integrated into the scope for the Sunshine superhub. The total estimated investment, estimated expenditure and estimated completion date of that overarching project will be disclosed when the procurement process is finalised.

David ETTERSHANK: I think I might be able to guess the next one, but could you advise, Treasurer: what are the anticipated delivery stages and timeframes for the Sunshine master plan, including when construction or major works are expected to commence?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is a little contingent on the tender process. Particularly in my new ministerial appointment to precincts, I have got some interest in the area, so I can personally commit to keeping you updated as it progresses.

David ETTERSHANK: I would appreciate that update. That would be fabulous. Can you tell us how the delivery of the Sunshine master plan will be coordinated with the other major investments in the precinct? In particular I am referring, I suppose, to the Sunshine superhub and the Melbourne Airport rail. We are obviously all concerned to see that this is done in a timely and integrated manner.

Jaclyn SYMES: What I might do is just list a couple of the features of the Sunshine superhub, because it goes to, I guess, all of the considerations and interests that have to be taken into account. The superhub will feature a new walking and cycling link, creating better community connections; a new city place plaza with landscaped open space; a new station forecourt with open space and landscaping; two new regional platforms and station concourse; additional lifts to improve accessibility and safety; an upgraded station car park with a dedicated pick-up and drop-off zone; a bicycle Parkiteer – you know what they do; bus interchange upgrades; and security cameras and improved lighting. The specific delivery of the superhub is a matter for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, but we are pretty keen to talk about this project as much as possible. It is a pretty exciting transformation of that area. My mother was born in Sunshine, actually. It is a project that we want to make sure the community are kept abreast of. Certainly in your advocacy, I am more than happy to let you know of each and every development as it arises.

David ETTERSHANK: Can I just get you, Treasurer, if you could, to confirm the timeframe for the completion of the Melbourne Airport rail project?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, Mr Ettershank, I am not able to provide you with that information, but we will keep you updated.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am happy to ask some questions. For a Treasury Corporation of Victoria loan, what would the loan yield? Is the average yield 5 or 6 per cent for a stereotypical Treasury Corporation of Victoria bond issuance?

Jaclyn SYMES: They vary, based on when they were issued and when they potentially roll over et cetera. I can certainly get Treasury Corp to provide you with a breakdown of any specific questions that you have. It is not something that I have brought with me today.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I ask because I wanted to go to the ‘State Capital Program’ budget paper, page 16. The government has acknowledged for the Suburban Rail Loop (SRL) that its value capture mechanism would comprise existing land and windfall gains tax, infrastructure contributions, a car parking levy on car park owners from 2035 and state-initiated development. The revenue from these five value capture mechanisms will repay up-front state borrowing over a 40-year period. I am wondering what the yield would be on a 40-year loan.

Jaclyn SYMES: I think the simplest answer is that the modelling in relation to the value capture arrangements for the SRL includes any interest payments owing.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Just to confirm: the modelling for the value capture also includes interest repayments on the $11.5 billion of value capture?

Jaclyn SYMES: Correct – over the 40-year repayment period.

Evan MULHOLLAND: If I can decipher what you are saying, if we were to go for a 40-year loan period, the interest on, say, $11.5 billion would make it almost 2.5 times the $11.5 billion. So over $28 billion, if you consider the fact that usual 40-year loans are over 6 per cent with the Treasury Corporation of Victoria.

Jaclyn SYMES: That is not really how it works.

Evan MULHOLLAND: What modelling have you done to assure yourself that the value capture mechanism can not only pay the $11.5 billion back from taxpayers but also the almost double that which will almost certainly have to be paid in interest?

Jaclyn SYMES: What I am concerned about is the simplistic way in which you are articulating how you think a loan for a particular project would be treated by Treasury Corp. It is not as though they go and take out a loan for a particular project and have a 40-year mortgage over it like a normal household. They have a range of ways that they issue bonds to the market. You are also assuming that principal would not be paid off over time as well. The way you have articulated and tried to conflate the figures is not something that is supported by the way it would be dealt with in practice by either government or Treasury Corp.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Treasurer, you have said that the value capture is modelled to include interest repayments. If that is the case, what is the value of those interest repayments?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have the modelling on hand.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Are you able to get it on notice?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is not the practice of government to reveal the details of the modelling for these matters, but I am happy to have a look and see if there is anything that would be of assistance to you.

Evan MULHOLLAND: It is of high-level public interest, so I would hope that you are able to get something, because the 40-year loan is exactly what was put in the budget. Now, you have come back and said there are varying ways over lots of different things that Treasury corporation could do to issue this loan. But it literally says in the budget that it is a 40-year loan for the value capture arrangements, so I think it is fair for Victorians to ask how the government plans to deal with that. We can go into the specifics on the value capture mechanisms in a moment, but the question I want to ask is: how much? Given that you have already said, Treasurer, that you have modelled the 40-year loan of the value capture mechanism to take in interest repayments, as a rough estimate we are looking at possibly over $30 billion if you include interest repayments on an $11.5 billion portion of the Suburban Rail Loop over 40 years. So my question is: what are the interest repayments that are to be paid by Victorian taxpayers from the $11.5 billion 40-year loan?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, you have literally asked this question. You are just repeating yourself. What I have explained to you is that the way you are conflating the numbers is not an appropriate way to describe the delivery of this project; however, I have committed to providing any additional information to you in line with your questioning.

Richard WELCH: In terms of the financing of that debt, I just want to know: what is the weighted average interest rate you have applied in the modelling for it?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, you are just repeating the question that Mr Mulholland asked in relation to the modelling, and I said that it is not modelling that government ordinarily reveals in detail, but I will see if I can provide something that would assist with your line of questioning. I have given that commitment to Mr Mulholland.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The reason why we ask these questions is because it is literally written in all of the government materials, from the budget to the announcement made last year in regard to value capture, that the SRL value capture measures will apply in the six SRL East precincts. The revenue from these five value capture mechanisms will repay up-front state borrowing over a 40-year period. Now, if we were to extrapolate that out, that means that the $11.5 billion portion is actually a lot more. So instead of being a one-third component of the Suburban Rail Loop East, it is actually going to cost over $30 billion. By the time the 40-year term concludes, Victorian taxpayers are up for over $28 billion in interest alone.

Jaclyn SYMES: You are saying that.

Evan MULHOLLAND: But we can only assume. Treasurer, you have said that your modelling mechanism also includes interest repayments. As far as I am aware, that is new information. So how high, for example, does the car parking levy have to be to cover not only the $11.5 billion but the interest repayments on that 40-year loan?

Jaclyn SYMES: At the outset, Mr Mulholland, you keep making claims about figures that I have said you are making up. At the first instance, let us not affirm the detail in your question. In relation to this project, the state is borrowing to fund up-front capital costs for the value capture component of the project funding; we have established that. The revenue generated from the value capture measures supports the borrowing over the long term, and well beyond this budget. So I am talking about matters that are not relevant to the appropriation bill today, but out of respect I am happy to have the conversation.

The value capture goes over 40 years. My budget does not go for 40 years; it goes for four. The borrowing has been factored into the state budget aggregates. Value capture is always retrospective, as governments cannot capture value until the value is created, which goes without saying. In relation to the settings, the five value capture measures you have articulated were very clearly outlined in our announcement in December last year. Value capture is an important measure. It has been used to fund numerous capital projects around the world. It is not the first project in Victoria to do it. This is making sure that you can deliver a generational project that is going to benefit many, many people for years to come, and value capture is an appropriate way to do it. In relation to up-front borrowings, we have been very open about that. In relation to a 40-year time period to pay that down, interest has been modelled into it. I am not in a position to provide detailed modelling. However, as I said, I will see if there is anything that I can provide on notice that is of assistance to your line of questioning. But again, it is outside the scope of today’s bill, because today’s bill is for the appropriations, which only are across the forwards.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Do you acknowledge that existing state property taxes like land taxes and windfall gains taxes, as stated on the ‘State Capital Program’ budget paper, page 16, are not new value that is created but indeed existing revenues that would have gone to consolidated revenue?

Jaclyn SYMES: We are talking about a project that is going to generate hundreds of houses, businesses, educational offerings and job opportunities. There will be more revenue generated out of purely the infrastructure investment, so to suggest that the money would somehow appear from that area without that investment is rather illogical.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Have you modelled or do you know how much hypothecated revenue the government is set to cast aside for SRL East sites from existing land taxes and windfall gains taxes?

Jaclyn SYMES: The SRL does not break down existing land tax by postcode, for example. As I have indicated, the value capture is supported by the fact that there will be more development, more housing and more activity in the centres as a result of this project.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Can I just walk you through a couple of things. You have said that the value capture of $11.5 billion in the mechanism is modelled over a 40-year period to take into account interest, but you do not know how much two of the key components, which you have said the value capture in the budget will raise in revenue that would normally go to consolidated revenue, would raise in revenue. Can you make this math math, Treasurer? You have said that the value capture is modelled with interest repayments over the 40-year period, but would it be a fact that you do not really know how much the mechanism that includes existing land taxes and windfall gains taxes would raise?

Jaclyn SYMES: At the outset I think it is important to put on record that the land tax and all of the existing tax settings in that area do not change. There is no increase to the tax, but what we are proposing to do going forward is to ensure that that revenue stays local. We know that the revenue in that area will be uplifted by the investment and development and delivery of the Suburban Rail Loop. As you have indicated, there are a range of measures that are in the value capture mechanism. You can go and look at the value capture mechanism, the details of which were released last year. It includes land tax, windfall gains tax, infrastructure contributions, car park owner levy and state-initiated development in relation to anticipated revenue over the next 40 years. As I said, it was in December that we released the mechanisms. They were carefully modelled by Treasury to ensure that they raise sufficient revenue over the 40-year period to pay for, as you know, one-third of the capital cost. As I said, there is a proposition here to ensure that the increased value of that region goes to ensuring that that is repaid. That is the level of detail I can take you through in the committee stage of this bill.

Evan MULHOLLAND: You have said that the modelling for the value capture mechanism includes interest repayments. Therefore it would be relatively easy to confirm that the total cost of the value capture component would be greater than $11.5 billion.

Jaclyn SYMES: The commitment is to borrow the $11.5 billion and repay it over 40 years.

Evan MULHOLLAND: So it is greater because it is including interest, and therefore the amount that we pay back over 40 years is greater than the actual $11.5 billion.

Jaclyn SYMES: That is kind of how things work. I have taken you through the value capture and how it works. Revenue raised over 40 years will be attributed to ensuring that it goes to the value capture component of this project. If you are proposing an alternative, then that is fine. We are delivering this project in a way that is funded by state government, federal government and value capture, because that is the way that the government believes is the best way to deliver an amazing project that is going to transform that area and ensure that many, many more people can live in that area and benefit from being able to get around.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I understand that you do not want to admit it –

Jaclyn SYMES: Please do not verbal me.

Evan MULHOLLAND: even though you have practically said it, because you have said that the 40-year loan does include interest repayments, and therefore in a roundabout way you have confirmed that the value capture component is more than a third of the project. I just want to ask, when does the hypothecation of the existing land tax and windfall gains tax actually begin?

Jaclyn SYMES: I refer you to the value capture mechanism materials that were announced in December. It is something that has already been put out in the public domain. This is a project that has some funding elements in this budget – not the entire project, as you would appreciate, because it is a long-term project – and this is a government that is proud to deliver infrastructure projects. It is a project that will be remembered, such as our Metro Tunnel, West Gate Tunnel, Footscray Hospital, Frankston hospital –

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: I will take up the interjection, Ms Crozier. Ensuring that you build for Victoria and ensuring that you provide the infrastructure that the growing population needs is something that this government is committed to. I know that as an alternative your leader has proposed that you will build nothing.

Georgie Crozier: That is a lie.

Jaclyn SYMES: Of course it is not a lie. The literal consequence of a net cash surplus is no borrowing, which means you cannot build anything.

Members interjecting.

Jaclyn SYMES: I know none of you have been ministers – I understand that – but if you had any idea how government works, you would recognise that you cannot deliver infrastructure without some borrowing. It is appropriate to invest in productive infrastructure. The alternative is not to build. I know that is your position, but we are talking about the SRL. We are talking about a project that the opposition have said that they will pause, which sacks thousands of people –

Georgie Crozier: On a point of order, Deputy President, I know the Treasurer is not liking the line of questioning from Mr Mulholland, who is asking this on behalf of the Victorian public because of the wasteful mismanagement of the Victorian budget, but the Treasurer has just come in here and made a ridiculous assertion about what we will do.

Members interjecting.

Georgie Crozier: Excuse me, Mr Batchelor, what the Treasurer said was a ridiculous assertion. I would ask you to ask the Treasurer to stop lying to the public about what our plans are and answer the questions of Mr Mulholland.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do not think that is actually a point of order, but we will bring the Treasurer back to the substance of the question rather than commentary around the opposition, please.

Jaclyn SYMES: The issue, Deputy President, is that Mr Mulholland’s line of questioning is asserting things that are not true. He is making up figures and verballing me in relation to what he thinks might happen, so it is only proper for me to ensure that through this debate we are talking about a project that only a Labor government will deliver. I am explaining the value capture mechanism as it relates to the budget, I am explaining why it is important to borrow to build and I am explaining the contrast of a potential government that have literally said that they will not borrow, which means they cannot build. So, Ms Crozier, by accusing me of lying, you are unaware of the consequences of the policies of your leader.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: Of course I am correct. If you do not borrow, you are not building much. That is a simple fact and the position that you have put. I am surprised that the likes of Mr Davis and Mr Welch support this policy, because I actually think they believe in productivity. You know that you have to invest and build in productive infrastructure. Stopping building means that investors go, jobs go. As I said, I am not convinced that your entire party room is on board with not borrowing, because I think you know what it will do to the economy.

