Cunliffe David: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19576] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Firstly I would like to come back and thank the Minister for Communications and Information Technology for taking an earlier call on the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and to pick up on some of the key points that he made about non-discrimination regulatory forbearance and point-to-multipoint services. I then wish to take up a couple of matters in relation to the Kiwi share replacement by the telecommunications service obligation covered on Supplementary Order Paper 247 in the name of Steven Joyce.  
On non-discrimination the Minister rose to his feet to say the Opposition failed to understand the matter because non-discrimination applied at both layer 0 which is the ducting and layer 1 which is the dark fibre. The Minister is strictly correct but he is telling only half the story. Non-discrimination applies at those layers but equivalence of inputs the gold standard in the industry does not—at least it does not to ultra-fast broadband fibre within the first 10-year period. I hope that the public can now be very clear about what is and is not covered. In other words the gold standard applies only to the downstream services not to the ultra-fast broadband fibre and the lower standard which is simple non-discrimination applies across the lot which is what the Opposition has said from the outset.  
Secondly on the regulatory forbearance period it is quite clear now that the Supplementary Order Paper repeals only part of it not all of it as the Government had initially said it would. This proves again what an opaque and difficult shadowy process there is. As we said earlier this matter was not reported to the Finance and Expenditure Committee; it was not put out for public scrutiny. What is interesting of course is that this emerged from a discussion between the Government and the Maori Party behind closed doors. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What’s shadowy about it? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: One of the shadowy things is that it is not clear whether the Maori Party got what it was asking for which was the removal of regulatory forbearance apparently. This Supplementary Order Paper which I doubt the member has even read does not actually remove all the regulatory forbearance provisions only part of them.  
The bill as introduced contained certain undertakings. To quote from the explanatory note on Supplementary Order Paper 247 “This Supplementary Order Paper removes regulatory forbearance from the Bill as introduced but retains an explicit restriction on the Telecommunications Commissioner recommending unbundling of point-to-multipoint layer 1 services.” The Minister to his credit did amplify that in his remarks. He amplified it by underlining that he was moving at an ultra-fast pace and these things would last until 2020. Good Lord! Until 2020? It is 2011 now and that is another 9 years of restriction the reason for which has never been made clear. The Minister might say he has had a private conversation with a former British Minister. I do not know whether that former Minister was speaking in an official capacity in a private capacity or in the capacity of someone hired by an industry participant or lobbying firm—I do not know what capacity it was in. It is quite common for former Ministers or MPs to be hired by well-heeled telecommunications companies to persuade other Ministers of the merits of the companies’ cases. But again this has emerged only in the debate on the Supplementary Order Paper which has been rushed to the Committee and has not had select committee consideration. It is part of a dismal legislative process.  
The next issue of course that has emerged only in the Supplementary Order Paper is the Kiwi share obligation. To the public out there the Kiwi share obligation was the golden share left in Telecom to guarantee the public’s rights when Telecom was privatised 20-odd years ago. It was changed in part to a set of contracts or deeds the minimum service standard which we called the TSO or telecommunications service obligation. But several critical aspects were left in the law not in the deed. The first was that a minimum amount of Telecom had to remain in New Zealand ownership: that only 49 percent of it I think could be owned— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am looking very closely at the bill. The member is referring to the Supplementary Order Paper. The Kiwi share obligation is not in Part 2. I ask the member to come back to discussing Part 2. If he wishes to speak about the Supplementary Order Paper it must relate to Part 2. 
Clare Curran 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. With respect the point of Part 2 is to address the replacement of the regulatory forbearance period with a new regulatory arrangement— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: It has nothing to do with the Kiwi share obligation—absolutely nothing. Stick to Part 2. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Mr Chairman you are quite correct that the substantive provisions appear in a different part of the bill. But the point I was making on behalf of the Opposition was that the process around the introduction of the change to the Kiwi share obligation was by tabling Supplementary Order Paper 247 which was not referred to a select committee. That was identical to the process around the point-to-multipoint services and the amendments to the regulatory forbearance period.