Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Just briefly, Mr Temporary Chairman: I was not sure what Senator Sherry’s tour around the world was about—what relevance that had to this discussion—except that he cites some of what I would assume he means are undemocratic regimes. The point of the amendments that we have previously discussed is to bring some democratic oversight to expenditures by the central government. Perhaps in undemocratic regimes they do not have parliamentary oversight of expenditure. What we are saying is: in the great democracy of Australia, with a strong parliament, we should have parliamentary oversight of these expenditures. But, of course, that has nothing to do with the amendment that we are considering. The amendment that we are considering relates to the Productivity Commission’s role, and I do not think Senator Sherry has actually read the amendment. This is a report on the projects already approved. This is not introducing any sort of pre-approval red tape. This is about what happens after you have approved projects. This does not delay any project. This just says, ‘Once the government has exercised its authority, approved projects and approved the spending, then’—as Senator Xenophon rightly said—‘we have an evidence based approach conducted by the expert body, the Productivity Commission, to see whether in fact the objectives are being achieved in relation to productivity and whether in fact there has been any cost-shifting by state or territory governments.’ Senator Sherry’s arguments had nothing to do with the amendment before us.