Georgie Crozier: On a point of order, Deputy President, again, I do not know that the Treasurer does know what she is speaking about. I go back to what Michael O’Brien did when he was Treasurer with a cash surplus.

Jaclyn SYMES: You did not build anything.

Georgie Crozier: We did actually. How about Box Hill Hospital?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Crozier, these are debating points rather than a point of order. Do you have a point of order?

Georgie Crozier: I am a bit fed up with the Treasurer not understanding actually how a cash surplus works and how responsible management of the budget works.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Treasurer, are you aware if contracts will be let by the election – all contracts for the SRL at least?

Jaclyn SYMES: That is not a matter for the appropriation bill today, Mr Mulholland. You can ask the relevant minister.

Evan MULHOLLAND: It is funny you say that. We have been trying to get an answer on this and indeed tried to at PAEC. The last time we heard anything on this, the last Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop just claimed that all contracts will be let by the election. That was actually Mr Danny Pearson, so two ministers ago. The SRL is in the budget, so I would have thought that was of interest, but I will go to another question. In answer to a question on notice at PAEC about the amount of attributable funding to the Suburban Rail Loop in the government infrastructure investment line item in table 1.1 of page 5, budget paper 2, the Department of Treasury and Finance confirmed that there is a total of $15.1 billion of capital expenditure provisions over the financial years 2025–26 to 2029–30 for the Suburban Rail Loop East project. That is very nearly – almost – one-fifth of what the government spends on all infrastructure, including hospitals and schools. It is enough to keep anyone awake at night. Would you be able to advise, Treasurer, of the year-by-year breakdown of this funding?

Jaclyn SYMES: Over the four years?

Evan MULHOLLAND: Yes.

Jaclyn SYMES: In relation to the $15 billion that has been allocated to the project to date, that relates to the letting of contracts. Obviously you would be aware that tunnel-boring machines are in the ground this year and the like. There are about 3000 people already working on the site. The reason that Treasury were able to provide the figure is that it is actually already public. If you add it up, each of the announcements and the letting of contracts is $15 billion, so I was a little surprised that it was treated as new information because it is just adding up what is already public. In that sense I do not have on me the year breakdown, but it is on the public record as to when those have been let.

Evan MULHOLLAND: This would be a new way of doing things, because in previous years for projects like the North East Link and the Metro Tunnel it would be pretty standard to have it line by line, year by year. Are you able to take it on notice? The budget had a TBC line item. I assume it was because you were waiting on the federal budget. That is over now, and you have provided a global figure. I think it is pretty fair to ask for the year-by-year figure, as in line with all other equivalent infrastructure projects that have been budgeted.

Jaclyn SYMES: As I indicated, the $15 billion obviously refers to the peak construction phase of the project. A lot of the letting of those contracts I believe is available in the public record. In relation to your specific question, let me take that on notice and see if I can assist by seeing what I can allocate per year. As I said, the total has been provided by Treasury officials in relation to the money that has been allocated to the project to date, but that obviously includes work that is ongoing; it is not retrospective.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, can I take you to budget paper 4, page 154.

Jaclyn SYMES: It is not PAEC.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I just want to be helpful. Can the minister advise how many executives within the Suburban Rail Loop Authority currently receive total remuneration packages exceeding $400,000?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, again, the opposition were given the opportunity to provide me with some questions in advance if they had detailed questions about other ministerial portfolios. Mr Ettershank took up the invitation, the opposition did not. I am not in a position to give detailed answers that would be best directed to relevant ministers.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Have you, as Treasurer, approved any salaries exceeding the wage cap?

Jaclyn SYMES: This is information that gets released in annual reports. Again, I always like to be helpful, but if you are going to ask questions when the information is actually disclosed and published elsewhere, I think that is –

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Crozier, it is not a joke.

Georgie Crozier: We do not get the annual reports when they are due.

Jaclyn SYMES: Well, if you looked at past history, I think you would recognise in my portfolio that people that work for the Victorian Funds Management Corporation, for example – when you are competing with international talent compared to superannuation management companies, you can imagine that perhaps there are –

Georgie Crozier: It’s an election year. We deserve transparency.

Jaclyn SYMES: It is in last year’s annual report. I can show you last year’s annual report. In terms of the forthcoming annual reports, things will be detailed there.

Evan Mulholland: Can I take you to the –

Jaclyn SYMES: Can I answer Ms Crozier’s question before I lose my info?

Evan Mulholland: You can answer Ms Crozier’s questions.

Jaclyn SYMES: I did not want to lose the info that got sent to me, because I had good answers for Ms Crozier, and now it is hard to find them. Yes, the funding held and continuing for Albury Wodonga has now been approved, and the Department of Health can release that and make payments to New South Wales, who are, I guess, the project managers. That was able to happen because the Albury Wodonga business case from New South Wales supported that. You were concerned about community health funding. You were concerned that there was a cut: that is not technically true. The decline in funding is because funding for Medicare urgent care clinics from the Commonwealth is now being paid directly rather than through the state. So funding gets –

Georgie CROZIER: How many was it? Three? Three Medicare clinics?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not know, sorry. I am not sure.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I want to talk about the $1.2 billion roads blitz that was announced by the Prime Minister in February in conjunction with the state government. That is part of your budget papers – budget paper 3, page 83. The budget papers list projects and funding for the Calder Park Drive interchange upgrade, the Donnybrook Road upgrade and the Mickleham Road upgrade, stage 2, as part of this program. Do you have a breakdown on what proportion of each of these projects is coming from the state versus the Commonwealth? Given that there was $1 billion from the federal government and $200 million from the state government invested into these projects, can we assume all of those projects share an over 80 per cent Commonwealth contribution?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, some of the questions that you have asked relate to money from the federal government last year, and in terms of the project allocations and the percentages and how that might play out project by project, that is not a level of detail that I have.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Are you able to provide it on notice?

Jaclyn SYMES: I reckon, in the spirit of generosity, I can take that on notice, bearing in mind that the Minister for Roads and Road Safety is probably better placed. But given the money that comes from the feds, Treasury have a fair bit to do with it as well, so how about I take it on notice and see what I can get you.

Evan MULHOLLAND: It does sometimes pay to speak about a particular road every sitting week in the Parliament. I notice that in the federal budget they announced an additional $37.4 million to expand the Donnybrook Road project to include a second bridge over the Hume, but it has been confirmed that the state government only contributed $7.7 million to that expanded scope. If we average that out, we kind of get a peek through the window on what the state-by-state breakdowns might have been for a lot of those other projects. Is it not a fact that the Commonwealth are bailing out Victoria because you are spending one-fifth of the entire infrastructure budget on the Suburban Rail Loop?

Jaclyn SYMES: First of all, it is in no way an indication of project by project in relation to federal and state government splits. For example, Metro Tunnel was delivered without a single cent from the federal government. West Gate Tunnel was without a single cent from federal government. Level crossing removals did not involve any money from the federal government. In fact it is only in recent years that we finally have a federal government that recognises Victorians as Australians and is finally providing us with some infrastructure funding. In relation to the projects that we have had to fund ourselves, it goes a long way to the issue of why we have the debt profile that we did. If we were given our fair share over many years, we would not have had to borrow, because we would have been able to deliver projects in collaboration with a federal government.

Again, you have made a claim about how you think things are calculated. You are wrong. Any indication that there is a 20 per cent contribution from state and 80 per cent from federal on projects is just incorrect. The significant underfunding that we have experienced over many years – it is not just me saying it; it has actually been recognised by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, who finally tried to make amends for that as well. Mr Mulholland, it is good to receive some money in Victoria from the federal government. There are projects that I know that you have advocated for. There are projects that we are delivering in partnership with the federal government, and that should be welcomed.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I was simply making the very obvious assertion that it is a $1.2 billion roads package. The state government has already made the announcement that it is contributing $200 million to this, and the federal government have said they are contributing $1 billion to this. In fact on the recent expansion of the Donnybrook Road upgrade the federal government announced it was contributing $37.4 million, and I could literally only find on the member for McEwen’s Facebook that the state government contributed $7.7 million. I assume that that is the figure that the state government did contribute, so therefore I would assume that the rate is continuing of federal government bailout when it comes to desperately needed infrastructure projects in our growth areas, because we are spending almost one-fifth of our infrastructure budget on the Suburban Rail Loop.

I wanted to go to the Mickleham Road –

Jaclyn SYMES: Excuse me, Mr Mulholland, but yes, members are entitled to make statements, but I should also be afforded a right of reply when they make statements that, first of all, contain wrong assertions but, second of all, need to be challenged in relation to any suggestion that to articulate fair funding from a federal government is somehow something we do not deserve. It says a lot about an alternative government rather than a government that actually wants to attract its fair share from the federal government. We have got a lot of making up to do. We are still very much behind in our allocation from the federal government. We are very grateful to receive funding for projects, finally, but it does not make up for years of neglect led by Liberal federal governments.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think there is a fair bit of licence on both sides here in interpreting what the other side may say or do or whatever, but I just ask that we conduct this in an orderly fashion. Yes, a member has a right to make a statement; you will always be given the opportunity to respond, if you can just wait until we have the call to respond rather than have an exchange across the chamber. It makes it very hard for Hansard to record what is going on when there are interjections between the shadow minister asking the question and the minister at the table.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Treasurer, this might be one that you would like to take on notice as well, but given that particular project, which is in the budget –

Jaclyn SYMES: Which one, sorry?

Evan MULHOLLAND: The Donnybrook Road project has now been split into two stages: a stage 1 and a stage 2 phase. Can you provide information on when both planning and construction of those phases might be, in terms of a timeline?

Jaclyn SYMES: You talked about how, for the funding for Donnybrook Road, you had to scour the member for Yan Yean’s social media to find information. I have got the press release that says:

Drivers in Melbourne’s outer north will soon benefit from safer and more reliable journeys thanks to $45 million in additional funding from the Albanese and Allan Labor Governments.

The Albanese Government’s commitment of $37.4 million and the Allan Government’s commitment of $7.7 million will progress Stage 2 upgrades on Donnybrook Road.

So I do not know. Maybe we need to get you –

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: You just said you could not find the information until you went looking on the member for Yan Yean –

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: Well, you got the information from Labor members’ Facebook pages. I am just reading out the press release, which is publicly available. But you are asking for a level of detail about projects that is best directed to the minister.

Evan MULHOLLAND: It might have been cheeky, but I thought I would ask you, Treasurer, because you have been so kind and because the government has not been forthcoming with this information for my community.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: No, it was in terms of the project timing I was speaking about, Mr Batchelor. Can I ask about the Mickleham Road stage 2 project that was announced as a $250 million project. Given the state only contributed $200 million to the $1.2 billion roads blitz, the state contribution I think probably cannot be that much. Can I ask for you to include that project, to take on notice what the state breakdown might be?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes. As you indicated, the $1.2 billion road blitz is a matter for another minister. I have taken on notice to get you as much of a breakdown as I can. But again, these are important projects. You sound as though you advocate for the projects. A lot of these projects can only be delivered by a government that is willing to invest in productive infrastructure, and when you have a policy of no borrowing, then the projects will not exist under a Liberal government.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Just to respond to that assertion, the 2014–15 budget invested billions in infrastructure while also delivering a cash surplus, so the argument that you cannot invest billions in infrastructure and get to a cash surplus at the same time is Labor logic – it confuses me. Can I ask about the Western Highway duplication, which is very exciting for people in the growth areas. Are you aware of any change of scope to the Melton-to-Caroline Springs section of the Western Highway? Major Road Projects Victoria states that scope is due to be released anytime now, so I am wondering: when will it be released, and has there been a change of scope to this particular section of the project?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is not a matter for the Treasurer and not a matter for this bill.

Evan MULHOLLAND: This might be another one to add to the list, but how much for the Western Highway duplication from Melton to Caroline Springs is the state government actually contributing?

Jaclyn SYMES: I have committed to seeking some information in relation to specific projects and their funding allocations for you. I have already given you that commitment. You now keep asking the same questions. I promise I will look into it for you.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I just wanted to add that to the list of questions that I wanted to ask. That is all from me.

Melina BATH: Minister, this relates to the Wonthaggi Hospital and the West Gippsland Hospital. As you know, the Bass Coast is a growing area, and as a growing area, there are increased pressures on the hospital. The government in 2022 committed $290 million for stage 2 and stage 3. However, in this year’s budget there is no funding for those stages 2 and 3. This is budget paper 4, page 56. Can the minister outline what that decision was in relation to not funding stage 2 and stage 3?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, the opportunity to give me advance notice of granular questions was afforded to the opposition and was not taken up. We have just concluded PAEC. I do not mean to sound too frustrated with you, but I have been having this a little bit this afternoon. I would be more than happy to provide information where I can. This is a $115 billion budget, so if you ask me about specific projects that are the delivery responsibility of another minister, it is incredibly difficult for me to give you relevant information. We have just had a PAEC process where individual ministers were available for PAEC members. Both the Nationals and the Liberals were represented on that committee to ask these very, very specific questions. In relation to the health budget, this financial year alone we are providing $32.3 billion – again, the biggest investment ever in frontline care. A lot of that includes infrastructure. It includes delivery of expanded emergency departments. It includes community hospitals. It includes maternity services and the like. But in terms of the specifics of the project that you have asked about, I think that would be best directed to the Minister for Health Infrastructure.

Sitting suspended 6:29 pm until 7:32 pm.

