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 cost breakdown, as reported, included:
- $1.9 million for expert staff from Finance, Treasury, and Prime Minister's departments [1]
- $157,000 for Peter Crone (head of the secretariat) [1]
- $85,000 each for Chairman Tony Shepherd and Commissioner Amanda Vanstone [1]
- $50,000 to Boston Consulting Group [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].
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.
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].
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 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.
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.
**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].
検索 nounKensaku 内容 nounNaiyou : : 「 " Labor nounLabor government nounGovernment audit nounAudit review nounReview commission nounCommission spending nounSpending efficiency nounEfficiency program nounProgram Australia nounAustralia 」 "
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.
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.
The $2.5 million represents the true total cost including public servant time [6].
2. **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].
3. **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].
4. **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.
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 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.