Wong Pansy: Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Wong Pansy: Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:634;Page:6109] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Despite the exciting speech delivered by the Minister National remains very reluctant to support the Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2). We do it only in order not to create more uncertainty in the telecommunications sector and for the current and potential radio frequency operators. 
In 2001 the Labour Government introduced the Telecommunications Bill which set up a 5-year time frame for the 13 regulated services to be investigated and finalised by the Commerce Commission. In 2001 one of the many Ministers of Communications in the last 7 years the Hon Paul Swain—it was his turn—proclaimed that the introduction of the bill would establish a framework to ensure that the telecommunications industry could move forward in an orderly manner. 
Well I doubt very much that anybody would believe that the telecommunications industry under Labour’s watch is orderly—it is anything but orderly. The uptake of broadband still remains slow. Billions of dollars have been slashed off the value of Telecom one of New Zealand’s biggest companies due to a U-turn and the incompetent handling of the unbundling issue. Of course now many staff working for Telecom are facing the prospect of job losses. What is worse after 5 years only three of the 13 regulated services have been investigated by the Commerce Commission. 
The House is now being asked to approve this legislation to allow for an extension of another 2 years. But the sad reality is that in the Commerce Committee when we listened to the submitters we learnt that they have by now come to accept slippage delays and the missing of time lines. Political meddling is now being accepted by those submitters as part of the Labour governance style. I doubt whether any business in the competitive world would have the luxury of simply extending a time line by 2 years without having to pay a penalty or go out of business. Sadly the Labour Government has no appreciation and no experience of business discipline or business risk. However reluctantly we will support the extension for another 2 years in order not to create even more chaos and uncertainty. 
During last evening’s Committee stage of the debate on the Communications Legislation Bill we learnt a lot more about the art of horse-trading and how the select committee process could be overridden. It did not reflect very well on how influential Labour’s rising star Shane Jones was on his Government. During the Commerce Committee’s consideration of the legislation it heard from the Radio Frequency Users Association of New Zealand which is a non-profit organisation whose members include local authorities the transport and courier sector the farming sector and private individuals. The prime function of that association is to protect promote and preserve the rights of organisations and individuals who require lawful access to the radio spectrum. Its members use a number of different radio bands to provide a large number of essential services to the public. The association was outraged because no consultation was carried out with it in regard to the changes introduced in the bill and it was very nervous about the security of tenure for land mobile radio licences. The Commerce Committee members were all of one mind; we shared the association’s concern and we believed it raised very valid concerns. So Shane Jones MP generously volunteered to extract an assurance from the Minister to elevate its concern and the select committee sought extension of time for that to happen. No assurance was forthcoming from the Minister and Mr Jones threw his hands in the air and conceded defeat at that time. Nonetheless the Commerce Committee was assured by officials that there would be no drastic policy change and that they would consult the association on their policy paper due to be released soon. 
It was then interesting for us to find out that New Zealand First tabled an amendment to the bill to address the concern raised by the association. The Minister of Commerce then suddenly had a change of heart and was willing to issue a letter of assurance to that group and New Zealand First duly withdrew the amendment. The Labour Government had the numbers to pass this bill anyway but it had to do a deal with New Zealand First and had to issue that ministerial assurance. So the interesting question is what Labour wants in return for the concession made in this instance when it did not even have to make one. What price is Labour asking in return for New Zealand First’s concession in this instance? The public should be worried that horse trading is now a blatant part of this Government’s method in situations where such an activity does not even appear to be necessary. 
As a member of the Commerce Committee I feel despondent and offended because the transparent process in the select committee was overridden. The Minister could have given that assurance to the select committee because we were all of one mind and we all supported the giving of the assurance. It could have avoided the time delay and upheld the transparency of the select committee not to mention not causing Mr Shane Jones to lose face. So National—reluctantly and just for the sake of not causing uncertainty in those sectors—supports these bills.