Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

When approaching this debate I took the liberty of getting my staff to get me the Commission of Audit terms of reference, which I think is probably a prudent starting point. Given Senator Smith's contribution that there are nearly 1,000 bodies, organisations, Public Service entities in the review, it makes really interesting reading. According to the terms of reference for the Commission of Audit:

Accordingly, the Commission of Audit (‘the Commission’) has a broad remit to examine the scope for efficiency and productivity improvements across all areas of Commonwealth expenditure, and to make recommendations to achieve savings sufficient to deliver a surplus of 1 per cent of GDP prior to 2023-24.

…   …   …   

Adequacy of existing budget controls and disciplines

• The Commission is asked to assess the adequacy of current budgetary practices and rules (including specified timeframes and targets) in promoting efficient and effective government, disciplined expenditure, long-term fiscal sustainability and budget transparency.

…   …   …   

• The Commission will report to the Prime Minister, Treasurer and Minister for Finance with:

– the first phase due by the end of January 2014; and

– the second phase due by no later than the end of March 2014.

That is a pretty ambitious task. It is a monstrous and hugely ambitious task to examine just shy of 2,000 entities in a very short time frame over Christmas and to come back with a proper, prudent and due diligent examination of those areas. Good on them; it is an ambitious task, and if they are up to it that is fine. But what appears to be the case is that things are already on the target list. What appears to be the case is that savings have been predetermined and the authenticity of those may only be emphasised by this Commission of Audit. It does not appear to be a prudent thing to try and properly audit 1,932 government bodies between now and the end of January—but that is their call.

The guidelines are quite clear, and anyone listening to this debate will realise that there are guarantees in place. A cursory examination of The coalition's policy for schools: students first, shows in bold print, 'There will be no cut to school funding under a coalition government.' It is very clear. Similar undertakings have been made across other portfolio areas, including health. But what is a cut?

I was honoured to open an early childhood centre in Ceduna to further the early childhood health and welfare of Indigenous children, in particular. I opened another one in Whyalla, and there are a couple being built in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands. If one of those were to close, would that be a cut? It certainly is to the communities in which people seek these types of facilities and services. But hang on. In the coalition's world, that is not a cut, that is a saving, and they will simply direct that money somewhere else. It is a really big hard call: when is a cut a cut? Is it a cut when a school loses some funding for teachers and that funding is directed to another school? It certainly looks like a cut.

I had the opportunity to discuss with a regional school which 600 kids attend what they thought about the announcement of the increase in funding in South Australia through the old Gonski reforms. They said: 'We need additional money to deliver the proper educational outcomes in this school. What we need is to be able to concentrate on those who need the most from the teachers in a smaller group, and having some additional resources will certainly help us to do that and we will get better educational outcomes.' But what do we have in the coalition's policy? 'More money is not necessarily the only solution for better education outcomes.' I agree with that, actually. I do not think that money is the be-all and end-all, but in a lot of cases there is not enough money in the system as it stands. Teachers are stretched, resources are stretched and services are not being delivered.

We have a new government that was strangely silent for a long period of time. We were recalled to parliament very recently and in the short period in which we have been sitting we have heard Senator Cormann say that he has never disputed the science of climate change. That was the biggest, most quickly eaten piece of humble pie I have ever seen. If there had not been a back on my chair I would have fallen off it. We have heard Senator Sinodinos twice—once yesterday and again today—say: 'The GFC is still here. That's why we've given billions to the Reserve Bank.' This afternoon we heard, 'There are problems with the economy' and, 'The GFC hasn't gone away.' For the 2½ years that I was on the other side of the chamber, all we heard from this side of the chamber was: 'The GFC was nothing. You were pulling the electorate's leg. All the moves that you made were unnecessary.' I cannot leave out Senator Cash, because she was 90 per cent on the mark when she said, 'We took a policy to the electorate and we are sticking to it.' Anybody who saw question time can see that she is sticking to her lines—there is no doubt about that. I do not think that they ever told the electorate that they would only talk about their immigration policy once a week—I do not think they ever told anybody that.

What we have here is the capacity for this new government to carefully reposition itself. Coming back to education and health, we are told that there will be no cuts, that more money is not necessarily the best answer and that 1,932 bodies are to be examined, with an initial report by the end of January and a final report by the end of March. I think that perhaps there is an agenda afoot.

A casual observer of the internet who might receive some paraphernalia from Essential Vision finds, lo and behold, a survey. The Commission of Audit will be reviewing up to 2,000 public entities. As we know, it has not made any recommendations yet, but it is reporting in January and again in March. In a survey, Essential Vision poses the following question:

The Federal Government has established a Commission of Audit to review the Federal Government’s functions and expenditure. Would you support or oppose the following possible recommendations the Commission could make?

I accept that this is all conjecture, but it is really quite interesting.

I have been a member of Medibank Private for a long time, and I read in the newspaper that it is up for sale. I am a senator in parliament and no-one talks to anybody in here about it being up for sale—you read it in the newspaper.