Melina BATH: I went and had a check just now in relation to it, and the health portfolio is a massive portfolio, as you rightly state. In PAEC, I think, for the opposition members, as in the Liberals and Nationals, there were 21 minutes across billions of dollars, so it was very hard to get all of those questions in. I have one other question in relation to the West Gippsland Hospital. Of course in 2022 there was $675 billion in funding towards it, and there is no line item for it in the budget. My question in relation to it and Wonthaggi is: in general terms, when funding was instigated in 2022 and then there was absolutely no line item on those hospitals, what is that reflection and how do people in the electorates actually understand what is happening with these hospitals?

Jaclyn SYMES: As you would appreciate, there is not a line item for every single initiative in the budget. As you and I have both reflected, the size of the health budget is significant, so in terms of providing line-by-line details, it would make it unusable in terms of being able to find detail. As I said, on the detail that you have sought in relation to specific hospitals, I have got some high-level information in the materials that I have brought into the chamber. In relation to the 2026–27 budget, I understand there are upgrades that cover hospitals including Dandenong, West Gippsland and Wonthaggi, but I do not have the specific number. That is something that I will see if I can get for you through the Department of Health.

Melina BATH: I think there was allocated $65 million between West Gippsland and Wonthaggi. I think the hospital was still trying to understand what it exactly was for, so I do not want to put words into anyone’s mouth, but clearly $65 million is not what would have been $1 billion if we combine Wonthaggi and West Gippsland hospitals. In your assessment and investigations, could you see where they are at? It might be the case that Wonthaggi is at a standstill, but as you will be well aware, because it has been in the media so long and so often, West Gippsland Hospital – the Warragul hospital – is really in a desperate state. It is standing together with great staff, but that is an absolute desperate situation there, so it would be good to get an update on the new site. I know where the new site is, but where and how and when?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am happy to take that on.

Melina BATH: Treasurer, this relates to closing the gap, and it is budget paper 3, page 10. Again I will pre-empt that there was time in PAEC but there was only 7 minutes. As you can imagine, First Nations people, Aboriginal Victorians and closing the gap are a very serious and significant issue that I and many others across the board care about. There are multiple closing the gap targets that the government is not meeting, and I want to understand what specific outcome-based benchmarks the government has set for 2026–27 to demonstrate progress. I put that there is a small amount of funding. There is $2.5 million for closing the gap, but how will that address the significant targets that are unmet?

Jaclyn SYMES: You are right. I have just referred to the budget papers ‘Advancing Aboriginal self-determination and Closing the Gap’, and there is $2.5 million in this year’s budget. Obviously there are a number of other initiatives that are complementary to the closing the gap initiatives. You rightly identify that we have not met targets that have been set. I was probably closer to this when I was the Attorney-General. Ministers councils often have standing agenda items on how states are going in relation to closing the gap, and there is certainly always more to do.

In relation to the details that you have asked for, this would be best directed – I acknowledge that 7 minutes in a PAEC hearing is not a lot to get that information – to the Minister for First Peoples. I am sure that if this was put to her, and I am happy to let her know that you are chasing the information, she would be happy to provide some details.

Melina BATH: This is, I guess, part of the interesting dilemma when there are multiple areas – health, justice, all of that. But in budget paper 3, page 10, there is the Nest, and it is an initiative that Aunty Jill Gallagher has spoken to across the board. Her budget request from Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (VACCHO) was just a little under $55 million. The specific assessment that the government has provided over the forward estimates is $13 million, so I am interested to understand – is it from the Minister for First Peoples, the Minister for Health or the Minister for Children – what has been left in and what has been left out of that budget request.

Jaclyn SYMES: This was an initiative that I was quite interested in during the budget process. The budget is really big, but there are certain initiatives that you certainly retain more details about than others. The way you have questioned and your understanding of what you believe was presented as a budget bid does not align with my experience of what that budget bid was. Having said that, I do not really want to go into the budget bid processes. It is not something that is particularly appropriate. $13 million enables the project to be delivered. Does it deliver all of the things that would be optimum? Potentially not, but this is a significant investment that certainly delivers on the ability to deliver the project.

Melina BATH: Treasurer, I was not verballing you. I have received a booklet from VACCHO, and it had that figure of $54.9 million in there.

Jaclyn SYMES: I think they were able to break it down for a bid.

Melina BATH: That is right. In terms of the Treasury work, how is the government going to make those inroads to close the gap on those targets where it is not – I guess that is a question, potentially, for the minister, but what role can the Treasurer play in achieving that?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think, Ms Bath, without getting into a policy debate through the appropriation bill, we have put our position quite clearly, in that for a long time governments have had aspirations of closing the gap, and we have not come close to satisfying ourselves that we have done enough or even good in this space. That is why we have taken a different approach. That is why we are standing alongside First Nations people and delivering treaty. It is our view, and it is the view of many Aboriginal Victorians, that treaty itself will bring about much better outcomes for Aboriginal Victorians and indeed for the state as a whole. In relation to how Treasury can play a role, we are supporting the transition of a lot of services and a lot of government staff and departments in relation to the new body that will support the delivery of treaty.

Melina BATH: This is where our goals are the same, but our avenues and routes are different. That will not be the discussion for today, but my concern is there ends up being $2.5 million for closing the gap and $13 million for the Nest, for example, and there are tens of thousands of dollars to enable one particular philosophy, and I am very concerned that it will not close the gap. You can comment on my comment, and I appreciate that, but that will be the end of my questions.

Jaclyn SYMES: I think the fundamental position is that doing the same is not going to produce any different results, which is why a different path is the policy that we have taken. I just had some further information in relation to the Nest bid, which probably gives both of us a bit more context: the original bid or the ask was to build 10 – that is what the 55 is for. We have agreed to do two; that is why the funding is less.

Richard WELCH: Treasurer, just a little bit on the Suburban Rail Loop but in particular the community grants under the Suburban Rail Loop: the member for Box Hill has produced social media posts announcing a large number of round 2 SRL community grants funded in Box Hill. That information is not publicly available, so aside from the question of why he got advanced confidential advice that no-one else did, what is the total value of those grants allocated?

Jaclyn SYMES: We do not believe there is any change in this year’s budget, so it is not something that was part of this budget’s deliberations.

Richard WELCH: The funding is coming out of this year’s funding allocations, though.

Jaclyn SYMES: Where?

Richard WELCH: I do not know. That is probably what I am asking: where is the line item for it?

Jaclyn SYMES: That is what I said: I do not think it was part of this year’s deliberations.

Richard WELCH: There is no funding allocation for them in this year’s budget?

Jaclyn SYMES: Not that I am aware of.

Richard WELCH: So where is the money coming from?

Jaclyn SYMES: It could have been in previous budgets.

Richard WELCH: I do not think it was.

Jaclyn SYMES: You have asked me a question about a grants program. I am not aware of it being part of this year’s budget. Again, it is difficult for me to give specific advice on every government program, grants program and funding allocation in the budget. I do not have a recollection of a discussion about that particular grants program, so therefore it is a bit hard for me to give you any further details.

Richard WELCH: I probably at some point will return to that. I will get a clarification, and I will ask a question on it that is more fulsome. Indirectly related to that, we can apply it to all grants that you are doing, there has been concern from integrity bodies that the government has a troubling relationship with grey corruption, and many grants in this case have no direct relationship to the SRL works and have been clearly lined up to be announced and handed over during the election period. These grants have no transparency, are branded with a signature government name and are conveniently announced by the local member alone across the last six months leading up to an election. This in my view is corrupt practice. It fails every probity test and is improper. Will you undertake to ensure that all grant programs that have a branding and a promotional quality are handed over to independent non–policy branded bodies and not given to Labor members to announce and deliver?

Jaclyn SYMES: With respect, that question was effectively something that should be put as a substantive motion. You have made an allegation against a sitting member of corrupt conduct, and that is not appropriate use of –

Richard Welch interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: The practice that a member is engaging in, you allege, is –

Richard Welch interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: In relation to the accountability, policies and probity of grants, I would expect that all departments and all members of Parliament abide by the appropriate rules, act in an appropriate manner and ensure that integrity matters are something that is at the forefront when they are dealing with public money.

Richard WELCH: In the calculations for value capture and uplift across the SRL precincts, what is the value capture estimated to be on the Box Hill brickworks site?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have that level of detail. This is the appropriations bill. Value capture mechanisms were announced in December over a 40-year period, and I am not in a position to give you any more detail than I have already provided to you and Mr Mulholland in the course of the discussion we have been having.

Richard WELCH: I would just like to check a couple of budget assumptions, if I may.

Jaclyn SYMES: In the sensitivities, or what?

Richard WELCH: Yes, I guess so; it would relate to that. First of all, we stated that we had a growth rate of only 1.1 per cent in 2024–25; it is forecast to increase to 1.75 per cent in 2025–26 but then drop again in 2026–27 back to 1.5 per cent. Despite our record spending, is growth flatlining in Victoria?

Jaclyn SYMES: Can you just please specify, were you talking about economic growth or were you talking about the budget forecasts of the budget position?

Richard WELCH: Economic growth.

Jaclyn SYMES: As you would appreciate, we have had a fairly rocky start to this year in terms of the fuel crisis, creating a heap of uncertainty and obviously causing a lot of cost pressures across the spectrum of homes and businesses, and governments are not immune from this. What our budget has done is create forecasts on Treasury’s view of what is the most probable outcome of the trajectory using models and evidence from the Commonwealth Treasury, the RBA and IMF. The budget also includes sensitivity analysis with a less probable scenario also contained in budget paper 2. We have had a position of continued economic growth because we have been growing over several years, and we expect that to continue. Even if the war continues for some time, we still are anticipating economic growth based off the resilience of the position that we are starting from. That is not to gloss over the fact that there are challenges, but we are well positioned with a strong economy, and the sensitivity analysis has factored in interest rate rises and other impacts on the budget.

I think one of the assumptions that I took PAEC to in particular was assuming average oil prices will be US $100 a barrel for the June quarter. The assumption is that the average oil prices will gradually decline to $70 a barrel by December and then decline to $65 a barrel by June 2027, which is broadly in line with the path suggested by the oil futures as well, so weaker domestic growth due to prolonged conflict in the Middle East has been considered. The worst case scenario would lead to gross state product (GSP) falling by 0.72 per cent if it was to continue, but it is important to note that rising inflation often means rising revenues, so while we expect expenses to worsen in the first years, we could expect revenues will rise sufficiently in the outer years to offset that increase. The sensitivity analysis, as I said, has a worst case or a downside scenario of $130 a barrel. The analysis, again, is less probable scenarios under all of the information that is inputted – regardless of whether it is $130 a barrel or $200 a barrel, the Australian economy is still expected to grow. So there is a lot that goes into that sensitivity analysis, Mr Welch. It is all contained in budget paper 2. Hopefully I have given you a bit of a snapshot of what is a very thorough analysis that goes to underpinning the numbers that are printed in the budget.

Richard WELCH: Thank you, Treasurer, for that explanation. Just to confirm – I will do a two-parter so we save time – you do expect economic growth to slow in 2026–27? Could you confirm what that economic growth would be in per capita terms?

Jaclyn SYMES: The Victorian GSP is falling this year and next. To be clear, the economy is still tipped to grow this year by 1.1 per cent, next year by 1.75 per cent and every year over the forwards. Obviously, as I said, issues from the Iran war and national inflationary pressures are impacting world economies. Because of the position that we are in and because of some of the investments we have made we are resilient in that regard, which is where the sensitivity analysis or the forecasts are able to be factored in, but it does not mean that you sit there and do nothing. It is why we still continue to invest in productivity. We invest in supporting businesses, and a lot of that is through regulation reduction and red tape reduction. They are always ongoing conversations that I am very much interested in. We are delivering a lot of reform in that regard, and we will continue to deliver more.

Richard WELCH: I think I missed in that answer what the per capita GSP is. Are we in a per capita recession right now?

Jaclyn SYMES: Let me give you a bit more detail on that. We can continue the conversation about economic growth, because when there is economic growth it is at odds with your claim that there is a recession.

Richard WELCH: But what is the GSP per capita?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I said, the Victorian economy is tipped to grow this year by 1.1 per cent, next year by 1.75 per cent and every year over the forwards.

Richard WELCH: So you are not answering the question on per capita GSP. Is that something you are going to maintain? You are not going to answer that question. It is a simple question: what is the state’s GSP per capita?

Jaclyn SYMES: What you were referring to is a recession, and what I was trying to point to you was that when you have economic growth –

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: That is exactly what his question was, and that is what I am explaining to you.

Richard WELCH: I will restate the question. Last year the budget papers stated that GSP per capita was negative 0.8 per cent. What is it in this budget?

Jaclyn SYMES: Let me just make sure I have got the number that I can give you. As I said, the conversation that we were having was about economic growth, and I provided you with those details.

I think you were referring to a budget paper that you said had per capita figures in it. I am happy for you to bring me there. Again, you were trying to elicit information in relation to a per capita recession, and that is not right, because a recession is negative economic growth in –

Richard WELCH: I did restate the question.

Jaclyn SYMES: What I am asking you is that you said that in the budget papers there was a per capita figure, obviously. Can you point me to that?

Richard WELCH: I said in last year’s papers GSP per capita was negative 0.8 per cent, from memory, plus I wanted to know what this year’s figure is.

Jaclyn SYMES: That is what I was asking. You are saying it was in last year’s budget papers? I am just looking for the budget papers now. I do not think it is in the budget papers.

Richard WELCH: That is why I am asking you.

Jaclyn SYMES: You can calculate it yourself, Mr Welch.

Richard WELCH: It is not my job to calculate it.

Jaclyn SYMES: No? I will need to go and look at the figures. You have just said that last year you looked at the figures and you determined the per capita figure. The per capita figure is not published in the budget papers, so I do not have it to hand. It is something that you can go and calculate if you did it last year, Mr Welch.

