Economists question Victorian Coalition’s surplus pledge alongside tax cuts

Two economists have questioned whether Victoria’s Coalition can deliver Opposition Leader Jess Wilson’s promised cash surplus by 2032 while cutting taxes. RMIT public-policy professor David Hayward and independent economist Saul Eslake called for greater transparency about the opposition’s budget plan, ABC News reported on 19 October in Australia. Wilson rejected their criticism.

Wilson’s pledge rests partly on a proposed 10-year freeze on public-service hiring. The Coalition has also announced plans to cut land tax, remove payroll tax on private schools and scrap stamp duty for first-home buyers, according to the ABC. It would replace the emergency services volunteers fund with the former fire services property levy.

Why the economists question the 2032 surplus pledge

Eslake also questioned the arithmetic of cutting taxes while continuing to spend. He argued that repairing Victoria’s finances would require a combination of spending cuts and increased revenue. Their criticism concerns whether the announced policies add up to a credible path to a future surplus; the promise is for 2032.

Wilson disputed the economists’ assessment, saying the opposition had identified more than $24 billion in savings. That is the Coalition’s stated figure, as reported by the ABC. A full reconciliation of the competing figures was not immediately available.

Suburban Rail Loop pause and Victoria’s budget

One disputed proposal is a pause to the Suburban Rail Loop. Hayward criticised that approach, saying tunnelling was already underway and $7 billion had been spent. His point adds a practical question to the budget argument: whether pausing work already in progress would produce the savings the Coalition expects.

Victoria’s Department of Treasury and Finance says its 2026–27 state budget papers set out the government’s economic and financial outlook, fiscal strategy, services, capital program and public-sector finances. They provide the state budget context for the debate, while the economists’ estimates and Wilson’s savings figure concern the opposition’s separate plan.