There is a critical need for budget honesty and transparency, writes Ruth Forrest

In any democracy, clear, honest budgeting is the foundation of public trust. The Tasmanian government's 2025-26 Budget, however, risks undermining that trust not because of what's in the budget, but because of how key decisions are being presented or, more accurately, concealed.

At the heart of the issue lies a littleunderstood but crucial document: the Policy and Parameter Statement (PPS). This section of the Budget Papers is supposed to give Tasmanians a clear view of the government's policy decisionswhat's new, what's changed, and what those decisions cost.

The PPS also appears in the Revised Estimates Report (RER), tabled in February each year. Any policy decisions that appear in the RER should be reflected in that year's Budget Papers. It's meant to draw a sharp line between spending that reflects new government initiatives (policy) and spending that merely reflects ongoing cost pressures or technical adjustments (parameters).

But this year, that line has been blurred or worse, quietly erased.

A close reading of the budget reveals that large amounts of spending clearly classified as new policy just months ago in the 202425 RER have now been reclassified or excluded entirely from the latest PPS.

These aren't minor adjustments or accounting quirks. This is a significant retreat from transparency a retreat that clouds billions in public spending.

Take health expenditure, for example. In the last RER, $345m was explicitly identified as a new policy decision to address health demand in 2024-25. There were no figures included in the forward estimates based on the spurious claim "This level of expenditure is not factored into health expenditure over the forward estimates due the difficulty in quantifying the level of demand risk".

In the new budget, the money is still there in fact, it's grown to $353m but it's no longer shown as a policy decision. Instead, it's tucked away under general cost adjustments and hidden as a parameter adjustment. Across the forward estimates, the result is that over $1.25bn in new government health spending is now effectively invisible as policy-based expenditure in the PPS.

Education is no better. A $19.5m commitment flagged for 2027-28 under the new schools agreement appears to have simply vanished not reclassified, not footnoted, just removed.

This omission conveniently improves the government's reported operating position for that year.

Justice, police, and public safety tell the same story. A $20m annual commitment for prison cost pressures, $14.5m a year for injured police workers all acknowledged in previous reports, all still in the budget, yet no longer counted as policy choices.

Together, these shifts obscure more than $100m in new policy-based spending decisions.

Why does this matter? Because when governments reclassify spending decisions as routine technical adjustments, it masks the true impact of their choices on the state's finances. It makes budgets look healthier than they are. And it limits scrutiny from parliament, from the public, and from the press.

This isn't just a technical problem.

It's a political one. If funding was worth declaring publicly in the RER, why is it no longer worth acknowledging in the full budget? If policy decisions are quietly moved off the books, what does that say about the government's commitment to honest reporting?

There are signs of inconsistency even within agencies. State Growth, for instance, carried through some policy decisions from the RER but dropped others, like an $8m TasRail allocation.

Finance-General retained three out of four small policy items but mysteriously excluded a funding increase for Tasracing, with no explanation.

These shifts raise legitimate questions: Was the reclassification an error? A political tactic? Or a sign of deeper structural budget pressures being quietly managed behind closed doors?

Whatever the reason, this approach falls short of the standards Tasmanians deserve. Budgets must tell the full story not just the version that suits the moment.

In times of fiscal pressure and growing demand for services, transparency isn't a luxury. It's a necessity. The people of Tasmania have a right to know not just what their government is spending but why, and how honestly it's being reported.

No-one is questioning whether the spending is needed. There may also be legitimate reasons for some changes, but where any reclassification occurs between the RER and budget the reasons should be provided to ensure transparency.

However, it can't be stressed how deliberately misleading it is to pretend spending to cover past misdeeds and underspending is simply due instead to cost pressures.

For the Premier then to proclaim his government are better economic managers than the alternative left me speechless given we in the Legislative Council have been denied the opportunity to quiz the government at estimates hearings with a view to making our fiscal woes more open and transparent.

Our future relies on it.

The Mercury, Friday 20 June 2025