So I’ve slept on the Budget.
Among the comments I made was the summary that I was “under whelmed” with the broadband investment plan. I guess when you use language like that its inevitable that the media pick the word for a headline, especially when they’re under heavy time pressure to compile the Budget issue.
It got a bit more exposure than I’d bargained on when I wrote it on this blog. So this morning I mused whether “under whelmed” was a fair statement on reflection, or whether I regretted it next morning. And I decided “yes it was fair as a reaction, but.”
The “but” is this. The underlying plan is pretty solid and well conceived. The notion of handing control of broadband destiny to regions has a lot of appeal. The government can make a persuasive argument why it believes a decentralized, bottom up approach run by local interests will leverage significantly more private investment than a single nationwide contract of some kind. And the Labour scheme dovetails very effectively with the current regulatory settings that Labour has, very effectively, introduced.
So maybe yesterday I could have been more generous in acknowledging that underlying strength.
Yet the negatives that “under whelmed” me remain. They’re in the detail, but it’s important detail.
First, the quantum of the money is too small. $324 million over 5 years is just not enough. Comparisons with national’s $1.5 billion were always going to be inevitable, and as a taxpayer I want to see money used efficiently and sparingly. But instinct tells me this won’t go very far.
Second, the administrative process is awful. The last round of the Broadband Challenge was unwieldy and seriously put off some of the people involved. Yet instead of fixing that based on experience the government is now conceding that the time from EoI to decision (note “decision” not “payment”) is to be ten months. That’s just not acceptable to prospective investors, and also implies a heavy layer of bureaucratic input that will drain the core funding unduly.
Back to the positives, Labour should be given credit for exposing the detail. In contrast, National’s plan lacks a lot of critical detail. I understand why – opposition parties don’t have the resources governments do, and also have an understandable desire to keep powder dry until closer to an election. But it’s really important that National put more cards on the table soon to promote informed analysis.
The best solution for New Zealand may be a mix of both parties’ policies. Both have some real strengths but both have shortcomings too.
TUANZ needs some time now to reflect before we take a definitive view. Our Board meets the week after next, and I’m already getting feedback from members around this. It’s a crucial topic for the future.
Tell us what YOU think. Go on.