Legislative Council, Tuesday 10 June 2025

Ms FORREST (Murchison) - Mr President, today we are asked to consider the 2025 supply bills - measures that, while interim by design, carry significant implications for the fiscal management and transparency of the government. We are informed these bills do not include new initiatives, capital projects or equity contributions. That is what we are told and, in strict appropriation terms, this may be technically correct. However, it is impossible to tell from the information available.

In the energy and renewables area there is an amount greater than the 50 per cent of this supply bill, based on the methodology used. Although, it is very difficult to track, as output groups have been altered and moved in the 2025-26 Budget, making scrutiny of this bill extremely difficult. This restructuring of a number of departments and splitting and alteration of output groups makes it impossible to fully understand these bills and to be assured that all necessary areas are adequately funded for the next six months, or however long it takes a new state budget to be agreed.

To suggest in any way this is merely procedural and that these bills should somehow be devoid of meaningful fiscal choices or reflective of mere continuity would be inaccurate as well. If there is any inaccuracy, even by omission, the lack of detail to support this bill makes it hard to fully understand. This does no service to trust the public place in us.

I know it is not customary to have a whole heap of information on a supply bill, but usually we are presenting a supply bill in much more controlled circumstances and situations. We first saw the bill on Friday in an email. We had a briefing this morning that was dealt with in the other place this morning and all power to the member for Huon for picking up that typographical error. That is because it was done in a rush and all done manually, as we were informed by Treasury.

This lack of trust is one of the reasons we are even here debating these bills.

Treasury has advised an appropriation of $4.613 billion is required to sustain government operations from 1 July 2025 to 31 December 2025. Of this, $4.273 billion is for operating services and $309.7 million for capital works. Another $29.6 million is allocated in Supply Bill No 2 for parliamentary and statutory offices to be debated after this bill.

At face value, this represents a straight line extrapolation, six months of expenditure based on the previous year's appropriation acts, but a closer look informed by the budget papers from 2024 25 and the estimated outcomes, as described in the 2025 26 budget papers - a very welcome inclusion- and the 2025 26 budget papers that remain un-progressed, perhaps more complex and in some cases curious numbers.

Across the board capital expenditure in the supply bill averages around 50 per cent for the full year 2025 26 Budget estimates. That is what you would expect for a six-month stopgap measure. However, turning to operating expenditure, the picture becomes less clear. The supply bill appears to allocate around 51 per cent of the 2025 26 budget estimate and about 56 per cent of the 2024 25 estimated outcome.

Without access to actual expenditure figures for the first half of 2024 25, we cannot verify this is a prudent approximation or an over-allocation masked by continuity. I am not suggesting that is the case, but it makes it really hard unless you go and pull every annual report of every department and go through every line item. Who had time over the weekend for that?

I do thank the Acting Leader for providing greater clarity in the second reading speech that was requested in the briefing to explain more fully how the figures are arrived at. I am not saying it is not done correctly; it just makes it really hard to follow the money.

If agency spending in the first half of the year ran hot, for example, as some evidence suggests, then this bill could be carrying a buffer far above what is needed. Now that is a reality; that could occur, and it could also mean that some areas are underdone.

We know there is a provision in the Financial Management Act to move amounts across various areas to even things up, which we see at the end of a financial year, but we are being asked to take this on trust that the appropriate amounts are being appropriated.

We need to understand the numbers and how these figures were arrived at, especially in the context of an uncertain political calendar and possible looming election. A supply bill is not a blank cheque; it is a temporary targeted instrument designed to ensure the government does not grind to a halt in the absence of an enacted budget.

Does passing this bill mean certain new programs will be paused? They will be if they are only new programs in the 2025 26 Budget; that is absolutely the case.

What we do not see and what should concern us all is transparency around the Treasurer's Reserve. I did ask about this in a subsequent briefing I had. I know that the Acting Leader will be able to provide some more clarity on this. Everything is in one line item under Finance General and a lot of money sits in Finance-General. We have no breakdown or detail on how those funds might be used.

With regard to the Treasurer's Reserve, I want to have confirmed there is $25 million that has been appropriated through this supply bill for the Treasurer's Reserve. I hope like hell, Mr President, we do not see what we saw in 2021 when the Treasurer's Reserve was used to fund election commitments if we go to an election. We saw that in 2021. The Integrity Commission was not enamoured with that and neither was the Public Accounts Committee.

