Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

In the private sector no project worth $100 million would get through without a clear cost-benefit analysis showing that it makes sense. The same standards should be expected of taxpayers' money and how it is spent. Whether that cost-benefit analysis is done directly by Infrastructure Australia or by the states using a similar methodology is of less concern than the fact that there should be analysis that shows that it stacks up before money is allocated. I understand that with government projects often it is not just about economic benefit; you need to take into account environmental and social factors as well. There are methodologies to incorporate these, and economic benefits, into cost-benefit analysis, and this is actually addressed in the amendment.

Australians don't want to see their money wasted. The amendments put by the member for Wentworth today are focused on ensuring that Australians can have some confidence that the money that is being spent on these huge projects is being spent well and on the right priorities. There will never be enough money to go around, and requiring open, transparent cost-benefit analysis with a common methodology will mean we are actually allocating money to the best projects, the ones that make the most sense for the country. I call on the government to hold itself to the standard that it was requesting the opposition to hold itself to in the previous parliament. Come through with the transparency that will actually rebuild trust in the ability of government to deliver projects.

See this speech in context