Mallard Trevor: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19619] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Anyone who got up on the hustings and said that Labour was opposed to ultra-fast broadband would be a liar. Anyone who got up on the hustings and said that we were opposed to rural broadband being improved would be a liar. Anyone who got up on the hustings and said that Labour did not support and promote the use of ultra-fast broadband for education would be a liar. Anyone who got up on the hustings and said that Labour did not support the use of ultra-fast broadband for health would be a liar. I do not know who would be stupid enough to tell lies in that way. I do not know who; I heard there might be one or two people around who are prepared to tell that sort of lie but they would be foolish to do so.  
Labour wants—and Labour has made this very clear—ultra-fast broadband. But Labour does not want an inappropriate subsidy to go to the overseas owners of Telecom and we do not want the inappropriate regulatory environment that is coming in under this bill. To be fair I think it is coming—and I do not think there is any debate about this—because the Telecom lawyers the Telecom engineers and the Telecom executives are a lot brighter than the Minister for Communications and Information Technology. They are a lot brighter than the Minister. 
They have basically conned him into an arrangement whereby they will have a regulatory environment where they will have a licence to print money. We are told that the average connection cost for Telecom is about $2500. We are told that the average connection cost for Vector is $700 or $800. That might be better explained in relation to the method by which they do connections and their concentration. That could be the reason. But we are also told that the average cost of this work would be $50 a month per consumer. Even Sir Roger over there can do the maths and work out that that is a 24 percent rate of return. It is a 24 percent rate of return on each of those connections. I say that it is just outrageous that we have a Government that puts into law a guaranteed return of that type then says that if the Commerce Commission finds later on that the company is rorting the Government will make up the money to it. If the Commerce Commission applies the rules even the bent rules that this Minister Steven Joyce is promoting and finds that Telecom or any other minor organisation involved has breached the almost un-breachable rules within this arrangement then there will be an underwrite for them. Well that is something that is clearly not acceptable to members on this side of the Chamber.  
What is acceptable to us is a fair set of rules. I think it is fair to say that under this bill which is due to come into force on the day after it receives its Royal assent—except the part that will come— 
Sandra Goudie 
: It’s OK; we understand. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well the idea that the retiring member understands broadband or legislative matters much less the pair of them put together is something that is making even her colleagues laugh. I can see Maurice Williamson rolling around in his chair laughing at the suggestion that Sarah—what is her name—Goldie— 
Grant Robertson 
: Sandra. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Sandra Goldie— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Goudie. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I apologise; she has made an impression on me over the years that she has been in Parliament! The suggestion that she understands is wrong.  
But I will go back to the question of the shape of the commencement clause and in particular the fact that as a result of the deliberations of the select committee that clause has been divided from one clause into four subclauses. I ask the Minister in the chair how those provisions will be affected if in fact Telecom chooses not to enter into structural separation as Telecom shareholders can do and are currently considering doing. Some Telecom shareholders are putting forward a good argument that they should sit tight maintain their copper network compete—because they have an advantage of incumbency for a long way around the country—and not proceed with the structural separation. I ask the Minister what effect that would have on clause 2(3) which is the requirement on Telecom to publish the date of the separation day. 
The next question I have is a drafting question. It is whether subclauses (3) and (4) which are about the separation day are in fact appropriate subclauses to have within a commencement date. We know that the separation day which may or may not occur is something that is involved in both Part 1A and Part 2A of the bill but I am not sure—and I would be obliged if the Minister would tell me—whether a separation day is something that is appropriate. We can see that subclause (2) of the commencement clause states: “Subpart 2 of Part 1A and sections 23HA to 23S come into force on separation day but only if an Order in Council has been made under section 23E.”. 
Here is an interesting question. I thought the  
Gazette 
 was an official document so how can Telecom publish something in the  
Gazette 
? How can Telecom gazette something? It cannot. The officials are wondering about that now. Clause 2(3) states that “Telecom must publish the date of separation day in the  
Gazette 
 as soon as practicable after it is known.” It may be that this in itself as part of a commencement clause creates a special right for Telecom to publish something in the  
Gazette 
 but does that nationalise Telecom? Only State organisations generally can publish in the  
Gazette 
 and often it requires a ministerial signature to do so. So is there any implication? As an old left-winger I now see a lot of potential here. Is the Minister having a sneaky nationalisation of Telecom here? I think it is fair to say that this Minister— 
Grant Robertson 
: MediaWorks has gone now so he needs— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well no; I think he is going to nationalise MediaWorks because— 
Grant Robertson 
: It’s broke. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is going to go broke. It is going broke; he has lost the Government’s money— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have allowed quite a wide-ranging debate but this debate is on the title and commencement clauses. It is fairly narrow and the former Minister there I think is going way outside the scope of what the title and commencement clauses are. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In all my time in Parliament I have never seen as part of a commencement clause a requirement for a private sector organisation to publish something in the  
Gazette 
. But that requirement is in this clause it is unique and it is therefore debatable. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I agree that that is debatable but I was struggling to see the relevance to the member’s argument of some of the illustrations he was using. In that respect I uphold the point of order. I ask the member to debate the issue upon what he said was in the clause. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: A new point of order? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well a related point of order Mr Chairman— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No I have made a ruling and I think it is fair. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: OK—all right. In an attempt to avoid the Chairman struggling— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Oh that is getting close to commenting on my ruling. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well Mr Chairman you did say that you were struggling to understand. I would not have said that myself— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will respond to that because the member knows that he cannot bring the Chair or the Speaker into the debate. So I rule him out on that ground. Proceed. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am sure you do resemble the remarks! The point I am making is that under the commencement clause in subclause (3)—but relating back to subclause (2)—there is a requirement for Telecom to publish a date of separation in the  
Gazette 
 as soon as is practicable after it is known. The question I am asking the Minister is whether this is the clause that grants Telecom the ability to act as if it is a Government organisation. Would this require a ministerial signature? Normally for something to go in the  
Gazette 
 it goes in by the authority of a Minister chief executive or similar. Who is the agent here?