Nick Xenophon’s success comes at a cost to nation

South Australian Senator should level with voters about who he supports.

This newspaper aims to deliver proper scrutiny, not just of the major parties but of all who seek to exercise political power. In the Senate and the lower house, as we saw in 2010, minor parties and independents can have enormous influence. Whether it is the Greens, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation or any independent, voters deserve to know about their policies, personnel, performance and priorities. That is why The Australian reported extensively on the business and political dealings of Clive Palmer in the lead-up to the last election. In June 2013 we warned that “his credibility as a businessman turned politician hinges on several issues of public interest” as we suggested that others, particularly the ABC, might be best served to also pay attention. Three years on, surely most Australians would agree that wider scrutiny of Mr Palmer and his candidates might have saved a good deal of regret.

South Australia’s independent senator, Nick Xenophon, is more of a known quantity. He entered the state’s Legislative Council as an anti-poker machine candidate with just 2.8 per cent of the vote in 1997 but used his balance of power position and smarts to become something of a state-based political force. When he switched to the Senate in 2008, good fortune found him again in a balance of power position so that, with his penchant for populism, he forged ongoing success. Portraying himself as an honest broker, the former lawyer opposed the government more often then anyone else except the Greens. On present polling he could be the biggest winner in July’s double dissolution, claiming three, or even four, South Australian Senate seats.

He wields most of the power in the Nick Xenophon Team. Yet just as Mr Palmer lost senators elected on his ticket, Senator Xenophon fell out with his first running mate in the state parliament. The public has heard little from the candidates likely to sweep into Canberra with him, except former retail advocate Stirling Griff. One candidate is an alternative health practitioner who spruiks the benefits of perineum acupuncture. Senator Xenophon should not attempt to hide his candidates from media scrutiny but ensure they are exposed to proper questioning. With both major parties on the nose and Senator Xenophon capitalising on home state resentment about the demise of the car industry and desperation for the submarine project, he is considered a chance to win a lower house seat or two. While unlikely, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that his MPs could hold sway in both houses.

Either way, it is a matter of extreme public import that the policies he is proposing carry a $100 billion price tag, as Joe Kelly has reported today. Senator Xenophon must properly explain how he intends to pay for measures such as preferential treatment for Australian suppliers in major contracts, increases in foreign aid, superannuation changes and support for aged pensioners. But most importantly, Senator Xenophon must tell voters which major party he would favour to form government. It is not good enough to leave these matters for post-election bartering. Voters deserve to make an informed choice.

After the 2010 minority Labor government and now, after we have seen the most discombobulated and obstructionist Senate since 1975, voters are well aware of how our democratic system can throw up unusual and unclear results. This will only amplify their curiosity about the true intentions and major party leanings of minor party and independent candidates. This is especially relevant given the divergent economic paths proposed at this election, with the Coalition relying on the private sector for economic growth and Labor saying extra public spending can stimulate the economy and repair the budget. Senator Xenophon’s interventionist policies suggest he might favour Labor; but he should declare his hand. If NXT senators do hold the balance of power in the Senate it will be a unique situation where they represent the interests of one state. The national parliament would effectively be in the hands of a clique bound to do what they believe is best for a state. The states’ house might become the state house of South Australia. All the more reason, then, for the entire nation to ask hard questions.