Curran Clare: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Curran Clare: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19493] 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I have been listening closely to the discussion on Part 1A of the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. A number of specific questions have been put to the Minister in the chair the Minister for Communications and Information Technology and it would be very helpful if he gave the Committee the courtesy of taking a call and responding to them. I would like to hear specifically from him on a number of issues particularly on the issue of ministerial responsibility and how the Minister will make decisions. 
I will talk a bit more about that issue because it goes to the heart of this bill—that is the Minister making decisions about the structural separation of Telecom without regard for the people who will be most affected by it. Those people are the consumers: the people of New Zealand who use telecommunications services and broadband. It is unlikely that the vast majority of them in both urban and rural New Zealand will get access to fibre—as promised by this Minister and his Government—until at least the end of this decade. The more that is revealed about this issue the more it is revealed as a big con. 
I would like the Minister to address specifically how he sees Part 1A—clauses 23B 23C and 23H—in relation to how he sees that decision-making process. What issues will he take regard of? What advice will he take regard of and what consulting will he do with the regulatory body with the industry and with the public who will be affected? That is why the amendment that inserts new paragraphs ensuring that he must take consideration of the promotion of competition for the long-term benefit of end-users—he must take account of that—is so important. 
In relation to that point I mention the purpose clause of new Part 2A substituted in clause 23H in which a significant change has been made in this legislation taking away the balance in the competition for long-term end-users and putting into a much stronger weighting the regard—the interests—of investors. In fact the provision puts the interests of investors above the interests of end-users above the long-term interests of end-users and above the importance of competition in that area. This is why it is such a significant issue and needs to be addressed and why clauses 23B(3) 23C and 23H are so important. I would like to hear from the Minister today how he will make those decisions on the structural separation and whom he will listen to and consult in doing that. 
I will address again in a bit more detail our proposed amendment to clause 23ZE which would allow parties to take legal proceedings against Telecom for breaches of the current operational separation. This is another important issue we need to hear about from the Minister. The Minister needs to explain to this Committee and to the public of New Zealand whether existing breaches being heard in civil actions against Telecom will continue to be heard how that will happen and what will happen if breaches occur in the interim before structural separation takes place. How can the public be assured that they will be heard and that Telecom will be held to account? There have been a number of breaches of undertakings. There have been a number of other anti-competitive behaviours—I think it is as least 19—which my colleague Trevor Mallard has mentioned a couple of times in the Chamber today. There has been a most significant one in recent times in which Telecom was fined $12 million which is the largest fine through such an action that this country has seen. 
Our argument is that these issues are significant in this legislation through which the structural separation of Telecom will create new entities because as yet it is unknown how the separation of those entities will occur and where competition will be able to occur in the community at the retail level. An enormous amount of concern was expressed during the Finance and Expenditure Committee hearing about how the accounting separation would occur and where it would occur. This is why the public needs to be reassured that the anti-competitive tendencies that exist within Telecom will not be replicated in the new entities particularly in the new Chorus2 body. 
I will explain this issue for the benefit of the public and people across the Chamber who do not have a clue what it means. At the moment Telecom is divided through operational separation into three different parts: a retail level a wholesale level and an infrastructure level. There are clear delineations between each of these parts. The undertakings between each of those parts are important. Under the new arrangement there will be two parts so a large part of the middle part—the wholesale part—will end up in Chorus. That will give Chorus an advantage in the industry. 
As yet it is unknown where that separation will be. The Minister will make the final decision and the final call about that issue without having to take due regard. That is why we need checks and balances within the legislation so that making the right or wrong decision is not all on the Minister’s head. It does not matter who the Minister is; that responsibility should not be put on the Minister without that Minister having to take due regard particularly due regard of the long-term benefits of end-users. This is why these amendments are so important. 
The Minister has sat in this Chamber all afternoon and has taken one call on this bill. I would like to think he has been listening taking note paying attention and taking seriously the issues that have been raised by members on this side of the Chamber and by the Greens. These issues are really important and go to the heart of how we can trust a structural separation that is taking place in one of our biggest companies in this country and of how we can trust the processes that have been put in place by this Government in relation to that separation. 
My colleague Grant Robertson talked about transparency. This Government likes to pretend it is transparent. It could demonstrate that it is transparent by the Minister getting up and telling this Committee how he will make those decisions and reassuring the public of New Zealand that those decisions will be made responsibly and that there will not be a secret process—a discussion behind closed doors that does not involve the rest of the industry does not allow the rest of the industry to have input and particularly does not allow the people of New Zealand to have input. 
The reason I keep talking about the people of New Zealand is that another gaping hole has appeared in this Government’s broadband scheme in a place called zone 3. Zone 3 is a bit like Harry Potter’s—where does he go? 
Grant Robertson 
: Platform 9¾. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: I thought it was platform 9½ but apparently it is platform 9¾. It is a place that does not really exist. There are potentially up to 470 schools in zone 3; the Minister insists it is much fewer than that but he has not provided a list of them. I have a list here of those 470 schools and they are in communities all over the country. There are big communities; Invercargill in Southland is a serious part of zone 3.