Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to thank Senator Moore for bringing this particular topic for debate to general business, because health and education spending by federal governments have been increasing over time but are important aspects of government's contribution to the social fabric of our nation and, indeed, a core function of democracies such as Australia, particularly with our franchising of mass education and our commitment to that by various governments.

I was drawn by one of her statements. She said we should not be having a commission of audit, because 'we need to start as we mean to finish.' I do not think there is any greater statement that any of us on this side would disagree with. If you wanted a debating point, that was it. 'We need to start as we mean to finish;' therefore, do not have a commission of audit. Those of us on this side—the government of Australia—want to not finish where we have started. That is precisely why we have instigated a commission of audit. We do not want to finish with $300 billion worth of debt. This is a handicap that even Phar Lap would have struggled under. We are committed. This government and the Australian people both hope we do not finish where we have started in winning this election.

It does make a lot of sense that the very definition of a commission of audit is a full-scale review of the activities of government. I think it is quite useful to reflect on the Labor Party's approach, when coming to government, to assessing the state of play, the state of the budget and the state of the government's response to the people's wishes. I think there is no greater contradiction than the Rudd government's 2020 Summit approach to a whole-of-government response. It was going to shape a long-term strategy for the nation's future—kind of similar to what the coalition government has instigated but a very different approach: 10 working parties, 100 participants, a lot of celebrities and not too many women all got together with white paper, whiteboards, some sticky notes probably and some white board markers. What a success that approach that started off the Labor Party's time in government in early 2008 turned out to be.

But it is either a case of ignorance from the opposition or, more likely, political game playing. Why does Labor just want to exclude health and education from the full-scale review? It sounds like their approach to the Henry tax review and so many other of the reviews that they instigated in their time in office, churning up a lot of public money without actually adopting any of the recommendations. The Labor Party's own internal review into its own business in 2010—the Bracks-Faulkner-Carr report—did not exclude anything. In fact, Labor at the time boasted that it would be a warts-and-all review, yet many of the report's recommendations were kept secret and only 42 per cent of them were implemented.

Senator Moore's motion may be spurious, but it does give me the opportunity to explain for those watching and listening to this scintillating debate, firstly, what the Commission of Audit is and how it will work; secondly, why the Nationals support the initiative; and, thirdly, why Labor hates the idea. The commission will deliberately and methodically review the scope, efficiency and functions of government. The previous government was fond of making costly policy announcements for which most of the funding was conveniently allocated just beyond the forward estimates so that it did not have to be measured or accounted for. We now are dealing with that budget time bomb.

The Commission of Audit will look at the adequacy of existing budget controls, Commonwealth infrastructure—a health check on government assets—and the public sector's performance and accountability. Maybe that is where Senator Moore's concern is—the public sector's performance and accountability. This is about making sure that we have the most effective and efficient public service possible to deliver not for themselves—churning around paperwork on their own work agendas—but for the agenda of the Australian people, as evidenced in the government they elected and as outlined in the Governor-General's speech to this chamber earlier this week.

The Commission of Audit was a coalition election promise, made with the full support of the Australian people, and the government intends to abide by its election promises, which is something Senator Abetz made very clear when answering questions earlier today. I know that is a unique and recent political experience for most of us in this chamber—having a government that plans to deliver on its election promises and that has, from day one, set about implementing that plan in a very calm, effective and methodical manner. There is no sense in the erraticism that has typified the Australian government's approach over the recent past. There is going to be a very stark contradiction between the approach of the Abbott-Truss government to the responsibilities the Australian people have given it and the approach of the previous government.

The idea of understanding independent research to ensure the government adheres to these sound principles is not something new. In fact, it is something that the Victorian National Party MP John 'Black Jack' McEwen spoke about 76 years ago. He said, 'It is the task of government to discover the basic facts upon which our national economy is founded, and to search there for the root causes of the problem.' There are some real structural issues with our budget, and we need to get to the heart of that. That requires some serious work, not just looking at the regulatory burden that has been placed on our national economy in the recent past but looking over the longer term at the impacts of previous governments' decisions. It requires taking a holistic view of the whole economy and devising ways that are going to actually deliver results and make it easier for people to get on with the business of doing business.

I want to touch briefly on aspects of the education and health spend. Some really interesting research has been done. I am sure Senator Moore agrees with me that, when looking at public spending in the health and education spheres, we need to be concerned about outcomes. We do not want spend money just for the sake of spending money. The recent Deloitte report into the UK education system highlighted the fact that more money spent in education does not mean higher grades, more educated students and better results on PISA, and it does not mean better results on NAPLAN.