Viewed
The Drum: A good test for the new paradigm
We have heard a lot about the supposed 'new paradigm' in this Federal Parliament.
Announcing Labor's deal with the independents on September 7 this year, Julia Gillard promised far-reaching reforms to make the Government and its functioning more accountable to the Australian people: "So, let's draw back the curtains and let the sun shine in; let our parliament be more open than it ever was before."
An important test of the new paradigm comes up shortly when Parliament votes on the NBN Financial Transparency Bill.
This bill would provide vital information to taxpayers about the $43 billion National Broadband Network.
It requires the Productivity Commission to conduct and publish a cost-benefit analysis of the NBN.
This should not be a controversial proposal.
According to its own Best Practice Regulation Handbook , the Australian Government "is committed to the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to assess regulatory proposals to encourage better decision making".
It is the practice followed by Infrastructure Australia - the specialist body established by the Rudd-Gillard Government to manage major infrastructure projects.
Infrastructure Australia's guidelines mandate the use of cost-benefit analysis to assess options, saying that it "…will only give advice to governments (often in relation to hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds) on the basis of a comprehensive and robust evidence base."
Yet curiously the Gillard Government proposes to ignore its own stated principles when it comes to the National Broadband Network – when it is not hundreds of millions of dollars of public money at stake, but rather tens of billions.
Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy has repeatedly dismissed calls for a cost-benefit analysis, saying in May 2009, "We don't need any more studies, any more cost-benefit analysis to know this is an infrastructure investment Australia is calling out for."
More recently he described the bill currently under discussion as "just another time-wasting opposition proposal".
In fact, there is no basis for Conroy's claim that the bill would delay the rollout of the National Broadband Network.
The bill does not require the suspension of rollout activities while the cost-benefit analysis is being conducted.
Nor does it suspend the provision of government funds for the project – indeed, as a private member's bill, it could not legally do so.
It simply requires that the Productivity Commission conduct a cost-benefit analysis by May 31, 2011.
The Government will be quite free to continue the rollout on its current trajectory while the Productivity Commission does its work.
As it happens that trajectory is a pretty leisurely one.
For a project which was announced in April 2009, the NBN has not delivered very much.
In Tasmania the network passes a mere 4,000 premises.
On the mainland, even less has been done.
Even by May next year, the network will serve at best a tiny fraction of the 10 million premises which are ultimately promised to be connected.
So it is a bit rich of Conroy to complain that a cost-benefit study will slow it down further.
Conroy's approach to this issue shows a surprising degree of pessimism about his own policy.
He seems to fear that the NBN as planned will not be found to have benefits which exceed its costs.
But even if that proves to be true, a cost-benefit analysis will point the way to an approach to upgrading our broadband infrastructure where the benefits do exceed the costs.
That is precisely why the bill requires "a consideration of the different options by which broadband services of particular speeds could be made available to all Australians … and an estimate of the likely timeframe and cost of each option".
In other words, this cost-benefit analysis will let us lay out and consider all of the possible options for improving Australia's broadband networks – and then choose the best one.
It is a great shame that the executive branch of government has not seen fit to commission a cost-benefit analysis of its own volition – thus failing to conduct itself in accordance with its own stated principles.
Ordinarily – and sadly – that would be the end of the matter.
But these are not ordinary times.
Because the Labor Party is a Minority Government, the Parliament can – and should – correct the Government's error.
Given the scale of the National Broadband Network, and the seriousness of failing to carry out a cost-benefit study, this scenario presents a very strong case for a 'new paradigm' Parliament to intervene.
The case is made even stronger by the fact that passage of the bill would not stop the executive branch of government from continuing with its present course of action in rolling out the NBN.
It would simply require that - in parallel with that course of action – the executive branch also commission a cost-benefit study.
So will we see the Parliament take this opportunity to draw back the curtains and let the sun shine in?
This will be an interesting vote to watch.
Paul Fletcher is the Federal Liberal Member for Bradfield and previously worked as director of corporate and regulatory affairs at Optus.
