The Claim
“Went $1 million (67%) over budget on the Commission of Audit, an investigation into how taxpayer money can be spent more prudently.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core factual elements of this claim are accurate. The National Commission of Audit, established by the Abbott government in 2013, was initially budgeted at approximately $1 million but ended up costing $2.5 million – representing a $1.5 million or approximately 150% cost overrun (the claim's 67% figure understates the actual percentage increase) [1][2].
The Commission was established in October 2013 as one of the Abbott government's first acts, chaired by Tony Shepherd (then President of the Business Council of Australia), with former Howard government minister Amanda Vanstone and former heads of Finance and Treasury departments Peter Boxall and Tony Cole as commissioners [3][4]. The final report was released on May 1, 2014 [5].
The cost breakdown, as reported, included:
Missing Context
The claim omits several important contextual elements:
1. Nature of the Cost Overrun: The "budget" of $1 million appears to have been a preliminary estimate mentioned by Tony Shepherd in Senate hearings where he described the Commission as "great value for money" at $1 million [6]. However, as noted in Senate questioning, this figure did not include the costs of public servants from departments who were seconded to work on the Commission [6]. The $2.5 million figure represents the full cost including departmental support staff [1].
2. Scale Relative to Government Spending: The Commission of Audit cost $2.5 million to review the entire Commonwealth government's finances and operations – a tiny fraction of the $400+ billion federal budget. The Commission's recommendations, if implemented, would have resulted in billions of dollars in savings [7].
3. Precedent from Previous Government: The Howard government established a similar National Commission of Audit in 1996 (chaired by Professor Bob Officer) at the beginning of their term [3][8]. This established a precedent for incoming Coalition governments to conduct comprehensive audits of government finances.
4. Complexity and Scope: The Commission was given an ambitious mandate covering "the scope of government, the current architecture of commonwealth-state relations, the efficiency and effectiveness of government expenditure, commonwealth finances, and adequacy of existing budgetary controls and disciplines" [6]. The government initially allocated only three months for this work (later extended to five months) [3][6].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source (Yahoo7 News/The West Australian) requires contextual assessment:
The West Australian is a daily newspaper published in Perth, owned by Seven West Media. While generally considered a mainstream media outlet, Seven West Media has historically leaned toward conservative editorial positions. The story was republished on Yahoo7 News, a joint venture between Yahoo and Seven West Media [1][9].
The reporting appears factual and is corroborated by other sources including ABC News and The Conversation [1][6]. The cost figures cited are consistent across multiple reports. However, the framing of the story – emphasizing the irony of an austerity-focused review going over budget – follows a narrative pattern common in political reporting that highlights perceived government hypocrisy.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government audit review commission spending efficiency program Australia"
Finding: The Rudd government (2007-2013) conducted several large-scale reviews and summits, most notably the Australia 2020 Summit held in April 2008. This summit brought together 1,000 participants to discuss "long-term challenges and opportunities" facing Australia across 10 policy streams [10].
While an exact cost figure for the Australia 2020 Summit is not readily available in the sources examined, summits of this scale typically cost several million dollars in venue, logistics, and personnel costs. The summit was criticized by some as an expensive "talkfest" that produced limited concrete outcomes [10].
Additionally, the Labor government commissioned numerous reviews during their tenure (2007-2013), including:
- The Gonski Review of School Funding (which was extensive and multi-year)
- Various health system reviews
- The Henry Tax Review (2009-2010), a comprehensive review of Australia's tax system
The Henry Tax Review alone involved extensive consultation, research, and a large secretariat over approximately 18 months, costing millions of dollars [11].
Precedent for Commission of Audit: The 1996 Commission of Audit under the Howard government established the precedent for incoming governments to conduct comprehensive financial reviews. This practice has been adopted by subsequent Coalition governments but not by Labor governments, which have tended to use different mechanisms (summits, targeted reviews) for policy development.
Balanced Perspective
The claim highlights a legitimate instance of cost overruns on a government program specifically designed to identify wasteful spending. The irony is undeniable: a commission advocating for fiscal prudence exceeded its own budget by 150%.
