Mr Pallas (Tarneit) — I make reference to the Public  Accounts  and Estimates Committee (PAEC)  report on its inquiry into successful delivery  of significant infrastructure projects and in particular chapter 2.3.5, ‘Potential conflict and confusion in  the  Department of Treasury and Finance’s roles’, which is on page 24. We have recently been  made aware,  by media releases and media coverage, of the  Treasurer’s attempt  to describe what he called a $19 billion black hole in Labor’s plans as  Treasury costings, and the  committee turned its attention  to this issue. It is critically important that there be clarity regarding  the role of  Treasury  and  Finance and  its  ability to  provide  independent  advice to government rather than engage in a political process.

It is unclear from an article in  the Age  whether these  are Treasury costings, because the so-called detailed analysis released by the government was completed by  — as the article says —  coalition  political  staff  in  the  Treasurer’s private office.

 Mr Pallas  — The PAEC report  on the 2013-14 budget estimates  on page 111 in part 1, notes that level  crossings  were  mentioned  in  the  hearings with the minister, who said:

While the cost of grade separations are high — usually around $100 million to  $200 million each, depending on complexity — the benefits in terms  of safety  and reducing congestion are considerable’.

    The  ACTING  SPEAKER (Ms Ryall) — Order! Members are permitted to talk  about one report only in their contributions.  The member  has now moved onto a second report. I ask him to adhere to the first report that he was referring to.

Mr Pallas  — Well  spotted. Back on the committee report on the inquiry  into successful delivery  of infrastructure projects, that report also dealt with the appropriate and effective delivery of those projects and made clear reference to the fact that government should have clear roles for  Treasury  and  Finance and that  those roles  should be honoured and maintained. We saw at the last federal election where efforts to engage with Treasury and Finance in a political debate were rejected  by  the federal Department of Treasury, a role that the committee in  its  implicit  statement  as  to  the  need  for  the  separation  of  those responsibilities was very clear  about.  We  take  the  view  that  that  is  an appropriate way by which Treasury and Finance should conduct itself.

We  have  seen an incorrect representation of the role and the material produced by the Treasurer in  the public domain, and that  goes directly to the  heart of that committee report.

That committee report made it clear that  there  should  be no confusion between the role of  Treasury and Finance, project  management and costing, real project management as opposed to those projects that  are a  part of a broader political debate. Indeed  in the federal government forum, in the context of an opposition coalition,  we saw  federal Treasury take a stand in that  respect. That  is the point; you either clarify whether Treasury is  part  of  this process at costing real  projects, or you are engaging in the costing of  political  projects,  and that is in itself a political point.

The committee was very clear about the  need for clear and effective costings of policies. We  know from the  PAEC  report that the  government  has consistently blown out its own costings. In a consistent approach with the PAEC report we ask the government  to  publicly release the  so-called costings of  Labor’s  policy proposals, which the Deputy Premier told the Parliament today were Treasury costings and which the Treasurer has presented on social media  as Treasury costings. Not to  do so would be further evidence of a defining characteristic of this government: a complete lack of integrity.