Richard WELCH: I would have thought economic figures like CPI, productivity, debt, GSP and GDP and any other breakdown that comes in for compound factors of economic growth, including GSP per capita, would be at the tips of your and your officers’ fingers. It is a rudimentary economic measure, and surely you know what it is.

Jaclyn SYMES: In relation to the forecast for 2026–27, you will see in the budget papers a figure for real gross state product, employment, unemployment rate, the CPI, wage price index and population. I am concerned about your leading questions of trying to elicit a response that confirms what you think is a recession. I am not going to do that. We are focused on the real economy. We are focused on the fact that the economy is growing each and every year over the forwards. If you want to go and look at all of these figures, I can provide them to you and I am happy to repeat any of the line items that are in the budget, because that is the budget bill and that is what we are talking about this evening.

Richard WELCH: That is sort of amusing actually because clearly it cannot be a good figure; otherwise you would have mentioned it. It is a pretty rudimentary figure. Okay, someone can go and calculate it, but you should know it and you should be able to just provide it. It is theatre.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, the way you are asking the question, from the tone of what you are asking, clearly you know how to go and calculate it. So perhaps you go and do that. There are a lot of inputs in relation to the figures. I need –

Richard WELCH: You have got the Treasury department to do it.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, if I ask certain questions, I can get a whole heap of answers. I have given you the figures that are in the budget. This is a committee section on the budget, and that figure is not in the budget papers. So how about you ask me questions that are relevant to the bill, because that is the convention of the chamber.

Richard WELCH: Could I get that figure on notice?

Jaclyn SYMES: No, go find it yourself.

Georgie Crozier: On a point of order, Deputy President, Mr Welch has asked a very reasonable question. The minister has failed to provide it – he has asked for a figure, to be taken on notice, given she has explained that it was in the previous budget papers.

Jaclyn SYMES: On a point of order –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, sorry, we are listening to this point of order first.

Georgie Crozier: And I would ask you, Deputy President, to ask the Treasurer to respond appropriately to Mr Welch’s request.

Jaclyn SYMES: On the point of order, Deputy President, Ms Crozier has been sitting here and listening to the conversation, where I literally said, ‘Mr Welch, I do not believe that it is in the budget papers.’ He confirmed it was not in the budget papers. Now you are saying you think it is in the budget papers. Our committee stage is about –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, we are into debate. This is not a point of order.

Jaclyn SYMES: Was it a point of order or a question that you were asking me?

Georgie Crozier: No, he has asked for it on notice, if you can provide it, is my point.

Jaclyn SYMES: I have said on –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, can we just deal with the point of order?

Jaclyn SYMES: My point of order, Deputy President, is: on what basis am I expected to take answers on notice for questions that are not related to the budget papers? Ms Crozier is saying that I should take on notice to do some work for Mr Welch –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, we are debating. Neither Ms Crozier’s nor the Treasurer’s contributions were actual points of order, and I just point out that I cannot actually instruct the Treasurer how to answer the questions. If Mr Welch wants to ask her again to take it on notice, it is up to the Treasurer how she answers him. We will move on.

Richard WELCH: I am resisting all temptation. In the forward estimates, have all the savings you expected to arise from the Silver review been incorporated? Have they been adopted, and effectively are they now on the forwards?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think you clarified your question, because I was going to ask you what you meant by ‘incorporated’. But yes, the Silver review, as you will recall, was off the back of me requesting Helen Silver to undertake an independent review of the Victorian public service in relation to identifying, in particular, measures of duplication, any discussions with departments about programs that could come to an end, crossover with the Commonwealth and the like. We have not accepted all of the recommendations, but of the recommendations that we have accepted, there are implementation plans for the adoption of the measures that have been agreed, and those savings have been booked.

Richard WELCH: You mentioned before that you were investing in productivity in a climate where you are also forecasting falling economic growth. Is Victoria’s productivity going to rise over the forwards?

Jaclyn SYMES: I would refer you to the Economic Growth Statement in particular and the measures that are contained in that. Most of that funding for those initiatives was in last year’s budget, not this year’s budget. Obviously each budget stacks on top of the other regularly, so a lot of those initiatives are underway and continuing. And there are always ongoing conversations, particularly in relation to regulation reduction, which enhances productivity.

Richard WELCH: Yes, but I think you mentioned before how good the modelling is, and of course the modelling would have taken into account a productivity factor over the forwards, which would be afresh because it would be an extra year at the end of the forwards now. So I am just wanting to know what the productivity forecasts are over the forwards, perhaps by year.

Jaclyn SYMES: What I was taking you to were initiatives that tackle productivity. The Economic Growth Statement is the long-term plan for boosting productivity. There is funding to support that. We will always commit to enhancing productivity. We have backed that with funding. There are things like a 10-year plan to unlock industrial land, single entry for businesses, export support. Again, as I said, I will continue to point to the number of business regulators, which is something that we hear a lot about in terms of being able to streamline that. We are continuing to work with the Commonwealth, who are certainly taking a lead in this. But to your specific question, we do not forecast productivity in the budget, but the Minister for Economic Growth and Jobs can talk to you more about some of the productivity initiatives that we are initiating and putting into practice.

Richard WELCH: Just for my clarity, though, are you saying there is no assumption of increased productivity over the forwards that underpins your budget figures?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I said, we do not publish the forecasts of productivity, but it is something that we work with the federal government on, and there are a lot of initiatives to work particularly with the business community in relation to supporting those initiatives, so it is not a line item in the budget.

Richard WELCH: Given that our state’s productivity has been the lowest in the nation for 10 years, I would have thought that both the forecasts and the policies would have had actual, specific numbers attached to them. You can reel off a list of programs, but it is the efficacy of the programs that you really want to examine; otherwise, they are just programs. If they are not actually resulting in an increase in productivity and you are not measuring it and you are not tracking it and it does not form part of your budgetary process, that is a real gap. I think that is a real gap.

Jaclyn SYMES: I continue to get commentary from the opposition, who make statements about things that they think happen. It is not really my job to continue to correct them, but they state it as a matter of fact, and several of them are just wrong. Perhaps just use this committee stage to ask me questions about the bill.

Richard WELCH: You see, questions like that arise when you do not have confidence in the answers that you are receiving. Any serious economist – and you should effectively be one – would be able to rattle off ad nauseam, down to the 10th decimal place, what they are doing on productivity. They could rattle it off by sector. They could rattle it off by segment. They would know these figures. The reason I keep coming back to them and asking what you consider to be naive questions is because the lack of detail in your answers is really concerning to me. That is why. I do not have confidence in your answers anymore.

I will move on. This is productivity related as well. There has been a 24.3 per cent cut to the trade and investment output next year, equating to $39.5 million. How can you achieve economic growth if you are cutting the investment budget by almost 25 per cent? This is in the ‘Department Performance Statement’, page 81.

Jaclyn SYMES: There are two claims that you have made in your question. Certainly it is a matter for the Minister for Economic Growth and Jobs, particularly about the initiatives in relation to trade. But what you did point to were concerns about supporting economic growth and productivity through trade and investment, particularly international relations and exports. Again, coming back to what I was taking you through before in relation to the Economic Growth Statement and the supports available, particularly for businesses that want to engage on an international level, when we announced that, it was certainly welcomed. I do not have the latest details on how it has been going, but it comes up regularly in the conversations and meetings that I have in relation to the support of people accessing markets for the first time. In terms of productivity, I think people are growing in that sense in terms of the export and ability to access international markets. Again, there is growth in this space, but you are better placed asking for some details from Minister Dimopoulos.

Richard WELCH: I just refer to the Victorian Investment Fund (VIF). Last year’s budget said $50 million of this funding would be set aside for a dedicated regional stream to support capital investment and new jobs in regional cities and towns. How much of this funding has been spent on the dedicated regional stream, and how many projects and how many jobs have been created?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, I would have loved to have given you all the details of this program, because obviously as Minister for Regional Development I was involved in a lot of the announcements and the jobs that were created. If you had given me a bit of a heads-up on the question, I would have been delighted to talk to you about the numerous projects that I have had the benefit of working with people on and announcing. I think the last one I did while I was still in the role was in Tongala in terms of an old Nestlé factory that had been purchased and revamped into dairy product manufacturing, employing locals that had had to move to other towns for work – predominantly Shepparton – but more local jobs being available in that area of the state is a great outcome. I am sure the Minister for Regional Development will be delighted to talk to you about the pipeline of investment that is going out the door under the VIF for regional Victoria. I do not have any more details of the money expended and the money left. It was budgeted for in last year’s budget. I am sure the Minister for Regional Development, as I said, could talk you through the great projects and job creation in regional Victoria.

Georgie CROZIER: Treasurer, in a response to Mr Welch you spoke about the economic statement and referred to last year’s budget underpinning that statement. That statement referred to one of the five pillars being medical research. In last year’s budget there were two years of funding for operational infrastructure support – around $24 million in investment – but there is nothing in the forward estimates in this budget. The medical research sector is very concerned about the lack of support given by the government. What impact is that going to have on the Victorian economy, jobs and the overall budget position when there is no further funding, and as they say, 10 medical research institutes will fold?

Jaclyn SYMES: In a sense, Ms Crozier, you answered your own question, because you put it in the opening remarks that there were two years of funding that were provided in last year’s budget, which means that the money is still ongoing at this point in time.

Georgie CROZIER: And nothing further.

Jaclyn SYMES: The funding is still ongoing. There is still another year. That does not at all imply that it stops. That is why we do a budget every year. Under your logic, you would only do a budget every four years. Because you do not necessarily know who is going to be in the market, when projects end, and you might be engaging with the industry that want to pivot to another direction, two years of certainty was obviously deemed appropriate at that time. As you have indicated, our Economic Growth Statement has identified med tech as a now and future industry that we are backing. Again, it is a little bit similar to my problem with answering Mr Welch’s question. There is so much going on in this space, so much investment, and a lot of people are setting up here. We are actually world renowned for med tech, and that is a reputation that has happened under our government and something that we are committed to maintaining.

Georgie CROZIER: Treasurer, you clearly have not met with the sector. You clearly do not understand their concerns. You clearly do not understand that the uncertainty that your government is providing to this sector means that they have no certainty about their ongoing capacity and viability. I find your answer astounding, and I hope that those listening also do, because what they have been requesting for years is that certainty. You have just literally written them off. I am going to move to my next question, because I am just shocked.

Members interjecting.

Georgie CROZIER: No, she has written – you have written –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Crozier, sorry. Let the Treasurer answer.

Georgie CROZIER: Have you met with them? Have you met with the sector?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The Treasurer has the call.

Jaclyn SYMES: This has been a feature of today’s committee: opposition members make a statement and then go, ‘I’m going to ask my next question,’ because God forbid I might like to respond to just ridiculous claims. Ms Crozier, you are very, very welcome to engage with Minister Carroll as the minister for med tech, but when you look at projects like AstraZeneca and Moderna, both now operating as CSR in relation to med tech –

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: You asked about investment in –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Crozier, the Treasurer without assistance.

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Crozier, we have a dedicated Minister for Medical Research, something that I do not know if other states have. Do you have a Shadow Minister for Medical Research?

Georgie CROZIER: Me – it is me.

Jaclyn SYMES: I am glad you are meeting with stakeholders as shadow. There is investment in med tech. There is investment in and ongoing support for the sector. There is certainty because there is funding in the budget. In relation to further questions about the commitment of this government, Minister Carroll would be delighted to talk. He is very passionate about this portfolio. Our millions of dollars of investment in relation to these matters speaks for itself. Of course regular engagement with ministers and their relevant stakeholders is important. I am sure Minister Carroll has met with the stakeholders and talked to them about the record funding we are providing and of course the funding that they would like to see in the future.

Georgie CROZIER: I am quite shocked that you actually do not understand what I am asking. There are 14 medical research institutes in this state, 10 of which are at risk of folding because there is not that certainty that you have just said there is. There is not. You have just cherrypicked a couple of names like Moderna and med tech. You have not actually understood the sector, and that concerns me. I will leave it at that, because I think we are going around in circles, and I will move to my next –

Michael Galea: On a point of order, Deputy President, the committee stage of a bill is not an opportunity for members to grandstand; it is to ask questions about the bill – in this case the appropriation bill. I know Ms Crozier would love to join PAEC, but if she is not on it, could she please confine these remarks to the bill at hand and the fact that we are in committee stage?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Members can make statements, so I do not uphold the point of order. I think we need to move on.

Georgie CROZIER: I will move on, because I have got other colleagues that need to ask questions and we do not need to be here all night, but I am stunned by the minister’s last response. I would like to go to a question relating to your statement, your speech, where you promised foster, kinship and permanent carers around $400 more a year at the lowest level. However, the budget allocates only $3.6 million in the first year, which divided across 14,509 children in foster, kinship and permanent care, based on this year’s budget, delivers just $256 per child in care. I ask: has all the money that the government is relying on in funding been disclosed in relation to these children that require this funding? Based on the 2025–26 expected outcomes it will be 12,804 children at $281 each, so it seems to be going backwards. Could you just provide some clarity around this?

Jaclyn SYMES: Certainly what I said in my budget speech was something I was really keen to make sure people heard about. I think somebody asked me earlier about the Nest. There are certain initiatives that are particularly memorable in the conversations that I had to get them through the budget, and I was very keen to see an increase for foster carers. I would have loved to have done more, but where we got to was to ensure that we could deliver the funding uplift to what I announced. In relation to the way you have asked the question, I might make sure I can provide you with information that backs up the commitment that we have made. It is certainly something that we want to make sure everyone can access. If it is not clear in the budget from your calculations, let me get you some more information so that you can have another look and let me know if you still have any remaining concerns. It is something that I am very proud to deliver, so I would not want there to be misinformation that people are missing out.

