Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (16:41): 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. Senator Polley: You do not get better results by cutting funding either. Senator McKENZIE: But, Senator Polley— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Boyce ): I beg your pardon, Senator McKenzie. Senator McKENZIE: Sorry, Chair. But it does not mean better results. It does not mean a better educated child at the end of the system, because what actually counts is the relationship and the education that goes on within the classroom, not how much money we are throwing at the classroom, not how many classrooms we have. What is occurring within the classroom is something that money does not necessarily buy and that cannot necessarily be increased by throwing more money at it. So we are not ashamed that we are abiding by our election promises and that we are starting as we mean to finish. Why does Labor hate it so much? Senator Polley interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, stop your interjections, please. Senator McKENZIE: 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— Senator McKENZIE: 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— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Boyce ): Senator Bilyk, please stop interjecting. Senator McKENZIE: Government senators and members are keen to ensure that we can fulfil our election promises, that we can provide certainty to the Australian people when they look to their federal government for leadership—particularly around the national economy. That means ensuring that every promise we make is fully funded from a source of revenue that we can control and that we actually know what is going to be delivered. Ninety-five per cent below target, by the way—but it is nothing new for the Labor Party to be missing out on targets, skipping out on budget constraints and skipping out on surplus projections. A target missed here, a target missed there—no wonder we need a commission of audit. Labor is focusing on health and education because Labor wants to revive a scare campaign which would claim that the government is going to sack teachers, doctors and nurses. The problem with that is that the federal departments of health and education employ thousands of public servants—but no teachers, no doctors and no nurses. I think the conversation that we need to have as a nation, and that the Abbott-Truss government is going to face up to, is to articulate areas of responsibility within our federation so that we get some clarity around budget areas, so that we are not all paying for the same things and so that we get rid of the overlap. What is the Commission of Audit going to discover about Labor's multibillion dollar school halls fiasco? What will the commission discover about Labor's cruel abolition of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme? What really is the value for money, rather than throwing money at state dental programs which do not have the dentists to do the job? These and many other questions will be dealt with by the Abbott-Truss government's National Commission of Audit, and Labor is not going to like the answers. Labor have been attacking the government's very well-planned approach to how we are going to get this country back on track and how we are going to deliver on the surpluses that you never could because you were not prepared to take the hard decisions. You were not prepared to say no. Like the dealer to the junkie on the corner, 'We just kept handing it out.' Opposition senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Boyce ): Senator McKenzie, it is preferable not to use the second person. Senator McKENZIE: My apologies, Chair. The former government were very lax in their approach to budgetary constraints. They always chose the political approach; they always chose the quick vote-buy over the tough decisions. This government is not going to shy away from the tough decisions, because being in government requires balancing the privilege that comes with it with the responsibility of making the hard decisions and taking the community with you. We were very, very clear as a government about our plans to get this budget back on track and to get our national economy moving forward post the mining boom, and that is going to require looking beneath the surface. It is going to require digging a little deeper under the budget figures instead of looking at what the boom is delivering and saying, 'Oh, it's okay.' I can tell you that right across regional Australia it is not okay. There are two job losses in this small business here, there are three over there—and that adds up to a community that is losing the capacity to stand up for itself, losing the capacity to pay its mortgage, losing the capacity to purchase goods from families down the road in a similar small business et cetera. Small business is feeling the pinch, and we are going to have to face up to the fact that it is not going to last forever and we need to look a little deeper. And that is exactly what the coalition government expect to do. We expect to reduce the debt and the deficit we have been left with, and that is going to take years. That is going to take years but we are prepared to do the hard yards. In terms of education spending, wasn't it a classic that we set up a demand-driven system in higher education and said, 'We'll pay for it. No worries; bring it on.' I just noticed Senator Mason is entering the chamber. I hope Senator Mason is going to say something on this, because we are not quite sure how sustainable that particular policy setting was as a measure to build a budget on. That is because the former government took a siloed approach to their policy announcements, or should I say a thought bubbles/media release/vote-buying exercise. We are going to take a holistic view, because, hey guys, it is interconnected and you cannot make a decision in this part of the economy without it flowing through. So yes we want more young people in Australia to attain higher education. Yes we want a smarter citizenry that is able to take on all the challenges that the 21st century is going to bring our nation and all the opportunities to maximise that space But that is actually not a good reason to say that anyone who wants to go to university should go to university and we will all pay for it, when you also combine that with all the other promises that were made and, at the end of the day, it becomes an unsustainable mess—and that is exactly what we have inherited as a government. The Australian people made it very, very clear a few months ago where they wanted this nation to head and who they wanted to be in charge of the Treasury benches, and that was Mr Hockey and Senator Sinodinos; it was the Abbott-Truss government. They needed us in the room because they know that we are prepared to do what is in the national interest, not what is in our own political interest, and I look forward to watching that occur. I just want to make some closing remarks on Labor and efficiency. After wasting billions of taxpayers' funds, Labor half woke up to the need for efficiency as the budget plummeted deeper and deeper into the red. And—instead of using a mechanism like the Commission of Audit to have a look and ask, 'Where we can get rid of waste, and how can we be more efficient without diminishing crucial services?'—they thought they would go for the central planning modus operandi: the efficiency dividend right across the board. That actually did result in services being cut, and in $2.3 billion being cut from education, from Australian universities, in a very blunt, Soviet style. So I would much prefer the Commission of Audit.