Williamson Maurice: Budget Debate 
Williamson Maurice: Budget Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:16572] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 During my Budget speech I will concentrate on one thing and that is the difference between the two major parties in their attitude to the roll-out of high-speed—in fact in the case of the National Party blisteringly high-speed—broadband Internet. I am very proud of the announcement that John Key made back in April about rolling out a fibre-optic network to at least 75 percent of New Zealand homes. Fibre optics is the future and National has been saying that. And I find it interesting that David Cunliffe has just recently said: “Labour has always said that fibre to the home is our goal as well.” So I put some questions for written answer to David Cunliffe and members will have seen these in their lists. My question asked where in the National Digital Strategy—I read it carefully and then I used a search engine—does it say even the words “fibre to the home” let alone that fibre to the home is the Government’s primary goal? He did not refer to it at all in the answers. I said that I had the digital strategy and he said: “No it’s in the draft revision of the digital strategy which I released last week.” So he saw where National had gone. We still have not seen the final version; it is still out for consultation. But “fibre to the home” has always been Labour’s goal? Yeah right—what a joke! Those members should have a look at the answers to my written questions and they will see it. 
I thought that the differences were glaringly obvious but David Cunliffe has actually put the spin exactly the wrong way around. He has said that National’s proposal is a huge subsidy to Telecom. Well he is wrong and he is wrong for this reason. The open access network we propose to roll out will give Telecom or any other private sector company no special rights no privileges and no benefit. Anyone who wants to participate and put some money and some skin in the game will be able to. 
But what has Labour proposed in this Budget? It is going to put in $325 million which will go almost nowhere. That will not get us fibre to the home. David Cunliffe says that that is an ambitious goal that is too ambitious for this country. Well it is not. But now the Government is going to spend $325 million. What will it do with it? It will give it to private sector companies and allow them to do their best to roll out fibre to the node not fibre to the home—and the Government will not get any return for it. If that is not the most appalling stewardship of public money! But the National Party will keep control of the $1.5 billion that we have announced. We will be a 50 percent shareholder in the vehicle that rolls it out. We will take a return on the weighted average cost of capital—a realistic return—and no public money will be wasted. 
I bet that like the Toyota salesman people will say that they would expect National to say that. So I thought I might have a look at what others have said about our proposal and what they have said about Mr “Conloffe’s” response— 
Pansy Wong 
: Who? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: —Mr “Conloffe”—because I think that that is really important. He used a quote today—from I think the  
Australian Financial Review 
; he did not say where it was from—and he made some derogatory comment. But he did not for example have a look at what was said by Ernie Newman the chief executive of the Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand. He is not National’s best friend. He has been known to bag the National Party and me in particular quite heavily. In fact there was a stage when I thought Ernie Newman had a Maurice Williamson doll in his desk and spent his day sticking needles in it. But members should listen to what he said about Labour’s broadband. He was glowing in his response when National announced its policy so on Budget night I thought his response would be interesting. He said: “But to be honest I feel a bit underwhelmed. The amount of money is pretty sparse and I guess I was anticipating more. The administrative processes are complex and slow—I foresee rosy times for the burgeoning Consultation Industry with lots of people huddled in interminable meetings. By the time the consultation evaluation and analysis is done hamlet by hamlet will the amount of money left to dig trenches through the streets of Waitotara cut the mustard.” That is what he said. That is not what one could call a glowing endorsement from the Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand. 
He went on: “I know Budgets are necessarily factual and a bit boring”—well Michael Cullen has taken that to an art form—“but I did hope to see a bold vision statement about the outcome.” And members will love this—this is my favourite bit: “It was always going to be hard for Labour to upstage the very strong and visionary plan announced by National.” That is what Ernie Newman said on the Telecommunications Users Association website. By the way if members look at that site they will see that a second article is called 
“The morning after the budget” because I know that Ernie Newman got a bit of stick from David “Conloffe” and others asking how he dared to say that. So he reflected— 
Paula Bennett 
: “Count Conloffe”. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: —“Count Conloffe” said— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Mr Cunliffe said. So Ernie Newman said the next morning: “So I’ve slept on the Budget. Among the comments I made … was that I was ‘under whelmed’ ”. So he said he thought about it and he wondered whether what he said was fair. He said that: “yes it was fair as a reaction”. He continued: “the quantum of money is too small. $324 million over 5 years is just not enough.” and “the administrative process”—announced by David Cunliffe—“is awful.” 
