There are few things in parliamentary life drier than a debate on a Supply Bill. The very word suggests paperwork, not politics; process, not principle. But in Tasmania today, the distinction between a Supply Bill, a so-called “interim” Budget and a full Budget is not just academic – it goes to the heart of whether this government is serious about facing up to the state’s economic challenge or simply determined to kick the can down the road.
A Supply Bill is essentially a stopgap measure. It authorises the government to keep spending for a limited period, ensuring that public services continue – health care, schools, policing, courts, infrastructure – while the full Budget is being prepared. It’s a financial bridge, keeping the wheels turning.
But a Supply Bill has strict limits. It cannot include new funding. It is tied to the last approved Budget – in this case, the 2024–25 Budget tabled September 2024. By contrast, a Budget is a comprehensive financial plan. It sets revenue and expenditure for the year, outlines forward estimates, and reveals the government’s true priorities. It is, or should be, the roadmap that guides decision-making and provides Parliament and the community with transparency.
That is why the proposed “interim” Budget, without a commitment to providing all the necessary supporting documentation, is more than an administrative choice – it is a political statement. It signals avoidance, not leadership.
We are told the government will deliver an “interim” Budget in November. Yet there is no clear definition of what that actually means. We have Supply Bills and we have Appropriation Bills with full Budget papers – but this halfway category has no precedent.
If such a Budget is to be credible, it must do more than authorise spending. It should include comparisons at the agency level between:
- the 2024–25 Budget allocations,
- the 2024–25 actuals (soon to appear in Annual Reports), and
- the new 2025–26 Budget estimates.
This is not an optional extra. It is essential for transparency. Parliament should not have to trawl across multiple documents to understand the trajectory of agency funding. Similarly, performance information for 2024–25 is available now and should be included. One of the few advantages of a delayed Budget is that it allows for a richer dataset, with actuals from the previous year already on the table. If this government is serious about accountability, that information should be front and centre.
The Treasurer may claim that producing a full Budget is impossible in the timeframe. Too soon after the election, too much uncertainty, too little time.
That excuse does not really stand up.
Treasury already has the agency submissions and community consultations that were conducted from late 2024 until the tabling of the first ill-fated 2025-26 Budget. Departments don’t shred their budget bids when an election is called. Draft estimates already exist. Treasury monitors and updates revenue parameters like GST and indexation every month. Treasury would have been working on getting the data required to publish a Revised Estimates Report in mid-February so it is wrong to suggest the data would not be available. Updating the Budget System is routine.
The usual timeline from agency submissions to Budget Day is four to five months, with five to six weeks required from final Cabinet decisions to allow treasury and agencies to complete documentation. By November, the government will have had more than 10 weeks – ample time if there is genuine will. The issue is not capacity. It is politics.
Why the hesitation? The simplest answer is that an “interim” budget is safer than a full Budget. It avoids tough choices, keeps contentious cuts or delays out of the headlines, and postpones the day when ministers must explain their priorities.
But avoidance is not a strategy. It is a form of denial. It means Tasmanians are kept in the dark about the true state of the books. It means Parliament is reduced to a rubber stamp. And it sets a dangerous precedent – that a government can govern indefinitely without a plan, simply rolling forward temporary measures.
This is not a time for drift. Tasmania faces structural deficits, meaning our revenues cannot sustain our ongoing spending. Net debt is forecast to reach double-digit billions within a few years. Interest costs are climbing, eating into the very services Tasmanians rely on.
Treasury, the Auditor-General, and independent experts like Saul Eslake have all warned that the state’s fiscal path is unsustainable. Yet we are still waiting for government to take the first serious step.
No one expects all the answers in one Budget. Budget repair is complex, requiring careful sequencing. But delay compounds the problem. Every month of drift adds to the debt pile, reduces our choices, and makes the eventual repair more painful.
A genuine Budget would provide direction. It would show Tasmanians what its priorities are and how it plans to restore fiscal sustainability. It would allow Parliament to scrutinise the numbers and test the assumptions. It would demonstrate that ministers are willing to own their choices.
An “interim” Budget stripped of detail, or little more than a repackaged Supply Bill, would do none of these things. It would be another exercise in avoidance.
The choice before this government is simple. It can face reality, present a full and transparent Budget, and begin the hard but necessary work of repair. Or it can continue to hide behind stop-gaps, leaving Tasmanians in the dark and compounding the state’s problems. The test of leadership is not how long you can delay hard decisions, but whether you have the courage to make them.