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:19613] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think it is fair to say that the debate on the preliminary clauses is one in which there is a certain review of what has happened. In particular we go to the appropriateness of the dates and times that are set out. I think it is also fair to say that Labour will not be heavily opposing clause 3 of the bill. It is probably the best clause in the whole bill. It is one of the few that the Minister for Communications and Information Technology has managed to get right and get through unamended. It is probably an indication of the problems the Minister has had with the bill that there are so few clauses within the bill that are unamended.  
I think it is also fair to say that one could invent a number of more appropriate titles for the bill. For example we could call it the “Telecommunications (TSO Broadband Telecom Subsidy and Avoidance of Regulatory Matters) Bill” or a number of other things.  
It is probably important at this stage to restate Labour’s point of view vis-à-vis the bill overall and to restate the warnings that have occurred earlier. I want at this stage to thank Dr Brash. I am not quite sure of the rules and whether we are allowed to address people outside the Chamber but in passing I thank Dr Brash for drawing the attention of the media to some comments I made last week during the Committee stage.  
It is important to make clear that this legislation will be the subject of a review by the new Government. The implication of that is that there will be more legislation that drops out in 2020 and 2019 than there is currently. With that goes a warning that with a change in the regulatory method and in the financial arrangements people who enter into this sort of arrangement do so at some risk.  
I have heard some criticism from members opposite—though notably not from Sir Roger Douglas. I thought it was telling that Sir Roger Douglas who does actually understand regulatory reform and the right of Governments to make changes going forward was not at all critical whereas Dr Brash who is opposed to broadband and made it clear during his task force report that he thought Government involvement in broadband was a waste of money was critical.  
We have made it very clear that the Commerce Commission will be involved in this area in a way that it is not allowed to be under the current legislation. That could well have—it will almost certainly have—implications in the regulatory arrangements for Telecom if in fact it positions itself to get into this contract. The difference between this approach and say the approach used in the past by for example Sir Robert Muldoon is that there is clear notice of this fact before Telecom makes the decision to structurally separate and before the final contractual arrangements become effective. So if Telecom chooses to continue down this track it will do so in the full knowledge that there is a very real possibility of a change in regulatory environment within the term of this arrangement and that it is at some risk of not being able to have what any thinking person would regard as excessive profit and an excessive regulatory advantage during that time.  
It is nothing that could be compared to the Chilean experience for example or that of a number of other countries where there have been nationalisation-type approaches without notice. It may be that for regulatory change and legislation change the legislation is reviewed and changed and the Commerce Commission is involved. Both Telecom and Chorus are at some risk in this and both of them are satisfied with the ongoing situation. But there is a very real risk if this matter is not made clear to them. I am sure that Steven Joyce being a responsible Minister and in fact one who would probably like to stir the pot as well will make clear to Telecom the risks that sit there for the company including this particular risk. There is probably a whole pile of other risks he is not prepared to tell Telecom about but I think it is becoming clear to Telecom that it does not have legislative certainty over the period of this contract.  
A point I want to make and really reinforce is that there is nothing this Government can do by way of contractual arrangements that indemnifies Telecom against future legislation. It has to be made absolutely clear in this Chamber that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament. This Parliament will not be and can never be in the position whereby it is bound by a predecessor. Each Parliament is unique and each has the ability to make decisions. If a Parliament makes changes it could well be criticised for them and that might be appropriate but that is something we want to make clear will not happen. 
There are a number of things that one could do in order to defer this legislation coming into force. Again I acknowledge Sir Roger Douglas and the fact that he has taken a principled position on this legislation. I think it is relatively unusual to share some of his views in relation to the quality of regulation. I find it very surprising that Rodney Hide the current Minister for Regulatory Reform could possibly vote for such an abuse of regulatory powers as forms part of this bill. But it is good to know that at least some of the ACT members are prepared to act by the party’s principles.  
The party I very much have regret for in relation to its position and its stated vote on this legislation coming into force is the Maori Party because through this legislation it is undermining a significant Maori asset in 2degrees. There has been a lot of argument over a period of time about the appropriateness of the decisions I was part of back in 2000 when working at the time with Bill Osborne as I remember now—I do not know whether Bill is even still involved—in order if we like to avoid— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Did you ever play football with him? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I did play football with Bill Osborne and I lasted the game and he did not. Poor old Bill ended up with a rather severe heart problem as a result of that game. It was not a heart problem of the sort that Bill in his playing days might have been more renowned for.  
The point I am making is that this change is one that significantly undermines the assets of 2degrees. It means that that company will be much less competitive and that it will find it much harder to attract capital. I think it is bad that Maori are treating Maori so badly.