Georgie CROZIER: I think that would be helpful given there does seem to be some concern. I raised this, and you might need to provide that assurance for clarity as well – the $15 million that is allocated over four years, I understand, is to respond to increasing cost-of-living pressures for Victorian carers. Is that the full and complete funding for the carer allowance indexation increase, or does it combine with other existing funding?

Jaclyn SYMES: Could I just clarify, Ms Crozier – I think it is just the increase – you were talking about which allowance?

Georgie CROZIER: It is budget paper 3, table 1.12, under ‘Responding to increasing cost-of-living pressures for Victorian carers’. That is what it is in reference to. I think there is $15 million allocated over four years; there is $3.6 million, I think, for the first year. Is that the entire amount of money that is allocated to that, or is there other existing funding?

Jaclyn SYMES: That is just the increase.

Renee HEATH: Treasurer, I am going to start with the cuts to youth justice. It is reported in the department questionnaire, in question 3, page 31, that the youth crime prevention and early intervention project has seen its funding for 2025–26 drop by $1.3 million, with that funding rephased into the 2028–29 budget. Given that there is a crime crisis now, why isn’t the government spending that money now?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not get many questions from you, so I am happy to have a conversation. I am trying to be helpful in this committee stage of the appropriation bill. It is fair to say that members are kind of treating it like PAEC and asking very portfolio-specific questions, which I am happy to try and answer, but again, there are relevant ministers that will have greater detail. But you have asked about youth justice, and I think it would be worthwhile my talking about the violence reduction unit (VRU) and the funding in this budget that –

Renee HEATH: On a point of order, Acting President, my question is specifically from the Department of Justice and Community Safety (DJCS) questionnaire, question 3, page 31. It is specifically about the drop in funding by $1.3 million.

Jaclyn SYMES: First of all, you have just articulated you are talking about a departmental questionnaire, which is certainly in the remit of PAEC, not actually in the remit of the appropriation bill that we are discussing this evening. It is literally a PAEC question that you are asking me. I reckon it was one that was prepared for PAEC that perhaps did not get the opportunity to be asked. However, you talked about funding in youth justice, and I was going to point out this year’s budget invests $33.5 million in the violence reduction unit, which goes towards new programs that identify and disrupt youth crime patterns early and stop crime before it starts. The violence reduction unit is modelled on international expertise, and this funding boost that we have provided in the budget is ensuring that it has a permanent home in our justice system.

You talked about youth programs. In addition to the $33.5 million, the budget provides funding to continue a range of existing early intervention programs, including almost $9.5 million to boost Blue Light Victoria’s youth mentoring program and $5.124 million for the youth crime prevention program. I reckon – again, being helpful – the VRU is actually in the Department of Premier and Cabinet, so that is where you will probably see some of the cost shifting from DJCS to DPC. When you articulate something as a cut, I would urge you to look at the total funding across government for the initiatives that you are interested in in the youth justice portfolio, particularly given it is split across DPC and justice these days.

Renee HEATH: The reason I asked questions so specifically was because the three priorities in this budget are literally ‘Easier’, ‘Safer’ – so it is about community safety – and ‘More affordable’. Given that it is one of your government’s priorities – in fact you have said it is the highest priority – that is why I asked. Regardless, the youth crime prevention program is receiving $19.9 million in next year’s budget, but it only expects to service 330 young people. By my calculations that is over $60,000 a person. Do you think that that is the best value for money?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am going to start with responding to your claim that because of the title of the budget papers you have full remit to ask anything that you think fits in under the term ‘Safer’, because we are looking at the appropriation bill. It does not have the wording that you articulated as being why you think you can ask questions that would be well suited to PAEC. You have got your questions from a PAEC questionnaire that you are putting to me. Again, the opposition were invited to give me a heads-up of any really specific details that they wanted. No-one did. The crossbench did. I was able to answer a specific roads question for Mr Ettershank because he asked me to be prepared. When you ask specific questions that are better placed for a minister, without having given me the courtesy of getting the information in advance, it is very difficult for me to know every detail of every other minister’s portfolio. I am more than happy to try and help, as I did. I answered your question. I explained why it is probably not a cut. There are two portfolios that deal with youth justice, but you are now asking, again, granular detail about numbers in a portfolio that is –

Renee Heath interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, but then you have asked about how that will be rolled out. I am not the minister that is responsible for the delivery of the program. I have probably cut you off a little bit. Ask me another question and again I will continue to try and answer, but you will get the same answer if they are a little bit detailed. I apologise, it is just that this has been a pattern, and I cannot just take a whole heap of questions on notice, because it is not really the purpose of this bill. This committee is associated with a particular bill, so could we just keep that in mind whilst I continue to try and be of assistance.

Renee HEATH: You did say that it has been a pattern. This has been a pattern with us. We cannot seem to get answers out of anyone, because it is always shifted. That is why when something is in the budget paper – you were telling Mr Welch before, give me a –

Jaclyn SYMES: Not the budget paper – the bill.

Renee HEATH: No, you said before, ‘Give me a budget paper, something in the budget paper,’ and he could not when you were – what was it, the GDP or –

Richard Welch interjected.

Renee HEATH: GSP, sorry. Now I am and we are getting handballed off again. My question was about the $19.9 million that is allocated in next year’s budget. I was speaking about how it is expected to service 330 young people – that is over $60,000 per person. What is worse than that is it only expects that 45 people will successfully complete the program, so that is over $420,000 per person. How can you, as the Treasurer, justify this expense for a program that is only expected to have a 13 per cent success rate?

Jaclyn SYMES: You are asking me about a particular program that is in the remit of another minister, and I am sorry, I did not even catch the program – you just said a $19.9 million program. I am not in a position to give you any further details. Again, I am happy to help, but that is not my remit and I do not think it is in the bill.

Renee HEATH: I will go to the victims of crime financial scheme. One of the recommendations from PAEC last year was that the department introduce a timeliness performance measure for victims of crime to receive payments under the financial assistance scheme within 30 days. I note that the department has instead introduced other performance measures, both of which the department has failed to meet its targets in. Why has the department chosen to do this?

Jaclyn SYMES: This is not my department.

Renee HEATH: I am going to move on now to a different topic, one that I have not been able to get answers on, but under the list of initiatives in your budget for the community safety package – and if you are interested, it is page 6 of budget paper 3 – it states that funding is provided to deliver serious consequences to perpetrators of violent crime and keep the community safe. Is enough being done in this area, and do you think that there actually are serious consequences for violent criminals?

Jaclyn SYMES: You have literally asked the Treasurer for an opinion on a policy that is delivered by another minister – that was your question. It is just not relevant to this bill. I know you are interested in these issues, but you gave me a budget reference. Perhaps you could have asked it in PAEC or got your representatives to ask it in PAEC. It is just not even relevant to this bill. You just asked me whether I think a policy is effective. It is not an appropriate use of committee questions to ask me an opinion on the effectiveness of a policy.

Renee HEATH: We did ask the minister in PAEC and got no answer. I asked you when you were the Attorney-General and I got no answer. You can sort of see why we are –

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

Renee HEATH: You cannot see? All right. Well, how does the government balance these commitments and these statements with the continued reductions in sentences for prisoners, including emergency management days?

Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Heath, I cannot answer your questions. They are not even remotely related to the appropriation bill. This is not an opportunity to ask every question you would like to ask government, just because I am the Treasurer and some things cost money. It is not a question that you should be putting.

Renee HEATH: On the environment, the state government applied for and was awarded $3.3 million from the federal government on 4 November 2022 under the coastal risk mitigation program. The state government finally released their plan, which included this funding, on Christmas Eve last year. What was the hold-up with releasing these funds, and where have these funds been sitting for the past three years?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think you have just asked me about a funding allocation that was provided by the federal government in 2022. I kind of understand your question, but I do not know why you are asking it in the appropriation bill committee. I just do not.

Nick McGOWAN: Treasurer, page 11 of the bill refers, obviously, to the Department of Health budget. Is any of that budget to be expended on the construction of Maroondah Hospital?

Jaclyn SYMES: I appreciate your interest in the matter. I think this is a question that you might actually have asked the Minister for Health – did you, I think?

Nick McGOWAN: I have asked a similar question.

Jaclyn SYMES: I pay attention. Her answer will be the same as my answer, because we are engaging constructively in relation to the hospital in Maroondah. There are active conversations in relation to potential for PPPs and market-led proposals. Those conversations are ongoing. But that would be why there is no direct provision in the budget, other than my confirmation that there are active discussions in relation to the future of that.

Nick McGOWAN: Just to confirm, there is no money in this appropriation bill for any construction; does that likewise apply for the forward estimates? Because that certainly seems to be the case, based on what is in the budget to date.

Jaclyn SYMES: No.

Nick McGOWAN: In the forward estimates that is the case.

Jaclyn SYMES: I think a little bit of the problem I had with the way Ms Crozier articulated her question was in that she said because there is funding for two years, we will not have funding in years 3 and 4. That is not an accurate picture of how budgets work. Similarly, it is the reverse for you in relation to the question you are asking: just because there is no provision now or in the forwards does not mean that it cannot be in a subsequent budget before the end of the forwards.

Nick McGOWAN: You might be able to help shine some light on a question that was asked at PAEC but does clearly relate to the appropriations. We did not have much success with the minister, so I think your capability in this space, with no disrespect to the minister, particularly when you were the previous minister, might assist greatly. We did try and attempt to get an idea as it relates to the appropriations bill of the quantum of the budgets for – you know where I am going here – the SES, FRV and Forest Fire Management. Now, these are things that the government has given regularly at every PAEC I could ever recall in fact, except this year, it seems, because the minister was either unaware or – I cannot explain it. Perhaps you can assist the chamber certainly in respect to the appropriations and obviously the environment budget, which I will come to in a moment – but emergency services for the time being.

Jaclyn SYMES: The funding provided for emergency services in this year’s budget sits at more than $2.4 billion. As you would appreciate, that is what is forecast in the budgets. A bit similar to where we started the conversation today, in the event that there are events, often that allocation is supplemented by Treasurer’s advances.

Nick McGOWAN: I appreciate it is $2.4 billion. What I am trying to understand is the actual budget for FRV, because it is quite a significant agency, and obviously I am the shadow minister for that agency, as opposed to the other agencies per se. Can the Treasurer advise the house in respect to the appropriations? What portion of the appropriations relates to FRV budget, notwithstanding it is an estimate?

Jaclyn SYMES: The FRV budget is around a billion dollars a year.

Nick McGOWAN: I appreciate that, based on last year’s annual report but also the budget expenditure. Is the Treasurer able to provide a precise amount of the estimate that these appropriation bills are based on? I respect that it is a billion dollars, but is it $1.1 billion, $1.4 billion, $1.3 billion?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am wanting to give you as much information as I can. As you have identified, the budgets when it comes to emergency services are kind of reliant on a full reconciliation in their annual reports, because there is a lot of unpredictability in relation to where they finally end up. But you want a bit more substance about what is expected to be expended to FRV, and I think where I can take you is the expected allocation from the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund. As you would appreciate, that is a fund that significantly contributes to the budgets of FRV, SES, CFA and a range of other bodies. In relation to what is forecast for this coming year to go to FRV directly from the ESVF – and I have to be very clear that is not their total funding; we have fallen into a trap of a lot of misinformation, claims of cuts and the like, and there are certainly no cuts – the FRV budget for next financial year will have a contribution of around $829 million directly from the ESVF, and that is a boost from last year’s allocation from the ESVF. As you would appreciate, it is a new fund that has replaced the fire services property levy, but it is helping to ensure the budget allocations for our emergency services agencies.

Nick McGOWAN: Can the Treasurer provide, likewise, figures for the ESVF estimates, as we will call them, or the projections, for both the SES and for the CFA?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes. The 2026–27 ESVF will deliver for the CFA $358 million and for the SES a total of $102 million. It might be worth putting on the public record that compared to last year for the CFA, it is $46 million additional and SES is $29 million additional. And the figure I provided to you earlier in relation to Fire Rescue Victoria of the $829 million is an extra $68 million compared to last year’s ESVF provision. Again, ESVF provision calculations are a point in time on an estimated baseline funding. It is not the total funding. They all receive significantly more funding from that. If events happen, they are supplemented et cetera. But hopefully that gives you a bit of an indication of the secure funding source from the ESVF for those agencies.

Nick McGOWAN: I apologise. Can I add Forest Fire Management Victoria? In the absence of my colleague Melina Bath here today, I am sure she would be interested in the figure for that as well.

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have those details on hand, and I can explain why. The three agencies that I have detailed have legislative percentages. Everything else is not as prescriptive. So I do not have that figure today, because they are under a different arrangement, effectively, to the calculations that are legislated to provide for those other three agencies.

Nick McGOWAN: I am going to get a little bit granular here, as you would like to say, and I like the saying, so if you do not know the answer, then I am appreciative of that fact. In fact, if I had known previously, we could give you some questions – that would have been useful for both you and me. But nonetheless, in respect to the education appropriations on page 7, I understand that Heathmont East Primary School are to receive a portion of funding under these appropriations, and that is in the quantum of $500,000. Can I confirm with you that that is the correct amount?

Jaclyn SYMES: I reckon I can get you that answer. Give me a second.