However, several factors provide important context:
Defense of the Cost Overrun:
- Partial vs. Full Costing: The initial $1 million estimate appears to have been a partial estimate excluding departmental secondments. The $2.5 million represents the true total cost including public servant time [6].
- Scope and Complexity: The Commission was tasked with reviewing the entire Commonwealth government operations in just a few months – an ambitious undertaking that naturally required significant resources [6].
- Value Proposition: The $2.5 million cost to review a $400+ billion budget represents approximately 0.0006% of annual federal expenditure. If the Commission's recommendations had been fully implemented (they were largely rejected due to political unpopularity), the savings would have been in the billions [7].
- Expertise Required: The Commission drew on senior public servants with deep institutional knowledge. Their compensation ($85,000 for five months' work for the Chair, equivalent to approximately $204,000 annualized) was not excessive for senior executive work [1].
Comparison to Private Sector: Major management consulting firms charge $500,000-$1 million+ for comprehensive organizational reviews. The Commission's cost of $2.5 million to review an entire government's finances is relatively modest by comparison.
Political Context: The claim's framing emphasizes irony and hypocrisy, which is a legitimate angle. However, the scale of the overrun ($1.5 million) is minor in the context of federal government spending, and the comparison to Labor's Australia 2020 Summit (which had less concrete outcomes) suggests that this type of expenditure is not unique to one party.
TRUE
7.0
out of 10
The factual claims are accurate: the Commission of Audit did cost approximately $2.5 million against an initial estimate of around $1 million, representing a significant cost overrun. However, the framing emphasizes irony while downplaying context about how government cost estimates often work (initial estimates frequently exclude departmental secondments), the ambitious scope of the review, and the relatively modest cost compared to the size of the federal budget. The 67% figure cited in the claim actually understates the overrun, which was closer to 150%.
Final Score
7.0
OUT OF 10
TRUE
The factual claims are accurate: the Commission of Audit did cost approximately $2.5 million against an initial estimate of around $1 million, representing a significant cost overrun. However, the framing emphasizes irony while downplaying context about how government cost estimates often work (initial estimates frequently exclude departmental secondments), the ambitious scope of the review, and the relatively modest cost compared to the size of the federal budget. The 67% figure cited in the claim actually understates the overrun, which was closer to 150%.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (11)
-
1
scenestr.com.au
In the latest round of 'Actual story about Tony Abbott's Government or Onion article?', it's been revealed the Government's Commission of Audit went far over its budget.
scenestrOriginal link unavailable — view archived version -
2
au.news.yahoo.com
Au News Yahoo
Original link unavailable — view archived version -
3
abc.net.au
The Commission of Audit must deliver specific and politically doable ideas for improving the way government is run. A bloated public service and messy means testing are good places to start.
Abc Net -
4
theconversation.com
The latest release from the National Archives reveals how the Howard government managed a budget deficit, and presents a striking contrast with the Abbott government’s framing of the 2013 budget.
The Conversation -
5PDF
National Commission of Audit May 2014
Hawkerbritton • PDF Document -
6
theconversation.com
News that the National Commission of Audit had been granted an extension of time shouldn’t be a surprise given the complexity of issues in the scope of its first phase. The questions it is examining around…
The Conversation -
7
afr.com
Tony Shepherd, who wrote an unpopular budget blueprint for the Abbott government, says the $26 billion budget blowout vindicates his National Commission of Audit report.
Australian Financial Review -
8
macrobusiness.com.au
Cross posted from The Conversation by Frank Bongiorno Professor of History, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University On the morning of Monday, March 4 1996, the young treasurer in the Howard government, Peter Costello, and his press secretary, Tony Smith – now the speaker of the House of Representatives – took
MacroBusiness -
9
crikey.com.au
Former prime ministers suffer from a lifelong dependency on taxpayer funds.
Crikey -
10
theconversation.com
Political historians are likely to treat the Rudd and Gillard governments far more kindly than many contemporary commentators have - and certainly more kindly than the Murdoch press has. The passing of…
The Conversation -
11
taxreview.treasury.gov.au
Taxreview Treasury Gov
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.