Cosgrove Clayton: Communications Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Communications Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3001] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 I must concede that Maurice Williamson was right about one or two things. I was quite perplexed by some of the very elegant scientific arguments he was making. We now know what Mr Williamson spends his time on in respect of his duvet so he tells us and he talked about this concept of tweaking one’s dipole. I suspect he may have spent too much time tweaking his dipole because I think that what he said did not have a substantial amount of relevance. 
The purpose of the Communications Legislation Bill as we know is to set out mainly technical amendments to provide sufficient communications in a regulatory environment. In view of Mr Williamson’s comments I would say that the National Party has a problem with this telecommunications bill and with other legislation that will soon come forth from this Parliament. It is called a lack of credibility. I should declare my interest. As one who worked in the telecommunications industry for a time—not for Telecom but for as it was then called Clear Communications—I may not have as eminent a knowledge of the technical parameters as Mr Williamson does but I do have a knowledge of the industry and I understand competition policy and a number of the things contained within this bill. Mr Williamson as I recall as the Minister of Communications— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: A very good Minister too. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —he is on his dipole again—was the staunchest advocate for Telecom. In fact when I worked for Clear Communications it was well known in the industry that no one was more staunch an advocate for Telecom than the then Minister of Communications Mr Williamson. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Who privatised Telecom? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Indeed the former Labour Government privatised Telecom. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Without any conditions. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No with the Kiwi share condition. There were a number of conditions surrounding the Kiwi share as the member knows. Mr Williamson spent a good 9 years defending like a fortress the monopoly position that is and was Telecom. The question is why. The National Party has zero credibility. 
As the Minister of Communications said earlier today we have had three versions of telecommunications policy from the National Party. Mr Williamson of course says the National Party does not have a telecommunications policy in place and is not undertaking any consideration of a policy. It is interesting that while we debate this bill Mr Williamson can stand up and pontificate on the technical aspects of it and tell us honestly—and he is an honest guy; I will say that—that the National Party has zip in terms of telecommunications policy. Then as Mr David Cunliffe has said there is Mr Ryall’s point of view which is that National is not putting up any fresh ideas deliberately. Well “deliberately” is right—National members are incapable of putting forward any fresh ideas full stop. That is the truth. 
The third National Party position on telecommunications policy is that of its leader. Interestingly at 10 to 10 last night—for those who were not here—he chose to walk in on the one bill he should not have walked in on and that was the Coroners Bill. The walking dead walked in on the Coroners Bill. I thought that was quite ironic. Dr Brash says that National would not reverse the unbundling announcement that Mr Cunliffe has made. What I am getting to in this speech in respect of the Communications Legislation Bill is that the National Party has been hard at it in respect of its dipoles but it has no policy and no credibility on telecommunications issues at all. So even though Mr Williamson was a staunch advocate for Telecom—not for the telecommunications industry but for Telecom—as Minister for nigh on 9 years my advice to National members would be to go home and think again because no one views that party as having any credibility. 
In my own patch there are telecommunications issues that will be dealt with by this bill in part but there are other telecommunications issues like toll boundaries for instance and the issue of what rural people will get out of this bill. Well I can tell people that after Mr Cunliffe executes his policy in my patch there will be no more monopoly in terms of telecommunications. No more will it be the case that the people of Kaiapoi have to make a toll call—using technology that possibly may be addressed in this bill—to Rangiora yet can make a local call to the southernmost extremities of Christchurch. Why has that been the case? Because of an absolute monopoly in respect of local calling. The question is why that position was protected for so long by Mr Williamson and why when his leader said he will support the new policy Mr Williamson again staunchly defends that position. 
Even after the chief executive of Telecom has told us that the company has been hoodwinking the market delaying dragging the chain and treating us as if we are ostriches with our heads in the sand—that is a good truthful statement and I am glad it is finally out there; it substantiates what I knew about the industry when I worked in it—Mr Williamson gets up and defends the good old position. He does that even after his leader says that National will support the new policy. Mr Williamson is staunch to the end. The last of the mavericks still stands up and supports his mates. [ 
Interruption 
] I just say that I look forward to the ongoing debate about the Communications Legislation Bill. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The member talks about the share price. Well if the member knew anything about the telecommunications market he would know that in whatever form an unbundling announcement is made—have a look at Australia—if the company the monopoly incumbent has never had a plan B has never invested and has never prepared for a day when a Government of some shade may unbundle the local loop then what happens? The share price takes a knock. Who is responsible for that? The dopey directors and board members are responsible—for not having a plan B not having invested in the network and not having a contingency plan for when market conditions may change. 
Members opposite show their ignorance of business if they assume that boards of directors never prepare for a market change. So for the good old Kiwi battler who had telecommunication shares the responsibility is sheeted home to those who did not have business plans to those who did not invest in the network and to those who did not have a plan B if market conditions would change. Those members show their ignorance. 
But we have a Telecommunications Commissioner to give good learned advice and learned advice has been given on this. Then we have these wonderful things called Ministers of the Crown in a Labour-led Government who have this wonderful skill called decisiveness. They actually make decisions. I know that for 9 years the then Minister of Communications in a National Government was incapable of making a decision—or just did not want to—in respect of trying to create a competitive environment for Kiwis and lowering the price of telecommunications. Was he incapable of making a decision or did he just not want to and if he did not want to the question is why. I will leave that for him and his conscience to answer. 
On this side of the House we listen to the Telecommunications Commissioner we listen to a number of experts within industries and then we come up with a policy and then we do something that is unique to us—we make a decision. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Is that why we have a Telecommunications Commissioner? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Is it not great; listen to them! The headless chooks on the other side of the House show their ignorance by their comments. I love it! I hope they do it at the next election. I love it! They show their ignorance by their silly comments. 
When average Kiwis consider the Communications Legislation Bill we are debating today and the other decisions that David Cunliffe has made and when they consider what they will face—they may be in rural communities like Rangiora where they have been screwed to the floor by artificial toll boundaries—they are loving it. They are licking their lips because those rural communities will get a competitor in there and they will get a choice as to who provides their telecommunications. Then the prices will drop. There will be no more street by street pricing and no more regional pricing. They will get a choice. 
I just say to Maurice Williamson a former Minister of Communications that I wonder what history will say about him. I am going to be complimentary. I say that history will say Mr Williamson as communications Minister for 9 years in a National Government preserved the castle preserved the status quo and preserved a monopoly position. Every Kiwi who pays more than the average Australian for his or her local calls rental and toll calls can thank Maurice Williamson. Every Kiwi who lives where there is a toll boundary and who does not have a choice with regard to local calling can thank the mystery man Maurice Williamson. I suggest he goes back and plays with his dipole a little bit more.