It did not happen in 2023 but here we are again, just over a year later, thinking about another election that will cost us money - money we do not have and do not need to spend.

We face constitutional ambiguity during the caretaker period. Governments are constrained by longstanding conventions. Once a new government is elected and if the supply bills remain in force, how can that government operate without supply constraints?

One would assume the answer is yes to that, until a new budget is brought down. How long that will take? If there is a change of government, we have seen how long it can take.

These are legitimate, genuine concerns that there will be constraints because of the way a supply bill is structured. Yet still, without a fully authorised budget, we are in a legislative grey zone that underscores the need for vigilance, scrutiny and clarity. That is why I am making this contribution today; we should not just wave it through with no scrutiny. In fact, if there had not been scrutiny, the error would not have been picked up.

In addition, as a decision is likely to be needed to be made regarding Marinus Link possibly during the caretaker period - we should all be able to see the whole-of-state business case. If we go off to an election, if parliament is prorogued, that should be made available to the members of this House and the other House, so we all know what the situation is there. I would ask that the government would commit to that. It has significant implications for the state. The whole-of-state business case was to be made public relatively soon.

We are informed in the briefings there is no funding in this bill for the North West Transmission Developments or Marinus Link. What does that mean if the final investment decision suggests Marinus Link should commence, that the Tasmanian government should proceed, particularly if it happens during caretaker mode, and the Tasmanian government on behalf of the people of Tasmania, was required to make a decision - a massive financial decision? I am sure the government is giving due consideration to all these matters, but it really bothers me.

It has been suggested we would need a supplementary appropriation bill to make the funding available that would be required under the agreement with the Commonwealth government and Victorian government. To do that we will need a functioning parliament.

I am sure that the other two stakeholder owners of Marinus Link are contemplating these very things as we speak - looking at us thinking, 'What the hell is going on down there?'

On top of all this, we must be honest about what lies ahead. When the 2025-26 Budget does finally arrive, I venture we will confirm what many already suspect: that the state's finances will have deteriorated, structural deficits will have deepened and expenditure pressures will have compounded. The longer we delay full transparency, the worse the reckoning is likely to be.

Should we support the passage of the supply bill here to ensure services continue and hardworking public servants are paid? Of course we should, but we must ensure full scrutiny and oversight of these bills that have been clearly prepared in haste.

This is highlighted by the typographical error in the Department of Premier and Cabinet line. Whilst the bottom number is correct, the number was incorrect. This is what happens when we rush, and I understand this has to be done manually.

On that point, the digital transformation piece will not be - well maybe the Acting Leader can confirm whether or not there is ongoing funding into that important body of work? Surely, we can move into this century with some of these mechanisms - costing money.

The restructuring of a number of departments, and thus output allocations, has made our task of scrutiny even more challenging. When looking at appropriation in the 2025-26 budget papers that are now consigned to the rubbish bin of history, it is almost impossible to track what an appropriation of roughly 50 per cent should be. Nowhere is this more evident than in State Growth. Across the board, the operating expenditure in the supply bill appears to be about 61 per cent of the total annual budget for 2025-26. That is above a six-month share.

Likewise, in the allocations for the Minister for Housing, Planning and Consumer Affairs, notionally when you are looking at State Growth, the Housing portfolio - and I was informed, too, that the Planning office, which includes some Planning policy, sits in there, but not other areas of Planning or Consumer Affairs, they are listed in Justice. This requested operational funding is 88 per cent of the full year budget, and 267 per cent of last year's expenditure. It is really hard to know exactly what is going on here - we are talking about operating, not capital. I have asked the Acting Leader to provide further clarity around these matters.

I am sure that this huge discrepancy here is not the case, but how would I know without further breakdown and detailed information? I refuse to take things on trust from this government. We have been let down too many times in recent years. I have been unable to make sense of the allocation in the Housing, Planning and Consumer Affairs and ask the Leader to provide further explanation about how the $152.7 million of operating funding has been appropriated and on what basis - and a breakdown. We need to know exactly what we are funding and where the detail sits.

