I retired from personal blogging in July 2008.
But you can find me over at http://blog.xero.com.
Well, this is getting interesting.
Hon David Cunliffe
Minister of Communications
National leader John Key’s stumbling into the broadband investment issue
risks putting the price up, says Communications Minister David Cunliffe.“Of course New Zealand needs better broadband,” Mr Cunliffe said. “The
Labour-led government is delivering that after a decade of neglect in the
1990s by National when Maurice Williamson, their invisible spokesman, was
minister.“But John Key suggesting now that he would commit taxpayers to funding the
National-caused investment gap could be a costly blunder.“Telecommunications companies collectively make hundreds of millions of
dollars profit every year from New Zealand consumers. If the companies think
taxpayers via the government will do their investment for them, why would
they spend their own money?”Mr Cunliffe was criticising suggestions Mr Key made on Radio New Zealand’s
Checkpoint programme last night that National would use taxpayers’ money to
fund broadband infrastructure.“There is solid evidence of underinvestment in broadband infrastructure,” Mr
Cunliffe said. “Recently Telecom said at least $1.5 billion needed to be
invested by it and other industry players. That may be conservative.“Today, one company’s mainly overseas shareholders are learning of a $1.1
billion windfall. At the same time, National wants taxpayers to pick up the
tab for the next generation of New Zealand’s networks. It is a good thing
John Key does not have the public chequebook.“The industry is at a critical junction with local loop unbundling on a fast
track and the issue of operational/structural separation open for public
comment. A true leader would not blunder in at such a time. National would
be well advised to put its brain into gear before running off at the mouth
with taxpayers’ money.“Clearly, this is more evidence of John Key’s PR advice to try to mimic
Labour in areas of the government’s strengths. While flattering, the public
will not buy ‘Labour lite’ when it already has the real thing. It is also
fiscally irresponsible, like National pursuing tax cuts for the rich while
every week promising to spend more money in the face of an economy that is
already running hot.“It is ironic that National is becoming a born-again nationaliser after
decades of neglecting the country’s infrastructure, but it has no
credibility. It is the Labour-led government that is delivering on sound
policies.”
What Key said …
Transcript
Checkpoint Radio New Zealand NationalMay 3 2007, 5.33pm
PRESENTER: The National Party has signalled its interest in the idea of
government investment in the country’s sluggish broadband infrastructure.
Party leader, John Key hinted his party is exploring the idea, he was
speaking at an economic development conference in Christchurch. The
government said only yesterday that it currently had no plans to become an
investor in the country’s telecommunications infrastructure. Our economics
correspondent, Corin Dann was in Christchurch and filed this report.REPORTER (CORIN DANN): The idea that a modernised, super-fast broadband
network could be viewed by governments in the same light as infrastructure
like roads, has been growing in currency both here and abroad.The economic think tank, the New Zealand Institute touched on it in a recent
policy paper, while the Australian Labour Party has proposed spending
billions on a new broadband network if private enterprise also contributes.In Christchurch today, John Key told the Economic Development Association
conference that the issue of investment in broadband is something his party
has been discussing internally and views as important to the country’s
development.HON JOHN KEY (NATIONAL LEADER): It’s great, there’s no good to you if you
can’t get broadband connection and half of New Zealand can’t get it in any
decent form. So we’ve got to roll things like broadband out and that’s what
countries like Ireland have done. You can argue all the EU subsidies in the
world but in the end, they picked up money and spent it in places that would
grow their economy. So, yeah, we’re certainly going to make sure we control
government expenditure but, as equally important will be make (sic) sure
that our spending is in areas that will unlock that supply side of the
equation.REPORTER: When pressed after the speech for more details, Mr Key stressed
the party’s policy work on broadband investment was at a very early stage.
However he says nothing has been ruled in or out.KEY: I mean if in the end we thought that was the right outcome that’s a
possibility, but at this stage, you know, we’re working through that but
what we do know is that the internet is the single most successful device to
bring New Zealand to the rest of the world and it’s very difficult to do
that, particularly from the regions where there’s not good broadband
capability and, we just have to advance that process more quickly (sic).
I’m a bit puzzled by David C’s approach here. Trying to paint this as a big Government spend is erroneous and exposing. It’s self fundable. This issue is the investment profile for infrastructure at a country level is different from a publicly listed company.
Telecom Chairman Wayne Boyd is hammering this today …
“What investment is going to occur and who is going to fund it has been noticeably absent from the debate. Where is the robust discussion about the consequences of what is proposed?”
blog
We’ve forgotten our history - private enterprise does not deliver nation-wide infrastructure. The railways had to be built by the government, the national highways were built by the government, the electricity system was built by the government, the gas pipeline system was built by a government owned corporation. And this is before we get into water, sewers and other infrastructure.
It may make sense to privatise some infrastructure investments after they have been built but government commitment is needed to get the job done in the first place.
Not to mention the fact that a broadband infrastructural spend would have a short to medium term payback - not just i the obvious GDP and productivity growth (which in itself is enough of a reason to invest in it) but in the user spend to utilise the backbone.
Roads only attract one side of that equation - A government supported backbone is a no brainer as far as I can see
It does bring to light what seems to be a fundamental difference in the political rhetoric coming from the 2 main parties.
Labour’s line seems to be, “National this, National that, we’re better than National, National’s ideas are crap, blah blah blah”
And from National (Key) we get, “Here’s our ideas, here’s where we think the country should be heading, this is what we’d like to do, etc”
Notice the difference? There’s a marked lack of time wasted criticising Labour and more focus from National.
From Labour all I hear lately is whining. Remember the Simpsons episode where Marge is nagging Homer, and eventually her words turn to clucking noises..?
We have a ruling party who’s blather is rapidly turning into meaningless clucking noises.
It’s a shame we can’t learn anything from other countries
http://www.technologyevangelist.com/2007/05/michael_render_on_pu.html
Jason - I’m not hearing the same “clucking noises”.
If they can all get their heads together on something as trivial as the “anti smacking” bill, then perhaps there is some hope for consensus on really important issues like superannuation, infrastructure and monetary policy.
Some things are more important than party politics and Labour and National are not as philosophically removed from each other as they would have us think.
On the radio …
http://www.radionz.co.nz/__data/assets/audio_item/0006/915171/mnr-20070504-0757-Broadband-wmbr.asx