Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘Fran O’Sullivan’

Fran’s hoping for too much

Posted by Trevor Mallard on November 10th, 2010

 Don’t always agree with Fran O’Sullivan but her analysis this morning gets to the core of the choice we are facing in Economic Development.

Is John Key preparing to inspire New Zealand to make the leap from a consumption-led economy to one driven by a smart investment ethos?

A bit like Singapore, perhaps, with its strong focus on using domestic savings to fuel growth via the Government-initiated investment and savings funds which have provided much of the cash that has propelled the development of its companies in the past couple of decades.

and :-

So far there is little questioning – at least in public – of why the country has to wait until the oilfields are proven before taking a leaf out of Norway’s – or preferably Singapore’s – book to increase sovereign wealth.

The purists will inevitably chime in that the Government should retire its own debt before setting up another investment vehicle.

This is the kind of thinking that led Finance Minister Bill English to slash transfers to the NZ Superannuation Fund which is supposed to help offset the bigger burden super will impose on Government accounts in future years.

Super Fund boss Adrian Orr has already earmarked some of the fund for what is arguably a nation-building purpose by investing in various New Zealand entities like Shell’s downstream business and Auckland International Airport shares when each looked likely to be sold abroad.

Orr now wants to invest in New Zealand farms. The fund is also expected to co-invest with Fonterra in expanding its farms business overseas.

But the problem is that the fund is set up with an over-arching purpose of offsetting superannuation costs – not to help grow the economy by providing strategic investment capital.

Key yesterday dropped a rather strong hint that the Government would announce new policies to increase the savings rate in next year’s Budget.

English made a start in that direction in his May 20 Budget when he unveiled a tax-go-round that put more money in the pockets of working New Zealanders and reduced the tax rates on various savings vehicles.

Many Kiwis are now retiring personal debt at a faster clip.

But the Government is in a classic Catch-22. Does it continue to inject a large fiscal impulse into the economy by borrowing up large to fund Government spending (including the major construction projects) and middle-class tax cuts?

Or does it begin cutting Government spending faster so it gets on top of its burgeoning deficit?

This is not an easy decision – particularly as there is now considerable evidence that not enough of the additional money the Government has borrowed to fuel the fiscal stimulus is being spat back into the economy via growth-fuelling consumption.

At some point the question will have to be asked: is there any point in borrowing more to fund tax cuts if taxpayers simply use the extra to retire personal debt?

Maybe we would be better off tipping some of those “cuts” into a Government investment vehicle to provide extra capital for our companies to help fund their growth and create jobs.

I don’t think Key has the balls to veto English’s objections and run with it – happy to be proven wrong.


Critical infrastructure yes?

Posted by Clare Curran on March 4th, 2010

Two recent pieces of interest in the NZ Herald. Fran O’Sullivan’s piece yesterday titled: Failures make us look third world. About, yes you’ve guessed it, Telecom’s XT network failures and Transpower’s outage in Auckland.

She’s concerned that these outages were:

to put it kindly, more like what you might expect to occur in South America or parts of Southeast Asia

and then says:

Infrastructure failures do occur. But in Telecom’s case the excuses tendered by chief executive Paul Reynolds (who either doesn’t know what caused the failures or is simply using confusion to obfuscate what critics claim is the failure to scale up the XT network fast enough to meet escalating demand) verge on a Monty Python skit.

The absurdity of Transpower needing to call in police assistance to protect its workers when they went on to an irate farmer’s land to fix the electricity transmission company’s pylon was also bizarre.

Both these failures exposed the fragility of some of the nation’s critical infrastructure: Telecom does not have a back-up network for its XT service which will automatically kick in when failures occur.

And she hopes that the Govt’s national infrastructure plan will address the issues. But is concerned that it won’t go far enough. And I agree.

The second piece just updated on the Herald website is somewhat horrifying.

Telecom is giving out rival 2degrees’ services to key hospital staff on XT as backup in case the network, which has failed four times since December, goes down.

The Herald reports that this is what’s happening in the Canterbury DHB. Otago Southland DHB is reviewing its contract with Telecom and in the Hutt Valley, north of Wellington, Telecom began transferring clinical hospital staff to a reliable network after four outages that could have jeopardised emergency responses.

Capital and Coast, Blenheim’s Wairau Hospital and Hawkes Bay DHBs have either moved to pagers or are reassessing their contracts with Telecom.

So tell me that a functioning mobile network is not critical infrastructure?


Back to the 90s?

Posted by Clare Curran on June 8th, 2009

The end of free local phone calls. Foreign ownership of  Telecom. Scrapping the Kiwi Share, which currently requires government approval for any shareholder to acquire more than a 10% stake in our major telco. No it’s not the Labour opposition scaremongering. It’s proposals contained in a Cabinet paper, prepared by Bill English, posted on the MED website, which says Treasury will lead a review of the Kiwi Share. It’s creating some consternation out there. And when you look across the Tasman and ponder what happened when the Howard Government sold it’s majority in Telstra offshore, you have to wonder  why you would want to create a monster on our shores.

I raise this because it is becoming pretty clear that the National Government is intent on a creeping dilution of our regulatory framework and our regulatory body the Commerce Commission and it’s time we started talking about it.

The previous Labour Government put a lot of effort into strengthening our regulatory framework after the devastation of  the 1990s. In 2008, reforms to strengthen our legislation were supported by the National opposition.

Now it seems, in 2009 we are seeing some worrying signs of a weakening of that position and a shift towards the right wing approach to regulation.

In an opinion piece in the NZ Herald on 18 March, Fran O’Sullivan raised questions around the resignation of Paula Rebstock as the chair of the Commerce Commission and what the new approach to regulation would be.

She said “The Rebstock resignation does provide an opportunity for reform. But it is important to make sure it is soundly based. Not simply to suit the commercial objectives of individual companies.”

The concern I’m hearing is that we could be moving into a policy vacuum in regulation. One very worrying sign is the government’s silence on the reinstatement of the Telecommunications Commissioner. This is an extraordinarily important position at a time when stability and knowledge is required in a fast changing sector with huge reforms underway.

The telecommunications industry makes up just 3% of our GDP but this is growing and is one of the fastest growing industries in this country, as well as across the world. This is a time for strong leadership and for a transparent and robust regulatory approach. Labour understood this. It seems National doesn’t.

And I challenge this government to tell the New Zealand people why they’ve waited nearly six months to tell us what they’re going to do about the Telecommunications Commissioner position?