Wednesday, 21 September 2022

Public Accounts and Estimates Committee

Report on the 2022–23 Budget Estimates

Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) (10:24): I am pleased to rise to make a contribution on the Report on the 2022–23 Budget Estimates that was tabled in this place last month. I particularly want to make my comments in relation to the minority report that is located at the rear of the particular committee report. I note that within that report—it is a very comprehensive document—are contained 120 findings, 101 recommendations and the minority report, which, as you would expect, is up the back after page 229. I think this is a very informative component of the overall report inasmuch as it identifies two of the fundamental flaws, I believe, that relate to the current government here in Victoria. They are well articulated, and I just want to go through those, using the examples that the committee members who signed off on that minority report have used. They say:

The minority is concerned at both the denial of facts by Ministers of the Crown and deliberate obfuscation, stonewalling and lack of transparency by the bureaucracy.

I watched a number of those hearings that were televised on the system and saw what went on there with the ministers, including the Premier and others, in relation to some of the evidence that was given to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC). The example that the committee has put on the first page of the minority report is the questioning by the member for South Gippsland of the Premier in relation to the cut in the health budget. The Premier said that there was no cut to the health budget and that it was a ridiculous suggestion. Within this document we can see the extract from budget paper 3, page 220, which shows that there was a more than $2 million decrease in output spending for the health department. Obviously if it is less this year than last year, that is a cut. It goes on and talks about the fact that the Premier would not accede to that reality. This is part of the problem that we are seeing with this government: that even when confronted with their own budget papers in black and white, they will not agree to the reality as to what has happened. It just shows a delusional response by the government in relation to their own budget.

To their great credit I believe, the committee members note that in the previous financial year there had been some significant extra funding that had gone into some of those departments, including the health department, so it was not unexpected in one sense that there might be a reduction there. Nevertheless, members of the government, including the Premier, were still in complete denial about the financial reality and the published reality of the particular evidence that was given. The minority report goes on to talk about that particular denial of evidence occurring numbers of times throughout the hearing and it cites another example, where Minister Tierney was questioned about the portfolio cut of 4.5 per cent, or $117 million, in her department. We can see again there an extract from budget paper 3, page 139, which shows that with the training, higher education and workforce development budget, the movement for the year, the variation, is minus 4.5 per cent. Yet the minister when questioned about that said:

There has been no cut.

That is just completely at odds with the reality. It just shows you how disconnected this government is from reality and how they will say one thing despite evidence that says what the reality of the situation in fact is. There are other examples. There was a $24 million reduction in spending on dental services which again was denied, and on it goes.

The second issue they raised was an equally important one in my view, and that is the fact that the government, its ministers and many of the departmental secretaries and other officials would often say they did not have information to hand and they would take matters on notice, and then of course they never responded to the committee with the answer to the question that was asked in the first place. That is again deflecting, obfuscating and not being transparent with the Parliament and with the people of Victoria. It is behaviour that should be condemned, and it is behaviour that needs to change to make for a more transparent process, particularly with PAEC and the public hearings.