Another area I have a few questions about is in Finance-General. As I said, Finance-General is a critical part of the state's financial framework. The proposed appropriation supply bill needs a lot more explanation. The Treasury portfolio and Finance-General contains large appropriations for which more detail is needed. I note the 2024 25 Budget appropriated $791,619,000 and the 2025 26 Budget appropriates $1.266 billion. The estimated outcome was $611 million. These numbers are all over the place. The supply bill is asking for $349 million, and that is only a fraction of the full year budget amount that was deemed necessary in the 2025 26 Budget. Whilst it may be 57 per cent of the estimated outcome amount, events have moved so much that the estimated outcome seems an unrealistically low figure. We need more detail on this as we face an ever-increasing debt burden. This bill could be in place for at least six months. It could be.

Specifically, in the 2025 26 budget papers - yes, the ones that are in the bin and that painted a very bleak picture, both current and future. Output group 1.1, Debt Servicing, had gone through the roof, as we all know. How much of the additional required appropriation is included in the supply bill? I ask this because it is really clear that we have increasing debt repayments, increasing interest payments, and it is not clear that we are going to have enough to meet our obligations, if we base it on the estimated outcome, when you see the huge uptick in the appropriation of the 2025 26 Budget. How was that figure arrived at? If it is simply half of the 2024 25 Budget, noting that this bill continues for six months, we will see challenges in the interest payments.

Furthermore, funds needed by the government businesses in 2025 26, according to the budget papers that we are not progressing, are very large amounts. These are included to enable a large proposed injection into TasNetworks for the North West Transmission Developments, and we have heard that is not included in the supply bill, and also potentially for the Marinus Link project. There is none in the supply bill for that either.

That being the case, if an election is called, can we be assured, as I asked a moment ago, that the whole-of-state business case is made available and no unilateral decisions regarding such a huge investment are made without full transparency - noting, as I said, the need for a supplementary appropriation bill to fund these projects can only progress with a functioning government and parliament?

What about the $127 million needed by the Tasmanian Risk Management Fund as described in the budget papers? It is the first time it has had an appropriation to top it up based on actuarial advice, but I assume that, because it was not there in 2024 25, there is no allocation for that and, as we are seeing increasing claims, particularly personal injury claims, that is the reason it has an appropriation in the budget papers. These are all questions I would have asked through budget Estimates. Here we are now; what does that mean? Does it mean we will not have adequate funds to cover liabilities as they emerge?

Then, there are all the grants and subsidies in Finance-General that mainly administer to expenses, such as local government grants and concessions for utility payments like the energy bill relief and those sorts of things. Are these included in the supply bill? If they are, which ones, and how much? We do need a meaningful breakdown and time to consider them. What happens in Finance-General encapsulates the fiscal issues facing the state and how the government tackles them. Hence, it is grossly remiss of the government to ask for any amount of funds even without limited justification or explanatory detail as we have seen with this supply bill.

We have a bill where all the line items are compressed, there is change in the departments, so that what did appear last year is now appearing differently because they have been compressed into other portfolio areas. There is no explanatory detail and even the clause notes gave us no clues.

I say it again. This looks rushed and there is little to no explanation. It does not give the parliament any ability to fully scrutinise it or exercise oversight. We cannot and should not be expected to authorise hundreds of millions of dollars without such clarity. I know it is a supply bill, and I understand the circumstance, but that is not an excuse for us to not do our job. I know we should and really must support this bill in the interest of good government and to ensure the wheels of government keep turning, but I expected a bit more information.

What is very clear is that the future is uncertain in this state. Who knows what will occur over the next six months? If we go to an election, we are even further in debt, if the two previous elections are anything to go by. What happens if we have another election and after six months the Budget is not passed, either because no-one offers a credible pathway out of our desperate financial situation, or we have not been able to get a functioning parliament or government. Unthinkable, perhaps?

Ms O'Connor - Well, I think we are better than that.

Ms FORREST - I think we are - but I will keep going. It was unthinkable that that could occur a number of years ago, absolutely, but now we see all the things that are going on. I do not need to remind members of another stuff-up of monumental and costly proportions. Less than a year ago, who would have thought the government could forget to, or be incapable of, building a critical new berth for a new Spirit of Tasmania vessel? Who would have thought? This really should be called the berth balls-up, not the ferry fiasco by the way. The state was in charge of building the berth through a state-owned company. The ferries were built in Finland, even though that has not gone entirely smoothly, for some reasons well outside the control of the state such as the Ukraine war, but the last early election interrupted critical decision making related to the ferries. That was the last caretaker period when we had the extra €50 million agreed to be paid to the Finnish shipbuilder. Arguably, that was the way it was done, was scrutinised by PAC, but it left unanswered questions.

