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

Why does Labor hate the Commission of Audit? Because they are worried it might expose the ineptitude of the previous government—like we need any more litany of information on that. I am quite looking forward to next week's Senate estimates, where we will investigate the previous government's poor record right across the board. The truth is that Labor hates the idea of a national commission of audit because of what it is likely to uncover. It will cover the full extent of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor-Green-Independent—I am sure there is an acronym in there somewhere that could be useful—government's dreadful mismanagement and massive waste of taxpayer funds over the past six years.

The Commission of Audit will be a core function and is to drive efficiency. We should not back away from that. We should not back away from the fact that we need to get more productive as a nation to compete internationally. That means that if we were really interested in education outcomes and health outcomes we would want to work out how to better use the pot of money we have with a better focus so that we do not have laptop overlap and so that we do not have hall overhauls. The litany of waste under the previous government is record breaking. We have recognised that and we are going to go about examining it and ensuring that it does not occur again.

It is very offensive that you do not want to use the bucket of money that taxpayers have given us to spend on education and health in an appropriate way to get the best bang for our buck, because we all know in this chamber that it does not always get spent in the best way. I think we are clutching at straws to argue otherwise. Labor is telling us we should continue to throw money out the window by saying no to fair income support for students in regional Australia. Let's face it: if we found some savings, a better way to use the taxpayers' dollar and a better way to structure our system, then we might have some money to do some really good stuff that we need—greater income for students from regional Australia. We could offer better support for remote Indigenous schoolchildren. You are saying no to a Gonski that we can afford. You are saying no to fixing the rural doctor shortage, because we only have X number of dollars.

Senator Gallacher mentioned the classic Labor Party approach to budgeting when he talked about the axing of the schoolkids bonus. I guess the reason the government have to axe the schoolkids bonus—

Senator Polley interjecting—

is because, Senator Polley, we want to live within our means. We actually want to ensure that the promises we make, as the government of Australia, are fully funded. They are not like the rural and regional development promises that were made, that were not funded because they were based on a tax—the minerals resource rent tax, which was projected to raise $4 billion. We are silent on the other side of the chamber now, are we? That tax was projected to raise $4 billion, but how much did it raise? Let me just check the figures. That would be $200 million. There are not too many funds going out into regional Australia on the back of that tax. This side of the chamber is actually interested in ensuring that our—

Senator Bilyk interjecting—