Nick McGOWAN: If it assists the Treasurer too, can I also ask with regard to Marlborough? They have money for planning, but it is not clear through the appropriations bill, certainly, that that sum is again $500,000. But it is bundled together; notwithstanding this is not the appropriation bill, it is bundled together in the budget. So it does not make it clear to me in either the budget or the appropriation bill whether that is correct or not.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes. I will see if I can get you an answer, but what you have identified is – it is not uncommon to have a bucket of money for maintenance projects, portable allocation, modular allocations and some of the smaller work, again, because to list it all in detail is perhaps a little bit onerous for budget papers. We do the larger school upgrades by line item, generally. The smaller ones that have been preannounced as going to receive something out of a bucket do not always have a dollar figure put on them. For example, in my electorate, Broadford Secondary are getting modulars. I do not actually know the cost of those modulars; I just know that they are in the bucket. So I can try and get you that information. Are your figures based on what the schools have told you?

Nick McGOWAN: If it assists the Treasurer, your party’s candidate was able to make phone calls on the day of the budget to the schools and advise them of the amounts.

Jaclyn SYMES: Let me get confirmation. We have got an education adviser that I know will know that off the top of her head. There is a bit of a lag in terms of us seeking that information from her, but if it comes through, I will let you know. If not, I will get back to you.

Nick McGOWAN: I thank the Treasurer for her answers and for her undertaking. With respect to the contingencies, this is always an area that interests me greatly. I know with respect to FRV and the ongoing industrial disputation there that the firefighters have not received a pay rise for five years and the corporate for six. Is there any allocation in these contingencies for the settlement of that EBA?

Jaclyn SYMES: I cannot provide a breakdown of contingencies, but I can confirm that contingencies include provisions for EBAs. We have got a few to hopefully settle before the next budget, and there is provision for EBAs in this budget.

Nick McGOWAN: Just to clarify – and it may be my lack of understanding in this space – I would assume that every year an authority like FRV is provided with its budget. Perhaps I am wrong here, but that would likely include the capacity for them to pay their increases or their CPI – whatever it is that is agreed under their EBA. But where there is no EBA agreed, does government year on year provide that, or does it accumulate in terms of that liability going forward and get paid out at the end when there is a settled agreement? I am specifically talking about the FRV, obviously.

Jaclyn SYMES: The provision of funding for all agencies ensures that they can meet their obligations for wages and conditions. In relation to EBAs that have not yet been finalised, that is generally held in contingency in central government and provided to reflect the changes.

Nick McGOWAN: Based on government wages policy, do you have an estimate? It is hard for me to tell from the appropriation bill, but do you have an estimate of what that liability might look like? Is that accounted for in the appropriation bill, should that matter be concluded this financial year in respect to the FRV’s outstanding EBAs? Obviously it is a sizeable amount – it is five to six years worth of negotiations and EBA outcomes.

Jaclyn SYMES: I believe I answered that question in indicating that there is a contingency provided in each year’s budget that is in anticipation of EBAs that you would anticipate or hope are settled prior to the next budget.

Nick McGOWAN: I appreciate that. Perhaps I did not put that as well as I could have. Do you have a quantum that you have allowed for FRV specifically in those contingencies? That is probably what I am asking.

Jaclyn SYMES: Sorry. I caveated my original answer to you that we do not provide a breakdown in relation to those matters.

Nick McGOWAN: Is that a government decision not to provide that, or is that a policy of some sort? Just so I am clear.

Jaclyn SYMES: In relation to EBAs, they are negotiations. If you telegraph your prepared envelope, it might undermine the negotiations.

I have an answer for you on Heathmont East Primary: $495,000 from the Capital Works Fund.

Nick McGOWAN: I will leave you with Marlborough, if I may, if that is okay. I believe it is the same quantum or thereabouts. I have spoken a lot in this place – perhaps more than any other member – about toilets. While you may not draw a direct parallel with this appropriation bill, I am sure I can find one, regardless of which page I turn to. We all need them. That is the sad reality. I am just hoping you can perhaps enlighten me, or indulge me even, because I did see that there is $700,000 – I did not go for any puns even – for toilets, I kid you not, at Coburg Lake Reserve.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes.

Nick McGOWAN: I thought you might know about this. I will have it as an as open a question as I possibly can. How did they possibly manage to get their $700,000, and what is the key to that? Because clearly I am missing it?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am somewhat familiar with that project, Mr McGowan. I am not familiar with the design of the facilities, but the budget contains a range of community facilities that are funded in the budget. Rochester pool is probably my favourite facility that is funded in Northern Victoria. I am always happy to hear from members about their particular projects and the things they would like to be considered in the budget, and I am more than happy to continue to hear your advocacy about the important infrastructure that you would like to see in your electorate.

Nick McGOWAN: I am not sure if you have answered my question. I have been trying for some time – for some years, for that matter – without any success at all for a single toilet at Ringwood East train station. But I have made my point. I shall move on to Go Fishing Victoria. Go Fishing – I know; I shake my head every time I think of this too – I am assuming includes the fishing rods, and if it does not, I do not know where that belongs. On what basis are we giving out to children, yet again, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of free fishing rods this year under the appropriation bill?

Jaclyn SYMES: I have managed to be pretty good with most of your questions. I am not across the detail of what is contained in the fishing initiative that is being funded in the budget. Obviously the Victorian Fisheries Authority are being merged with the Game Management Authority, and there is provision I think in relation to their joint activities and what the future will look like in terms of what their specific programs are and what they are providing in relation to the funding that they are provided. I do not have that level of detail, but the new minister is pretty enthusiastic about fishing. I have seen a picture of him in waders, and he seems to be much more across the detail of what is in the fishing allocation in the budget than I am. I reckon you could ask him, and he will let you know what is in store to encourage people to go fishing in Victoria.

Nick McGOWAN: Okay. While we are talking about killing animals, because I know your government specialises in it and takes it to the next level – no disrespect to you, but that is a fact –

Jaclyn SYMES: I have actually got more. Someone has sent me some details on fishing.

Nick McGOWAN: I will take the details on fishing, please, because I would welcome that. But while you are at that, I will not even talk about koalas or wombats. Perhaps I will let you answer that question first on the fishing rods. Why don’t we do that?

Jaclyn SYMES: I have just been advised that in relation to the fishing allocation, it is to stock fish in Victorian waterways, including Arcadia and Snobs Creek, and you can find that in budget paper 3 on page 64. It is mainly about fish stocking. If anyone has been to Snobs Creek, it is actually fascinating. I could facilitate a visit, I am sure, if you are interested.

Nick McGOWAN: I will think about that. I will leave with this last question and then hand over to somebody else for a while, while the minister recovers from my questions. I do notice there is the fox bounty in here, so I will give you one more animal question here.

Jaclyn SYMES: I am surprised it has not come from Mrs McArthur.

Nick McGOWAN: Have you not gone there already? I might have stolen your thunder here. Do we have a figure for how many foxes your government would like to kill this year – or pay to be killed, rather? I should be specific, because there is a significant appropriation here yet again for that effort.

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have a target number on the amount in bounties that is expected to be paid. But yes, each and every year we fund the fox bounty. It is an important initiative to regional Victoria in particular, and it is another feature of this year’s budget. The Minister for Environment should be able to get you some information on performance measures, but I do not have that level of detail, except my ongoing support for the fox bounty.

Bev McARTHUR: Treasurer, I have read your budget speech – over 2700 words, but not a single mention of small business. Why?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is a very expansive budget. It covers a lot of stakeholders and a lot of interest groups. I could not possibly mention everybody in my speech. I think I did mention business, and I would not exclude small business from the term ‘business’. I think that would be rude. I am a very big supporter of small business. In fact that is underpinning a lot of our economic growth. We have more businesses opening up in Victoria than in any other state. The figures are quite impressive. They are significantly above other states. I think it is 123,000 in the past five years. Let me have a look. In terms of our support for business creation, business investment and small business, it is certainly something that is a feature of the budget and a feature of the government’s interest.

Bev McARTHUR: Well, small businesses are mortally offended that they did not get a run in your 2700 words. But moving on, $19 million has been allocated to new initiatives described by the Victorian government’s own budget website as ‘cutting red tape for small businesses’. Minister for Small and Family Business Natalie Suleyman could not answer this question; in fact she palmed it off to you. Why does reducing red tape require spending more taxpayer money?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am sure I could get you a lot of detail in relation to the ongoing regulatory reform piece. A lot of that is being led by the Minister for Economic Growth and Jobs and his department, but obviously there is an interface with Treasury, particularly in relation to things such as business insurance reductions, which will happen again in July in relation to reducing costs for businesses. That would be one component of cost because it is forgone revenue, so that would make up some component of that figure. In relation to other initiatives that we have funded in the budget, whether it is this year or last year, there are lots of initiatives that would support small and medium businesses: assistance in accessing global markets is a conversation that we had a bit earlier, business regulators are being halved and there is the replacement of outdated processes in terms of digital accessibility and streamlining licences and approvals. There is a level of investment in relation to making some of those changes. A bit like my answer to some of the other questions today, the granular detail is not necessarily easily accessible for me, but I think your question is a good one. I am happy to provide a bit more detail on notice for the specific breakdown of the $19 million, but I think I have given you a taste of what that would be made up of.

Bev McARTHUR: I have an appetite and enthusiasm for a taste of what might be forthcoming, because we would want to be sure that the $19 million will go directly towards reducing or eliminating existing regulations – not for grants, not for training programs and not for industry promotion but the actual removal of pointless regulation.

Jaclyn SYMES: I have got more details now. Some other initiatives that were specifically around helping businesses to succeed and thrive: a great initiative called the Industry Capability Network is a program that helps businesses engage with government projects – so procurement assistance, effectively – making sure that local builders and local suppliers are benefiting from government investment through projects or being able to provide clothing or catering and things. There is a program that is dedicated to ensuring that people know how to access the opportunities to bolster their businesses through government programs. It is something that we should really focus on, because we are spending taxpayer money, and if local businesses can benefit from that spend, that is something that I certainly support.

There was an allocation of funding for the skills solutions partnerships, a program to design and pilot new training approaches in priority areas, including AI leadership and technology adoption. Again, there was a lot of feedback from businesses concerned about not being able to access AI and innovation and feeling a little bit behind in that space. Making sure that we have got support to gain those skills and reskill people that feel as though they need to ensure that they can stay in the workforce are in some of the programs there.

A program that I started originally as Minister for Agriculture is the $1.6 million to back the local beverage sector and continue the Drink Victorian program, promoting local produce in the state and more broadly so that more and more in that sector get to benefit. There is the Small Business Activation Fund, which is delivering local initiatives to create business opportunities. That is a grants program for business organisations and chambers to really help them ensure that they are providing the best possible support to small businesses in their particular areas. Then there is a small allocation for dispute resolution services for small businesses.

Bev McARTHUR: But this money was specifically referred to for cutting regulations. You have described to me a whole lot of programs that are training or grants or facilitation or whatever. That is all different to cutting regulations. I asked: what amount of that $19 million was going directly to eliminating existing regulations? I specifically said not for grants, not for training programs and not for industry promotion but for the actual removal of pointless regulation. That is what we are interested in. That is what small business is interested in. How is this $19 million going to be spent to cut regulation? Why do you need to spend money to cut regulations? You just put a red line through the regulations, Minister.

Jaclyn SYMES: If only things were that simple, Mrs McArthur, that would be great. In relation to the specific $19 million, it was funding new initiatives aimed at cutting red tape, supporting business capability and transition and levelling the playing field. There was a range of initiatives under that particular line item; some of them I took you through. You have expressed interest again in red tape reduction and getting people out of the way, effectively. We certainly hear feedback from small business about numerous interactions with state government, local government permits and the like, and that is why we funded the Economic Growth Statement in last year’s budget, which is a four-year program committed to removing red tape. It is about putting a red line, as you said, through a lot of the regulators, combining them and the like. That is work that is well underway. I am very happy to update you on that work. It is a collaboration between me and the Minister for Economic Growth and Jobs. As I said, there is constant feedback that less regulation will lead to greater productivity, less frustration and more money in the pockets of small business. I am very happy to provide you with as much detail as possible at another time.

Bev McARTHUR: I would be very grateful for an update on the regulations that you are managing to put the red line through, because the Business Council of Australia found that a cafe owner in Victoria needs 37 separate licences and approvals to commence trading, 12 more than in New South Wales. I do not know whether you can name a current state regulation that will be removed in 2026–‍27 or else perhaps comment on the fact that there is an area that will look forward to seeing a massive amount of red line activity, because you cannot have a situation where to pour a cup of coffee you need 37 separate licences and approvals. Do you agree?

Jaclyn SYMES: We absolutely agree on reducing the number of business regulators. We have a commitment to halve them by 2030 – that is down from 37 currently. You asked about examples of some of the initiatives that have already taken place. There have been initiatives in relation to liquor licensing to stop the duplication of having to go both local and state, so we have certainly acted in that regard. Again, I am quite familiar because of the crossover between Treasury and the similar stakeholders to the Minister for Economic Growth and Jobs, but I am always looking for initiatives. I would be very happy to hear your suggestions. I have got to say it is not as easy as just putting a red line. There is safety, there are considerations about children – there are a range of considerations and some of them do not necessarily mesh that well together. There are some that are kind of obvious and others that we are working through – their roles and where they could go and what is required. Obviously health and safety are important, and disability access is important. There are a range of things that we know businesses need to comply with. We want to make that as easy as possible. I am very happy to talk to you about business regulation reduction. As I said, we have a team within government that look at this on a constant basis, so I would very much welcome any of the ideas that you have.