I could name many other truly unbelievable occurrences under this government. We should be able to work together as a parliament across the parliament and use our best people to address these challenges in the face of such a looming financial catastrophe. Sadly, black swan events are happening with increasing regularity in this state.

I reiterate my comments and concern regarding the impending decision on Marinus Link, noting the timing must be of the essence. If an election is called, we need to see that whole-of-state business case and we need to be assured that no unilateral decisions regarding such a huge investment will be made without full transparency.

As I said, we saw that issue with the additional €50 million being paid under the last caretaker period, in a manner that was less than transparent.

I will repeat some of the matters that I raised in an opinion piece yesterday in the Mercury. If an election is called, full transparency must follow immediately. Under section 5 of the Charter of Budget Responsibility Act 2007, the Treasurer is required to publish a Pre-election Financial Outlook (PEFO), an independent report detailing the real state of the budget. Despite the 2024 PEFO only providing an update on risks, in light of the financial stakes and ongoing misinformation it is critical that this report is prepared as soon as possible, to inform voters of the truth regardless of the recent budget, which did not pass parliament, and regardless of this bill.

This is critical, as the government is in possession of the Marinus Link whole of state business case. I ask that this be released, in full, in the interest of transparency and full disclosure to the members of parliament.

Treasury is in a unique position to access all data to review the real cost of the stadium, the escalating needs of the health system, the pressure on TT Line and Bass Strait services, the totality of unfunded infrastructure promises, provide a credible assessment of the true state of the Tasmanian budget. Tasmanians deserve a full and independent picture before casting their votes.

All parties seeking election must then respond to the PEFO with a clear, detailed strategy as to how they will manage the very real challenges facing the state. This will require real leadership and courage and a long term plan. This is critical. It is about responsible government, transparent leadership and the integrity of democratic institutions. Parliament must never become a rubber stamp for executive overreach, especially where public money is at stake. Tasmania is at a crossroads economically, politically and institutionally. If you do not believe that, just have a look at what happened last week. This is not a time for blind optimism. It is a time for honesty, transparency and responsible leadership.

There are a number of large 'elephants in the room' ready to start a stampede critical and large investments on behalf of the state. In my view, these are all immediate and real problems that going into an election make even more difficult to herd. These are critical decisions that should be considered by the parliament, not a few members in caretaker mode.

Let us name a couple: TT Line. TT Line is in a financial world of pain likely to need additional funding, and it is unlikely TASCORP will enable them to borrow even more to deliver critical infrastructure. We simply cannot have a state owned company on the brink of financial disaster.

Here we are, at the end of the financial year, going into the next financial year. Marinus Link and the North West Transmission Developments huge and important decisions that should be determined openly and transparently, not behind the closed doors of a caretaker convention. It is a matter for government as to who is briefed, should a decision need to be made. This should include all members of parliament, not just the opposition minister, the shadow minister and leader.

Then there is the Macquarie Point stadium. The Tasmanian Planning Commission process will continue, as it is only parliament that can resolve to remove it, unless the Tasmanian Planning Commission itself believes there is no reasonable chance of success. Is there adequate funding to ensure MPDC and the government can provide all the necessary information to the Tasmanian Planning Commission to enable it to do its job?

I could go on, but suffice to say, the situation we find ourselves in is an absolute mess a mess of the government's own making. They should blame no-one else. Rather, take responsibility, accept the will of the House and fix the mess they have created.

In this moment of political instability, truth and transparency are now more important than ever. If we are to repair our finances and restore public trust, it starts with full disclosure and it starts now.

I have asked myself, should we vote against these bills leaving downstairs no alternative but to set aside their games of brinksmanship that are distracting and driving the people of Tasmania crazy, and simply get on with discussing and passing the proposed or amended budget on the table? It seems now, Mr President, this is entirely in Her Excellency the Governor's hands. I will, subject to the Acting Leader's response, support this bill. However, my concern stands that we continue to kick a heavy and unwieldy can down the road and not take real and urgent action to correct our fiscal trajectory.

I said we are in a mess of the government's own making, many years in the making. All members of parliament need to be aware of this and respond. We simply cannot keep going on the same way expecting a different outcome.