Parker David: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Parker David: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19700] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the third reading of the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: That’s good because that’s the one we’re on. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I thank Mr Williamson for his very lucid contribution. It actually made more sense than most of his contributions in this House. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Oh that’s— 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That was a bit unfair and I retract that statement. 
We have heard from prior speakers that Labour is disenchanted with both the process and the content of this bill. I want to reflect on what I think is the poorest aspect of this bill which relates to the uncertainty we still have as to the future regulatory environment in respect of broadband in this country. The bill as it was introduced to the House had a proposal that ousted the jurisdiction of the Commerce Commission. That proposition was widely criticised at the Finance and Expenditure Committee by almost everyone except Telecom. Those who criticised it included both consumer representatives and other industry competitors. Why did they criticise it? They criticised it because they said that the existing telecommunications law provided a framework that ensured they had at least an ability to compete with the dominant supplier in New Zealand Telecom and that those protections were found in the Commerce Act. They said that they have had decades of problems with the dominant Telecom exercising its dominant position to their detriment but that in recent years they had made progress in competing against Telecom by relying on the changes to the law and by way of using the powers that the Commerce Commission has if there is improper conduct—that is uncompetitive practice by Telecom or any other party using its dominant position. 
The effect of the proposed changes in the bill was to oust the jurisdiction of the Commerce Commission. The other competitors said that that put at risk their ability to compete in the market because they could be subject to uncompetitive practice which could effectively make them unprofitable in areas or make the risks too great for them to have confidence to invest in these areas and therefore they would not invest in these areas. As a consequence the New Zealand consumer as well as those competing companies would be worse off because they would face inappropriate conduct or the risk of inappropriate conduct by Telecom without having an effective remedy. 
The Labour Party was convinced that that was right the ACT Party was convinced that that was right the Green Party was convinced that that was right and the Maori Party was expressing nervousness about that as well. Despite representations by all of the submitters and by the other political parties no change was made to that legislation at the select committee. 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: Because you didn’t have one. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No change was made at the select committee. The Minister for Communications and Information Technology just piped up and chirped that that was because we did not have one. Well he has been in Government for 2½ years and he is saying that he did not have a solution at the time of the select committee. 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: We found one. We found the solution. We found one. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Now he has chirped that he found one. Well what he found was a convenient solution to get him out of the political dilemma that he faced which was that he was not delivering on his pre-election commitment to roll out broadband in New Zealand. 
What happened was that the bill came back to this Parliament without amendment. The bill came back to this Parliament without amendment and then the Minister— 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: Come on. Vote for broadband. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —without amendment in respect of this important issue—and then the Minister had a road to Damascus experience. He had found some new solution. He had found some new solution that had not been apparent to him or to his officials during the previous 2½ years. That is what he would have this House believe caused him to change this legislation by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. The alternative view of that history is that his Cabinet colleagues and officials having heard the criticisms of what was being proposed were nervous that they could not carry it off that they would not get the votes for it so they changed their position and instead of ousting the jurisdiction of the Commerce Commission have left a jurisdiction for the Commerce Commission. 
Yesterday in the Chamber the Minister criticised me for saying that we are unclear as to the effects of the contractual substitute he has for protecting Telecom from the consequences of Commerce Commission intervention. I cannot be certain whether I am correct in what I said in the Chamber yesterday because I have not seen the contract with Telecom—none of us has seen the contract other than the Minister who may have seen drafts of the contract with Telecom—but none the less he criticised me for misrepresenting the nature of that contract. 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: That’s right. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: “That’s right.” says the Minister. He has confirmed that criticism. The problem we have in this Parliament is that we do not know the exact terms of that indemnity or top-up payment that is promised to Telecom. 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: It would help if you read the bill. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I tell the Minister that it is not clear from the bill what the provisions of that contract are and the terms of that contract have not been released to us. So we are being asked to pass this legislation on the promise from the Minister that we should trust him. I am not saying he is untrustworthy in a dishonesty sense; I do not want to make that implication—let me make that clear to the House. But we are being asked to trust his judgment on that matter. We are being asked to trust his judgment on that matter notwithstanding the mistakes made earlier in the process that I have already articulated and notwithstanding that we cannot see the contractual provisions that we are told affect this situation. 
We are being told that the effect of these provisions would be to make up the lost revenue. I am not being told that by the Minister; we are being told in the newspapers and by some of the industry competitors that the effect of these contractual provisions will be to make up the loss of revenue that Telecom might suffer in the future should it be the subject of regulatory action by the Commerce Commission. So if that is right—and the Minister says it is not but he will not produce the contracts to show that it is not; he expects us just to take it on trust—the effect of that would be that what the Minister cannot achieve by way of legislation in this Parliament because this Parliament will not pass legislation that gives Telecom a blank slate in terms of future competitive practice in the absence of Commerce Commission intervention he will achieve by resorting to a contractual route that gives comfort to Telecom. I think it is pretty obvious that it would be improper for the Minister to do through contract what he cannot achieve through change to the legislative practice. That is why we in this House have asked for disclosure as to whether that is the case. 
I want to turn to a couple of other points. The first point is obvious. Despite the fact that prior to the last election the Minister promised that by this time broadband would be rolled out in many parts of New Zealand we have not had that. We are actually still dealing with the paper rather than the physical fibre that delivers faster broadband access. The second point is that at no stage did he tell the public of New Zealand that in order for him to achieve his broadband roll-out those people who were not using it would have to pay for it. That is effectively what is happening here. I am told that the cost of copper-based connections is expected to increase as a consequence— 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: Oh rubbish! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Rubbish? The Minister says that is rubbish. Well we will put that on record through  
Hansard 
 
and we will see whether in the future as a consequence of this— 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: You’re making it up David. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No I am not making it up; I am repeating what has been told to me I say to Minister Joyce. The Minister says it is incorrect; well I hope he is right—I hope he is right. If the alternative is that there will be an increase in the price of copper-based access to the internet that is not something people were warned about and that is one of the things industry participants have been saying. I am not the Minister and I do not have the same quality of information that he does so it is possible that he knows better in respect of some of these areas than I do and I concede that. But in respect of the issue as to competition practice I do not accept that he is better informed than the rest of this House. That is why the rest of this House did not agree with the ouster of the Commerce Commission jurisdiction. 
I also want to refer to the way in which the Government has now garnered the Maori Party vote. The Maori Party says it is voting in favour of this measure because it has agreement from the Government to set up a working party to consult on broadband delivery for iwi. Well again for me that sort of has shades of the deal that was done in respect of changes to the emissions trading scheme. If the effect of that working party— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.