Bev McARTHUR: I look forward to sending you a long list. I am sure that will be great. Now I just want to go to rural and regional chambers of commerce. It is in budget paper 3, pages 62 and 65. There is $1.2 million in one-off funding for the Small Business Activation Fund. Why has the government failed to provide further funding in future years?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is not an indication that funding will not be provided in future years just because it is not a feature of this year’s budget, so to say that they will not be funded is not necessarily accurate. This is an initiative that I think I took you through before. It is about ensuring that small businesses can be supported through local business organisations, chambers and industry associations – and actually councils have the ability as well to access this funding to help small businesses to grow. The initial allocation of $1.2 million is provided for in this budget. As is the normal case, if the initiative is successful and if it is something that was an ongoing priority for chambers, I am sure that is something that I will hear about to consider in next year’s budget to re-fund.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, you would understand that a chamber of commerce or a local business group or industry association would find difficulty in building a serious support program when the government funds it for one year and then provides nothing else across the forward estimates. That is a concern – that they will not be able to even make use of it, just knowing that they have only got funding for one year and it may not continue. There is no guarantee that it will continue.

Jaclyn SYMES: Just to be clear, Mrs McArthur, this is a grants round. They are targeted grants to specifically those organisations that you and I have listed. You can apply for between $5000 and $100,000. It is a one-year grants program. If somebody funds something in particular, there might be the opportunity to say, ‘We would like an additional grants round next year, so could you, government, please consider another round?’ Or it could be that a particular organisation says, ‘Well, we would just like you to fund it as an ongoing program,’ and it might fit somewhere else within government. So there are a range of ways. If something is really good and warrants ongoing funding or another year of funding, that is all part of subsequent budgets.

Bev McARTHUR: Can you tell us how much of it would go directly to rural and regional chambers of commerce, this $1.2 million one-off grant funding?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have that level of detail. I am not the responsible minister for the allocation of the funds or the consideration of the grants. That would be Minister Suleyman, and perhaps you would like to ask her for some detail in relation to that. But given the active chambers of commerce particularly across regional Victoria, I am sure that they will certainly be interested and attract a significant portion of the allocation. But as I said, that is a matter for the relevant minister.

Bev McARTHUR: You can understand there is concern in rural and regional chambers of commerce about the criteria and who will determine how it is distributed. Commerce Ballarat, Victoria’s second-largest chamber, was forced to terminate a staff member two months ago because of funding shortages. It is even worse elsewhere. Do you have a plan to keep regional chambers viable over the forward estimates?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think the fact that we have a dedicated fund for these types of organisations would indicate our appreciation of the value that they provide to their business communities. In relation to the specifics, again that is a matter for the minister for small business.

Bev McARTHUR: The budget includes an allocation of $5.4 million to implement a local government fair jobs code and create a new regulatory body within the department. At the ALP state conference Paul Hamer said the code will be mandatory. When can we expect legislation to be brought into the Parliament on this matter, Minister?

Jaclyn SYMES: I appreciate your question. It is not a matter for this bill, not a matter for the –

Bev McARTHUR: It is on pages 44 and 45 of budget paper 3.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, but this bill does not talk about the legislative program. In relation to the legislation and the timing of the legislation, that is not a matter that I can answer in the context of an appropriation committee stage.

Bev McARTHUR: So why do you need $5.4 million to establish a new regulatory body? We just talked about cutting regulations in the last piece of conversation. But here is a whole new regulatory body you are going to commit to with $5.4 million of money. Why do we need another regulatory body?

Jaclyn SYMES: You are asking me for an opinion on a policy matter for another minister. Again, I am happy to try and be helpful, but if you are after details about how that will be operationalised, I would direct you to the minister.

Bev McARTHUR: I can see there are a lot of questions that are going to have to go to the minister on this, and I am sure it will be a very interesting discussion that the local government sector will be having with the minister over his fair jobs code advisory committee, for example. Is that still active, do you know, Minister?

Jaclyn SYMES: With respect, Mrs McArthur, we have gone pretty well to date, but your last three questions are certainly not within the remit of the bill. They are more appropriately put to responsible ministers. We can try and keep within questions that I am happy to try and answer, but you have gone a bit too far. They are just not a matter for this bill or for me, as Treasurer.

Bev McARTHUR: I appreciate your cooperation in this matter, Minister, and we are getting there. We are going well, Minister, but we will not give in, I might tell you. This is a matter – I guess maybe it was a saving. Local Government Victoria executive director Mike Gooey was missing from the PAEC hearing. But was he forced to resign, was he terminated or was his contract not renewed? I mean, was that a saving within the budget expenditure area – to terminate Mr Gooey?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not play a role in the witnesses at PAEC.

Bev McARTHUR: Let us go to the windfall gains tax. You expect to receive $97 million from the windfall gains tax in 2026–27. That is a 75 per cent increase compared to the revised estimate for 2025–26. On what basis do you expect to achieve this windfall?

Jaclyn SYMES: I appreciate your question on windfall gains tax. This is a policy that was brought in and effectively designed to capture a fair share for the community where property values increase solely because of the actions of the government. It is only fair and reasonable for our community to benefit from that, as opposed to it being retained by one person, for example. The revenue generated from that tax can be quite lumpy, because it is only activated in the instance of zoning changes, so that is how the modelling is forecast.

Bev McARTHUR: I am well aware of how we arrive at windfall gains tax, with rezoning giving a 50 per cent uplift but going into consolidated revenue – not even hypothecated to the area where the windfall might have been achieved from. But what we are interested in is how you can estimate that there is going to be a 75 per cent increase in this tax. On what basis do you expect to achieve it?

Jaclyn SYMES: As you have indicated, it is only triggered when properties are subject to a rezoning decision, and that would also factor the ups and downs because of the size of the potential property – obviously smaller properties bring in smaller revenue than larger properties. But it is based on fluctuating rezoning decisions. It is Treasury advice; it changes year on year depending on the properties that come under a rezoning decision. One year there can be a lot of rezoning; the next year there might not be as many projects that reach completion. There are also delayed payments that Treasury are aware of based on the application of deferrals from people that have been activated in previous years. That is how Treasury effectively model the inputs, and they are generally pretty conservative in their estimates. But as I said, there are factors such as land size decisions and the coming on of deferrals.

Bev McARTHUR: I think Treasury or whoever does this calculation is being overly optimistic, because you only got $15 million last year and a 75 per cent increase is quite incredible.

Jaclyn SYMES: Seventy-five per cent of $15 million is not near enough.

Bev McARTHUR: No, $97 million you are going to get, which is a 75 per cent increase.

Jaclyn SYMES: We will see.

Bev McARTHUR: Anyway, good luck. Minister, what percentage of this revenue uplift will come from local government? You charge local government a windfall gains tax if they rezone their own land, so what percentage is going to come from local government?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have that information, nor would I be confident that it would be broken down by Treasury in relation to particular owners.

Bev McARTHUR: Just by way of information, councils tell me that they will not rezone land because they do not want to be hit by this massive tax liability. Do you agree that this tax is holding back housing development?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am always happy to hear from local councils that have projects that they would like to discuss with government. I often have conversations about tax settings with a range of stakeholders, so I am more than happy to have those conversations with anybody that you would like to direct to me. Can I just point out in relation to this appropriation bill that we do talk about revenue from windfall gains tax but this is not a tax bill in terms of any changes to tax settings. But I certainly invite advocacy. The Property Council of Australia and UDIA, for example, raise suggestions and bring matters to my attention on a regular basis, and I am certainly happy to receive those.

Bev McARTHUR: That is very good to hear. The growth areas infrastructure contribution was set up to fund the infrastructure growing suburbs need, including libraries, swimming pools and community facilities. It is now being diverted to fund public transport projects. What proportion of bus funding in 2026–27 came from GAIC?

Jaclyn SYMES: What we have in relation to this year’s budget for GAIC is that based on the current estimates there will be an allocation of $174 million from GAIC revenue to projects which include critical bus investments in the Melton South and Casey growth areas, safe and accessible stations and construction of new schools. This is an increase on the investment of $162 million in the last budget. Of the $174 million that is allocated to the initiatives that I outlined I do not have any further breakdown other than the initiatives that are funded under that allotment.

Bev McARTHUR: I think there is concern that the GAIC revenue that accrues from a development, given it goes into your bottomless pit, does not end up funding the necessary community facilities et cetera in the area from which it is gained. Anyway, I will just pass that on by way of information, or you may like to comment.

Jaclyn SYMES: A feature of tonight’s committee stage has been statements and then ‘I’d like to move on,’ whereas I kind of want to respond to some of the things that you have been saying. GAIC funding will only ever be used for the benefit of growing communities in which it is collected. It remains restricted to the benefit of seven growth area councils: Cardinia, Casey, Hume, Melton, Mitchell, Whittlesea and Wyndham. The planning reforms at the end of last year streamlined GAIC so it is easier and faster to give councils and the state more flexibility to respond to changing local needs. Funding can only be spent outside the suburb of collection when a direct, measurable link to the same community is proven, including when key infrastructure is best delivered nearby rather than within tight growth area boundaries. An example of that is delivering a train station or a road link in the neighbouring suburb. Your statement alluded to the fact that there is consolidated revenue grasp of this; GAIC funding, as I said, can only be spent as I have articulated.

Bev McARTHUR: The Victorian Local Governance Association’s 2025 councillor census found that 98 per cent of councillors surveyed believed councils are undermined by limited financial resources. Moorabool shire estimates cost shifting to be $900,000 a year; West Wimmera, nearly $3.5 million; Mitchell shire, $5 million; Banyule, $6.7 million; Stonnington, $20 million – the list goes on. Do you accept that cost shifting from the state is a major financial issue for local governments and their sustainability?

Jaclyn SYMES: I appreciate your advocacy for local governments, Mrs McArthur, but you are asking about a matter that is outside the scope of the bill.

Bev McARTHUR: Okay. There are significant regulatory and compliance initiatives for councils – we talked about them a bit before. There are gender impact assessments, fair access policies, health and wellbeing strategies and deliberative community consultation. The new fair access policy for sport and recreation facilities will cost one metro council over $60 million. What funding will government provide councils to deliver these state initiatives?

Jaclyn SYMES: That is not a level of detail that I have. You would be best placed to take up this conversation with the Minister for Local Government.

Bev McARTHUR: I would like you to advocate to the Minister for Local Government that you might support publishing an annual cost-shifting report, like Queensland and New South Wales do. How do you feel about that, Minister?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, again, this is not the opportunity to ask me – you are the shadow minister, aren’t you?

Bev McARTHUR: Yes.

Jaclyn SYMES: This is the feature of today. I recognise that I am viewed as a vessel for all government departments and ministers. This is a bill that is somewhat broad, but can we stay within the remit of my Treasury portfolio and this bill, despite the fact that I have stepped out of it considerably? Can we come back, please?

Bev McARTHUR: Treasurer, I will step back and ask you about the Bellarine link, or Geelong Ring Road extension. Planning began –

Jaclyn SYMES: That is not stepping back.

Bev McARTHUR: Yes, it is. It began in 2017. A preferred alignment was identified, consultation has been undertaken, and the government’s own project page says a business case has been completed. Yet nine years later the 2026–27 budget appears to contain no construction funding, no delivery timeline and no clear statement of whether the project is proceeding. Can you tell us whether your government intends to fund the Bellarine link, and if not, has the project effectively been cancelled?

Jaclyn SYMES: Sorry, Mrs McArthur, I might have given you the indication that I would have more information. I do not have information on that specific project. You will have to take it up with the Minister for Roads and Road Safety or the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. Again, I was in a position where I could give detailed information to Mr Ettershank about a road because he gave me advance notice, so I was able to prepare that, but in this instance it would be quicker for you to raise it with the relevant minister.

Bev McARTHUR: I will put it in writing, Treasurer. That will be good. Well, here we go. Budget paper 4, page 76, shows that $16.7 million of funding has been stripped from the Western Highway Ararat bypass and $18.8 million is being spent on the Beaufort bypass. That is a $35.5 million cut in total taken out of that bypass. The budget papers state that this money has been reprioritised to the Western Highway duplication. It looks like you have run out of money, Treasurer, and you are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Can you confirm that as both projects are allocated just $500,000 each in the 2026–27 budget and the completion dates are now listed as ‘to be confirmed’, you have now effectively mothballed these badly needed projects?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, the level of detail in relation to the status of projects is best directed to the relevant minister.

Bev McARTHUR: I have got news for you, Minister: the relevant ministers never answer the questions. Can you put a bomb under them or something to make sure they do answer our questions? If it is dealt with in the budget or it is not dealt with in the budget, can they please lift their game?

Going to school funding, budget paper 4 shows that 12 months ago the government projected it would spend $129.2 million acquiring vital school land in the 2026–27 financial year. This year’s budget shows that allocation has been slashed to just $61.2 million for the exact same period, so more than $60 million in planned land purchases has been delayed or pushed back. Given the population growth across parts of the state, can you tell us which specific school sites – or take it on notice – have had their land acquisition delayed because the government cannot manage its capital program on time?

Jaclyn SYMES: We are a government that has invested in more school infrastructure than any other state. It is around 100 brand new schools that we will deliver in a very short period of time. Land acquisition – you asked in relation to specific schools. A lot of land acquisition is for new schools, so they are schools that do not currently exist. This is, again, a matter that would be better directed to the Minister for Education, but in relation to the allocation of funding for schools, there is land acquisition, there is planning money, there is modular money, there is upgrade money, there is maintenance money and there is a provision for engagement with the private sector on the delivery of new schools through PPPs, which again would pick up some of those potential new opportunities which may indeed cross over with some of the planned acquisition sites.

Bev McARTHUR: We will just realise that $60 million has been cut from the school acquisition program.

Jaclyn SYMES: I explained it could be filled by the PPP program.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Treasurer, did you wish to make a further statement?

Jaclyn SYMES: No. I have already answered it. It is just that I get editorialised.

