Street Maryan: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Street Maryan: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19575] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I understand we are debating Part 2 of the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and that is what I will address. It is not particularly my forte but I want to talk about the international obligations of telecommunications regulatory frameworks which I do know something about—at least I understand the international obligations. I will talk about those with reference to two things in particular but I will come to those in due course. 
I acknowledge that I was not on the Finance and Expenditure Committee which dealt with this legislation so I come to it perhaps with the advantage of fresh eyes but when I look at the bill in front of us now I see that it is clearly a dog’s breakfast. Most of its text has been struck out and replaced by other things in the course of the select committee process. There is more striking out and more underlining—which indicates new insertions in this bill—than one can shake a stick at. I am not persuaded that even with all of these amendments that have come through the select committee process we have made this bill the best it can be. 
I will pick up the comments my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe made a moment ago in respect of the regulatory forbearance period which was struck out—and rightly so. It was rightly struck out after considerable effort on the part of Labour members on that select committee who fought alongside industry representatives to ensure that that forbearance period that regulatory holiday was removed from the legislation. But I am not persuaded that what we have is a vast improvement. 
The two areas I will address in particular are New Zealand’s international obligations under GATS which of course is the General Agreement on Trade in Services and under our free-trade agreement with Australia and ASEAN known as the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement because international obligations exist for a regulatory framework to apply in the rolling-out of ultra-fast broadband. This may come as a surprise and perhaps it came as a surprise to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology which is why under Labour’s pressure he realised that the forbearance period was not tolerable and not sustainable. But I come to the fact that some advice that was available to the Minister members of the select committee and officials has been set aside. APEC has developed a document called  
APEC Best Practices for Implementing the WTO Telecoms Reference Paper 
. This as it describes sets out best practice. It essentially reflects the General Agreement on Trade in Services communications commitments. The document is not binding in international law and I readily concede that. It is not binding but it is about best practice. 
A number of questions the select committee had were referred to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade particularly to the trade law unit that is part of the legal division of the ministry which does the close analysis of legislation to ensure that New Zealand meets its international obligations. My question to the Minister given the dog’s breakfast of a process surrounding this legislation asks whether he can guarantee to this Committee and to consumers of telecommunications services— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will call the member again but I must ask you to come back to the part—Part 2. It is quite narrow. I ask you to come back to Part 2. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Thank you Mr Chair; I am of the view that I am discussing things that come out of the insertion of new Part 4AA in Part 2. It is that part that triggers these concerns about international obligations because the part goes to the obligation the rights and the responsibilities of the Commerce Commission to be the independent regulatory body that our World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations require. There should be an independent regulatory body—no I might have to correct that: the obligations may not require it but they certainly recommend it. 
I go back to my question which asks whether the Minister can guarantee that New Zealand is implementing best practice in this regard. There are parts in this Part 2 that the Commerce Commission has regulatory oversight over after a period of 8½ years but is this in fact best practice? Why has the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in its advice said to the committee that as the APEC document on best practice “only concerns consistency with New Zealand’s international obligations it is not considered further here.”? I am not sure that the Minister is able to reassure the Committee that this legislation not only complies with the detail of our obligations both under GATT and under the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement but also represents best practice for the regulatory framework surrounding the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband services to New Zealand consumers. I would like the Minister to take a call and respond to these concerns because it is not plain from Part 2 either that our obligations are being met or even better than that that we are doing the best we possibly can considering that we do like to pride ourselves on being at the forefront of the recognition and implementation of international obligations. 
The regulatory holiday was struck out in a secretive and cloaked manner and I am not persuaded that the process in relation to that was the best it could be. I consider that too many either unanswered or inadequately answered questions still surround this legislation particularly as it relates to those areas with which I am familiar which are the World Trade Organization and free-trade agreement obligations. 
Finally I speak in support of my colleague Clare Curran’s amendment to new Part 4AA inserted by clause 24 to add new paragraph (c) to section 156AD(3) which has the effect of ensuring that the Crown alone will bear the costs of any significant changes made to pricing. Here we come back to the potential for the Commerce Commission to have adequate oversight of and to operate as an independent regulatory body for the best possible delivery of what are becoming increasingly essential services for all New Zealand consumers. Thank you.