It’s interesting as a first term MP to watch what happens at the end of the year. A lot of decisions are dropped into the public arena in the week before Christmas when people have switched off and the regular media go on leave.
It’s a tactic, but it can backfire. I’ve always thought the best approach is to be upfront.
This week several things have happened in the broadband space which need commenting on and further scrutiny in early January. They indicate all is not well within the Ministry of Economic Development (MED) and with the Govt’s much touted ultrafast broadband scheme (UFB).
Firstly, Ralph Chivers, who was project managing the UFB project within MED has upped sticks to become government relations adviser at Telecom. Go figure!
A straight up kind of bloke, Ralph is a guy who likes to get things done. Why he’s left means he wasn’t happy with the way things were going and why he went to Telecom is interesting, because Telecom feels very left out of broadband.
Meanwhile, Telecom has asked Communications Minister Steven Joyce to allow it to make a “small number of changes” to its undertakings on operational separation to allow it flexibility on ultrafast broadband.
Yeah right. This is third time this year Telecom has sought a variation. But more importantly, the variations, as I understand it are about Telecom’s positioning for whatever decision the government makes on who gets to roll out broadband. These are not small changes.
To cut to the chase, it’s my understanding that MED is not a happy place. That the broadband scheme is overly complex and bureaucratic and that there are disagreements on key aspects of it. That Treasury (led by Bill English) which doesn’t support the use of $1.5 billion of taxpayers money on what it thinks to be a folly, is standing back and watching and waiting.
And that no-one knows what to do about Telecom. More on this later, as the elephant in the room could turn the whole broadband project into a big white elephant.
And now, the Crown Fibre Holdings Company, which will administer the rollout of UFB, has appointed a former Telecom senior executive Graham Mitchell as its new CEO. Interesting.
Meanwhile, the inscrutable Steven Joyce continues to hold his cards close to his chest.
Good that you are pursuing this.
There is and always has been something of a revolving door between regulated industries and the government entities that regulate them.
You might think there is conflict of interest going on, but then, so long as favouritism in contracts is prevented, government has a real interest in having private sector experts involved. Appointing someone with a political science degree or LL.B. won’t provide much technical expertise. And unless the government hires an ICT person straight out of university, they will of course have worked somewhere else.
The thing to be vigilant about is any hint of favouritism in these revolving-door individuals when they are in government.
That, of course, is a separate issue from the decisions government makes about broadband rollout. There needs to be fairness/neutrality for all ISPs and fibre companies, and the government needs to make sure ultimately that consumers get the best deal.
I would like to see government plop down the $100 million it would take to install a new cross-Tasman cable and provide some competition in the wholesale side of things. Having a monopoly situation there lets the incumbent gouge all other ISPs, and ultimately that is passed on to the consumer.
Andrew
I think telecom needs to be split.A division where the govt owns and maintains the network and a retail sector where a service provider can “plug in” and provide service to whoever.That way we keep control of our network and we ensure its maintained and upgraded properly and it also satisfies the free market sector in giving access to network service providers.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by redalertblog: New post, “What’s going on inside MED?” – http://ow.ly/OJv1…
Al Zeimer – that would have worked if Telecom (including its network) wasn’t sold 20 years ago. Government would now have to buy the network back – or confiscate it Mugabe style…
Of course not. It doesn’t start with the most logical and most efficient option – renationalisation.
@Askewed: Considering the profits that they’ve gouged out of NZ for the last 20 years while watching the network degrade I don’t think confiscation would actually be that much of an injustice.
MED was, for some at least, conceived as an alternative power base to Treasury orthodoxy. Unfortunately, no-one told the old Ministry of Commerce tradition, as dry as anything in Treasury, of the need for an alternative approach. Whilst Labour was in power, MED toed the government line more or less, but now, to all intents and purposes, its post-1999 role has ended, and its main role is regulatory orthodoxy once again. There is much to comment on here – the loss of leadership at the top, the relationship between the minister and the department, the relationship between MED and NZTE, the relationship between MED, NZTE and MFAT, just for starters.
http://www.kordia.co.nz/?q=node/1336&area=media
Kordia, if I’ve got my fact right, is our still state owned telecommunications giant.
Having a go at Ministers is fair go, but I think it is highly regrettable you put words into Ralph’s mouth and say “Why he’s left means he wasn’t happy with the way things were going”.
People leave jobs for many reasons, and it really is grossly unfair to Ralph for you to purport to speak on his behalf.
You could have worded your blog post to say “This may indicate” but you have made a definitive statement on his behalf.
Trouble is David, the ministers have decided to say nothing about a possible spending of $1.5 billion of taxpayers amoney.
They dont want to come back and eat their own words. A popular menu choice this year from the National led Government.
@David Farrar. Compliments of the season David. It’s taken a few days to respond, but have been busy. Interesting you felt the need to leap to Ralph’s defence (when he didn’t need defending). Would be useful to know which hat you’re wearing in this comment. Then I can reply more appropriately.
I don’t write these things on a whim. $1.5 billion is a lot of money, even though it’s being spread over a lot of years. And it’s taking a very long time for the government to work out how to spend it.
Clare, David is right. Don’t put words in the mouths of staff. I have no party allegiances, but I know Ralph and the MO at MED. I haven’t spoken to him, but Ralph could have left for any one of at least four reasons:
1)Telecom made an offer he couldn’t refuse
2) His contract term was up and felt it was time to move on
3) He felt he had completed his task.
4) Your reason.
On the other hand, something needs to be done to get the broadband show on the road and Ralph leaving doesn’t help. We need a rule breaker and risk taker.