Bev McARTHUR: Can you tell us why the budget has failed to allocate funding for the promised PET scanner for Warrnambool, leaving patients in my region still being required to travel to Geelong or Melbourne for essential diagnostic imaging?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, I have tried, but I am not able to necessarily provide a level of detail in relation to an individual project for an individual health centre. But you know who sits next to me, so I reckon she will probably get you a bit of information.

Richard WELCH: Final stanza from me. I would like to ask some questions about the TAC, just about the financials. We are repatriating $1 billion in capital from the TAC. Are you at all worried about whether taking $1 billion out, roughly – $1.108 billion – will lead to higher registration costs and reduced benefits?

Jaclyn SYMES: Absolutely not, because in relation to dividends and capital repats, it is appropriate to explore that opportunity for the benefit of Victoria, but you always have to ensure that there is no impact in relation to the running of the entity or its impact on bills or the services that it provides. When you look at the TAC in particular, because of basically the management of their funds and the investment returns, we have been able to ensure that we could distribute some of the upside of that to other government programs for the benefits of, as I said, communities. These are payments that provide a return to the state as a shareholder bearing the risk associated with the investment operations of those agencies. As I said, they can only be taken when organisations are profitable, and they do have the benefit of reinforcing the commercial focus of the organisation, ensuring that they operate with efficient capital structures.

Richard WELCH: You say the right things there certainly, but in the last years the patient experience score has declined below the target and the TAC satisfaction target has also dropped from 7.15 out of 10 to 6.9 out of 10, so that is inconsistent with the idea that it is not having an effect on their services. Are you concerned that perhaps we are not being true to the standards and services of the scheme and they actually need this capital?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I indicated, organisations whose dividends can be reallocated within the state budget have to be profitable, so this is not reducing their operational money in any way, and it ensures that, as I said, there is not basically an accumulation of money that is not being expended because it is above their operational needs. In relation to the TAC, there is nothing unusual about government receiving dividends, and as I said, there is due consideration for their operations. Their profitability is certainly an important factor before these measures are taken.

Richard WELCH: In the forwards it is showing that the dividend expected to be paid by the TAC is $1.108 billion, as we said, but then the forecasts for 2027–28 show a very modest dividend of just $8 million. Why so much in one year and so little in the next year? It is sort of curious how that has been determined.

Jaclyn SYMES: Let me get the exact wording. It is so it does not turn into a repat.

Mr Welch, basically what is sitting in the account, how the funding ratios work – a decision was made in relation to the health of their budget this year to take the dividend this year and forecast next year, which we have confirmed next year.

Richard WELCH: That makes me curious further, because if it is based on the health of the budget, is the budget going to be very, very bad next year that we are only taking $8 million and really good this year that we can take $1 billion? You said it was based on –

Jaclyn SYMES: What is available now. It is not going to carry through to next year.

Richard WELCH: Okay, so it is an accumulative fund, and when it reaches a certain threshold you will take it at a threshold level.

Jaclyn SYMES: As you would appreciate, these decisions were based on the advice that I received from the department in consultation with the TAC. It is appropriately, as reported, what the dividend is for this year’s budget, because of the health of their position. Their current funding ratio obviously is very healthy. A lot of that has got to do with the good efforts of the VFMC in relation to the investment of the funds, which means that we are in a position to take the dividend now.

Richard WELCH: How long did the $1 billion reservoir take to accumulate?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have with me the list of previous dividends, so all I can confirm is that in the upcoming budget the ability to obtain the level of dividend that we did was based on the health of their position at this point in time.

Richard WELCH: In the process of establishing the amount to be transferred, was there consultation with the TAC? Did they have a view, or were they just told what it would be?

Jaclyn SYMES: There is certainly ongoing consultation with DTF, there is correspondence between me and the minister. Obviously we need to receive advice from the TAC in relation to their financial position. As I said, dividend payments are only ever made in relation to when there are consistent profits and their financial position and long-term financial sustainability are also considered. Of course this is information that we have to obtain from the TAC. I was talking before about the funding ratio, and I have got a little bit more detail here that might assist your question: as at 30 June 2025 TAC’s insurance funding ratio was 153 per cent, above the upper limit of the preferred range of 100 per cent to 145 per cent. Allowing for the proposed payments to the state and the TAC’s approved investment in road safety initiatives, the TAC’s insurance funding ratio is expected to move towards the midpoint of the preferred range over the forward estimates period. We can really only determine that through engagement with the TAC.

Richard WELCH: That was a good answer, thank you. I just want to ask a couple of questions on WorkSafe. If you want to reference budget paper 3, page 95, ‘Boosting return to work support and creating safer workplaces’, what specific programs are funded under boosting return to work?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have that level of detail on me, Mr Welch. However, I am conscious that Mrs McArthur asked about the program detail of a small business program of which I was able to provide because somebody could get me a reference to that. But in relation to your question, the WorkSafe programs, I think it would be best, unless somebody can give me a screenshot in the next little while, to refer it to the minister for WorkSafe, who is responsible for the delivery of the programs. I have not been involved in that process.

Richard WELCH: I think it is because I did not ask nicely enough. I was watching; they were asking much more nicely than I am. You live, you learn. You know, it is a great opportunity. I guess the answer may be the same – which industries or worker groups are being prioritised within that program? Same answer. How is WorkSafe Victoria’s performance assessed in relation to the government’s broader, safer objective in the budget?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am going to cut you a deal. I have got the return-to-work programs. My team is saying if I want to give you the answer, even though the minister should answer it, we will give you that. I will give you that answer and ignore the last question that you asked me. All right?

Richard WELCH: I win both.

Jaclyn SYMES: All right. As it comes through, we will get the return-to-work programs and I will provide them to you. Does anyone else have any questions before I get back to Mr Welch?

Evan MULHOLLAND: Yes.

Jaclyn SYMES: Do you? You look as though you are kicking back there.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Jaclyn SYMES: Pursuant to standing order 4.08(1)(b), I declare the sitting to be extended by up to 1 hour.

Just triple-checking that for you, Mr Welch. I might ask Mr Mulholland to step in, and I will get you that information as it comes to hand.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I just have a few questions on the extension of the Lottery Corporation’s exclusive Victorian lottery licence. At PAEC the Department of Treasury and Finance accepted that the receipt of the $1.145 billion affects net debt. Is that still the Treasurer’s view, and does the $1.145 billion cash receipt reduce net debt by $1.145 billion, all else being equal?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think we covered a little bit of this earlier. In relation to the licence extension for lotteries, as you have indicated, we addressed some of this at PAEC. Yes, there is an impact on net debt, not an impact on the surplus as has been claimed.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Okay. Was the timing of this transaction influenced by the 2026–27 budget?

Jaclyn SYMES: No, Mr Mulholland. I am not sure if you tuned into my PAEC hearing, but I was able to take the committee through the history of this transaction, which commenced in June 2024. So any suggestion that this was rushed or brought in as a budget measure for this year would be an inaccurate description.

Evan MULHOLLAND: It is more like: was there any reason the deal had to be booked in the budget this year given existing licences did not expire until 2028? Why was a 40-year extension granted two years before the existing licence expired?

Jaclyn SYMES: This is usual practice, to extend licences. This is actually a usual timeline for this type of process. As I said, that is what has happened in similar transactions, and it is not unusual in any way.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Would you be able to, Treasurer, either now or on notice, point me to similar examples that you reference?

Jaclyn SYMES: Rather than me rattle off examples that I am pretty confident on in my head, as you have said I could take it on notice, I might take the opportunity to do that, because I can probably be a little more thorough in a written response. But these are the usual timelines for this type of process.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The usual timelines I understand with the two-year part, but what is not a usual timeline, I and I think most observers think, is a timeline of 40 years for an extension.

Jaclyn SYMES: This is a curious position for you to take, Mr Mulholland. For some reason you think that 40 years is strange. I am not sure how you are forming that view given other states have gone longer than 40 years for their extensions in relation to similar transactions. I am a bit curious how you think that 40 is unusual. We decided on a 40-year extension on the advice of Treasury analysis that it represented the optimal term. New South Wales and South Australia have also granted 40-year lottery licences. Queensland negotiated a 65-year licence. So I would have thought that your position would only stand had we done something that was less than 40.

Evan MULHOLLAND: How many potential market participants were contacted during the June 2024 market sounding process?

Jaclyn SYMES: DJCS and DTF undertook a comprehensive assessment of the public lotteries market, including market sounding of potential interest in the next licence from both domestic and international industry participants and their ability to deliver lotteries. The work was overseen by an independent probity adviser and the independent review panel that was appointed under the Gambling Regulation Act 2003.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Does the Treasurer accept the agreement restricts future Victorian governments from increasing lottery tax revenue for decades?

Jaclyn SYMES: What you seem to be overlooking is the deal that we have secured in relation to this extension. It is a good outcome that took many years to eventuate. In relation to comparing it to other outcomes, it is a really good deal compared to what other states have achieved. $1.145 billion is the highest price ever paid to operate a lottery licence in Australia. It represents a premium to revenue after tax multiple of 6.1 times, compared to New South Wales, four times; South Australia, 4.7 times; and Queensland, 3.6 times. We make no apologies for ensuring that we got a good outcome for the Victorian community.

I think the other issue that has been overlooked is that the licence extension provides certainty for small business operators in this field because they are still dealing with the same provider or the same operator. As I said, it is the highest price ever paid, but the funds are invested into the Hospitals and Charities Fund, which is all about supporting world-class health services. So this is a good outcome for Victorians when you compare it to similar transactions in the country.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Did the Department of Treasury and Finance advise that the Gambling Legislation Amendment Act 2025 was necessary to enable or facilitate this 40-year extension?

Jaclyn SYMES: I have provided a lot of information about a particular matter in relation to the question that you have asked. You have asked about something that happened before my time, and I do not have that information, nor is it relevant to the bill specifically. However, I have been attempting to provide you with a lot of information in relation to the lottery licence extension because of the public interest, so I have gone through answers numerous times. But again, we are straying outside the bill.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Was the Treasurer aware that a former ministerial chief of staff associated with this policy area later worked as a lobbyist for interests connected to the Lottery Corporation?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, you are asking a question that is not relevant to this bill, but I would like to answer it, because the answer is no, I was not aware that a former adviser had gone to this particular outfit. But again I would point to the timeline. These negotiations, or even discussions, started in 2024. I understand that the individual that you are inquiring about left government some time before that. There are strict lobbying guidelines in place that, on my inquiries, were adhered to in relation to abstaining from these discussions.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Did you or any of your staff personally meet with, speak with or correspond with the Lottery Corporation or its directors, executives, agents, advisers or lobbyists about this extension?

Jaclyn SYMES: Not to my knowledge, no.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Has the Department of Treasury and Finance advised on the risk that a future Parliament or government could seek to overturn or amend this deal?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I said, I think I have been quite generous with my time and efforts to respond to your questions in relation to a particular matter that is outside the scope of the bill once you get into the level of detail that you are attempting to. If you are trying to elicit information about the consequences of a coalition government potentially cancelling a deal, then you might want to seek advice yourself.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I think it is relevant, and I wanted to ascertain whether there was risk priced into the agreement and if there are compensation clauses if legislation changes the arrangement. That legislation also could be future gambling harm legislation, for example.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, you are talking about policy and legislative changes. That would be a responsibility for the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation. Again, I would ask you to come back to the contents of the bill. I have provided quite a bit of detail, and I think we could move on.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Was the government aware the Lottery Corporation would announce the transaction to the ASX at the same time the government publicly explained it?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Did the government require the Lottery Corporation to keep details confidential until budget day?

Jaclyn SYMES: It was appropriate for the notification to occur on or before budget for obvious reasons.

Evan MULHOLLAND: So that is a yes?

Jaclyn SYMES: It would not have been appropriate for the notification to come via a budget paper.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I just want to go back to one question I asked before, because I did not quite get an answer. I think I almost did. I just wanted to ascertain how many companies were involved in the market sounding.

Jaclyn SYMES: As I have explained, the information that I have is there was market sounding of potential interest in the next licence from both domestic and international industry participants and their ability to deliver lotteries, so conversations with people, organisations and companies on the level of ability or capacity to deliver such services.

Evan MULHOLLAND: But they were both domestic and international?

Jaclyn SYMES: That is my advice, yes. As you would appreciate, it was not within my remit, but that is the advice that Treasury have provided me.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Treasurer, isn’t it the truth that the government changed the law, avoided a competitive tender, locked in tax protection for the incumbent and booked a $1.145 billion receipt in time to keep the projected net debt below $200 billion?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Mulholland, I have given you a lot of information today. The conclusions that you are attempting to draw are not accurate.

Gaelle BROAD: I would just be interested if you can provide some detail. The budget talks about a $73.4 million investment into a number of intersections, and there are two that I am particularly interested in: the Calder Highway and Maiden Gully Road intersection upgrade in Maiden Gully and also the Howard Street–Midland Highway intersection upgrade in Epsom. Of that $73.4 million, are you able to provide how much has been allocated to each intersection?

Jaclyn SYMES: Sorry, Mrs Broad. Again, I have had conversations with members tonight about detailed specific projects. You will need to ask the relevant minister. There is not the ability for me to have every single project at my disposal.

I will just answer what I promised to Mr Welch, because he asked so nicely. There are four initiatives: a third-party service provider to run a pilot to support family members following a workplace fatality; supporting recovery and return to work following mental health injuries in the Victorian public sector; increasing WorkSafe’s compliance capability and capacity, including hiring additional inspectors; and a package of return-to-work programs focused on frontline public sector workers like police, teachers and nurses.

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 Development Victoria and Precincts) (22:19): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (22:19): 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 has agreed to the bill without amendment.