But look there are another couple of crackers including one press release that I simply love. Here is one that members would not expect. It is one that none of us expected. It is from Andrew Little of the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union. Andrew Little is almost the leader of the Labour Party. He will be the next Labour leader if Phil Goff does not sew up the leadership. This is what he said and I have his press release here if members do not believe it: “The Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union says John Key’s policy of rolling out fibre optic cable to 75% of New Zealand homes is a step in the right direction”. Then he goes on to say: “We really want to see this sort of project happen as any investment that will increase productivity in New Zealand is good for our members …”. So we have Andrew Little onside. 
But wait there is more—[ 
Interruption 
]—I am afraid there is a lot more. I want again to paint the picture of the stark contrast between National future-proofing the nation and making sure that our nation is wired up so that our kids can stay and participate in our economy and “David Conloffe” who says no fibre to the home— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member may well be having difficulty in correctly pronouncing Mr Cunliffe’s name. I had not noticed it before today but something might have happened overnight or it might be deliberate. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Mr Deputy Speaker I must say that the Prime Minister called him “David Conloffe” in the House the other day and no one picked her up on it. If his own leader does not know how to pronounce his name properly then I think it is unfair to make a humble backbencher from the Opposition comply— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No no. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: —but I will try. I will call him the Minister because he is running the show. 
I will now go to some of the other organisations that were pretty effusive about where the Minister may have been going until National made its announcement. For example the Internet Society of New Zealand’s headline states: “InternetNZ commends National Party fibre commitment” and goes on to say: “InternetNZ welcomes today’s announcement by National Party Leader John Key …”. I understand that the deputy chairperson or president of InternetNZ is a guy who is the Labour candidate in Paul Hutchison’s seat. 
Hon Members 
: Oh really? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes I cannot remember his name— 
Pansy Wong 
: Who? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: —that is right: who—but he is the Labour candidate and InternetNZ is saying that. 
I have another press release: “Bold broadband plan huge stimulus for business”. That is a cracker and it is from the Employers and Manufacturers Association: “The National Party’s economic plan that includes investing up to $1.5 billion in ultra fast broadband is applauded by the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) or EMA.” This is what Alasdair Thompson had to say: “This is one of the best pieces of news for business and the whole economy in a long time.” 
I am happy to keep putting up these examples. There are heaps more and the statements have been very clear. I will have time to read out only a couple more but they have all been very welcoming. Labour would have been way better to say: “Yes we think that the time has come for fibre to the home—the products the services the innovation and the economic transformation that will be achieved by a nation that has blistering speed Internet not the nickel and dime approach whereby we have got to 5 megabits and next year hope to squeeze it up to 8 megabits.” That is down of course; with up-speed we are getting nothing like it because the “A” in ADSL stands for asynchronous. 
I ask the Minister this question: how is National’s proposal a subsidy to Telecom? How come? In no way does Telecom get any of the money because the money we spend will be spent on rolling out fibre. If Telecom wants even to be a participant it has to bring some skin to the game. It will have to put up its own money as will lots of other partners to make the vehicle that is the public-private partnership. I can tell this House without fear of anything that if Telecom is a player in that there will be no form of subsidy to the company. It will be Telecom’s own money that it will be putting into the game to be just one of many participants. 
But that is not so with Labour’s proposal. Labour’s proposal is to take $325 million over 5 years—$65 million a year which is less than what Maryan Street spends at a lodge on a weekend with some of her people—give it to private sector companies and tell them to do their best. If that is not the worst example of Labour having now gone in the completely wrong direction in relation to achieving the outcome then I do not know what is. 
I wish I had more time. I think I will go to one more example and it is from Business New Zealand. Again that is an organisation that is pretty frugal with taxpayers’ money. It does not like the Government going out and spending taxpayers’ money unless the spend is well-thought-out. The headline on its press release states: “Additional investment the key to broadband policy”. This release is from Phil O’Reilly the boss of Business New Zealand: “ ‘National’s plan to speed up provision of broadband to most premises is welcome' says Business NZ. Chief executive Phil O’Reilly says a public-private partnership is a logical way to spread the cost of such a huge undertaking.” 
I am damn proud of John Key and the National Party for what they have done on broadband and Labour’s response under David Cunliffe is pathetic.