Heatley Phil: Communications Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Heatley Phil: Communications Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5453] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I acknowledge my colleague Hone Harawira who certainly has experience in radio and television and has something to add to this debate. I listened to him with interest and I appreciate his contribution. We in the National Party of course also support the Communications Legislation Bill because we believe it addresses technical issues to do with communications legislation that need addressing. As we are a party of principle and a party that enters into rational debate and quite clearly makes sensible decisions we can see the value of this legislation and we will absolutely support it. 
The bill’s amendments address issues that could otherwise cause disruption to the effective regulation of communications—and we would not want to see that. We know that the Minister has enough problems on his plate without having to deal with serious disruptions in communications. I know that Minister Cunliffe is very busy juggling balls between on the one hand what he is trying to achieve in changing the country and making a difference in a way that he thinks is for the better and on the other hand having to deal with wayward colleagues such as Taito Phillip Field. That cannot be easy and the National Party would not like to see a disruption in effective communications add to the Minister’s woes. I do not want to see Minister Cunliffe weeping in the corridors. We do not want to add to his woes so we will certainly support this bill. 
The two main Parts will be divided into separate bills at the Committee stage and we will hear more about that in the next stage of the debate. First of all Part 1 will amend the Telecommunications Act 2001 by extending by 2 years—that is roughly to December 2008 so it will be a little more than 2 years—the regulation of 10 of the 13 telecommunications services that were originally regulated under that Act way back then. We see the extension to 2008 as being a reasonably smart move. 
 Part 2 amends the Radiocommunications Act 1989 by updating the management of the radio spectrum. Radio spectrum management rights are for 20 years and the bill allows for the aggregation of rights to simplify the management process. In addition adverse impacts on inappropriate receivers—such as band expanders used in imported Japanese cars—are not to be considered when distributing radio spectrum as this could limit the full utilisation of the available spectrum. The bill also introduces an option of arbitration in resolving disputes between radio broadcasters. The National Party supports all the aspects addressed in the second part of the bill and can understand the reasons for them. 
Under the Telecommunications Act 2001 telecommunications companies can apply to the Commerce Commission if they want a determination on the terms and the price of access to specified services. Thirteen services were identified and 10 remain under consideration. It is difficult to believe that we have made progress on only three of those services. However there is an extension of the time frame now. We deem that necessary and that is why we support this bill. 
Speaking of the Telecommunications Act 2001 I say that way back in 2001 the then Minister of Communications Paul Swain—before he saw the writing on the wall for the Labour Government and retired from his ministerial position—stated: “… for the first time we have established a framework for ensuring that the telecommunications industry can move forward in an orderly way.” On the key issue of increasing New Zealand’s broadband uptake the Telecommunications Commissioner Douglas Webb began his investigation into unbundling in December 2002. Almost a year later in September 2003 Webb released his draft recommendation in which he recommended quite clearly that Telecom should be unbundled. But then in his final report of December 2003 he then reversed that decision and recommended that only bitstream access be unbundled. 
That was an intriguing time for those watching the telecommunications industry—that a report from an independent commissioner should state in September 2003 that telecommunications should be unbundled and then his final report issued just a few months later should state that there should not be total unbundling and recommend looking at the unbundling of bitstream access only. The Government accepted that report in May 2004 having sat on it for 9 months. It hurriedly announced its decision on unbundling in May 2006. So it took Labour members 2 years. They accepted the report in May 2004 and no doubt formed a committee and hired some consultants. I do not know what they paid those consultants.  
Jacqui Dean 
: Perhaps a single consultant. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Perhaps it was a single consultant—a single silver-tongued consultant worth $8 million. I do not know. The Minister might be able to confirm how many consultants were employed in that period from May 2004 to May 2006. I calculate just quickly on my fingers that that is 2 years. The Government most definitely formed a committee possibly employed consultants for that period and came up with the decision that it would unbundle in May 2006. 
Of course this brings into question the role of the Telecommunications Commissioner the Government’s commitment to the process and the original time line. I say those three things quite sensibly. First of all the Government has brought into question the role of the Telecommunications Commissioner because effectively it went against his advice after having employed him. Secondly the Government’s commitment to the process is brought into question because it sat on the information for some time after receiving it and then went down a different path than what was recommended. And of course there were changes and tweaks during that period. 
Thirdly it brings into question the original time line. How could the Government ask something as important as what the future of telecommunications could be receive an initial report in May 2004 and then take 2 years—until May 2006; nearly a complete parliamentary term—to report back to this Parliament and to the nation on what it would do? It is quite an appalling approach in terms of the original time line. However National does support the bill. 
The Commerce Commission interestingly enough announced that it would begin investigations into the mobile phone market and in particular into the lack of new market entrants. A number of people are saying that there are really only two major players Vodafone and Telecom in the mobile phone market. Sure one can argue that there are other players but essentially there are two major players a lack of new entrants and therefore a lack of competition. This could lead to additional Government regulation. 
Clark told Newstalk ZB on 9 May— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will use the member’s full name. See Speakers’ Rulings 26/6 and 26/7. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Helen Clark the Prime Minister told Newstalk ZB on 9 May that the rules of the game had to change in the mobile phone market—and members might be shocked to hear that that is my wedding anniversary; she chose my wedding anniversary to announce that. On my wedding anniversary Telecom stock lost $240 million in value. Was that a gift from the Prime Minister to me on my wedding anniversary? I do not know. Thankfully I do not own Telecom shares because I would not have been able to pay for that anniversary dinner. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What did you get for your wedding anniversary? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: The Minister David Cunliffe might chip but he also spoke out and had an effect on the sharemarket. I hope he has learnt his lesson about that. 
New Zealand really has an extremely cumbersome system. Helen Clark’s comment was that we need to cut right through that. Her Government set up this cumbersome system and I think we should recognise that. Telecom did lose share value after the statements made by both the Minister of Communications and the Prime Minister and we should be very careful and cognisant of what comments we make publicly in this House and of course privately. I counsel the Minister in that regard. 
National does support this bill. It addresses technical issues to do with communications legislation. We will support it and we look forward to the Committee stage debate when we can go into more detail. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.