Yates Dianne: Communications Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Yates Dianne: Communications Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5455] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the member opposite for sharing the details of his family life with us. I am very pleased he could enjoy his wedding anniversary. I trust he was not giving us a little lecture on family values at the same time because it seems that a number of National Party people celebrate a number of wedding anniversaries. Nevertheless we are talking about the Communications Legislation Bill. The bill is not dealing with communications between individuals and their families; it is actually dealing as Maryan Street informed us with radio licences. 
This is an interesting bill. Let us get back to what it is about. The bill is intended to improve the regulation of the communications sector. As the introduction states: “Part 1 of the bill amends the Telecommunications Act 2001 to extend the period of regulation for 10 specified telecommunications services to December 2008 allowing time for a Commerce Commission review to be completed. Part 2 amends the Radiocommunications Act 1989 to clarify and update the radio spectrum management regime.” So this is all about radio licences. It is about radio regimes. As Maryan Street has informed us it is about frequencies. It is actually quite a technical bill. It is a reasonably small but quite technical bill about communications legislation. It has come under the guidance of the Minister David Cunliffe and we thank him for the work he has done on it. As has been mentioned he picked up from the work done by the previous Minister Paul Swain who was also a very able Minister. 
As people have said this matter went out for wide consultation. I was quite surprised that one of the previous speakers in this debate said there was no consultation. I noticed he was not a member of the Commerce Committee but that he was actually quoting from a submission to the committee. I remind members of the public that New Zealand is particularly good in its consultation processes. I was not a member of the select committee myself but I assume the bill had the usual form of consultation. It went out for public submissions no doubt being advertised in the major newspapers as bills normally are. 
The committee received only five submissions but it is the responsibility of the people who are interested in the bill to make submissions. I note that the committee heard three of those five submissions and it gave a comprehensive report. The committee made some changes to the bill but not a huge number—in fact I can see only one or two. One was to do with Ministers being satisfied that there was optimum utilisation of a radio frequency system. The other was about transitional rights of licence holders and what happens in terms of conditions lapsing if public funding ceases and so on. So although the committee made some minor changes I understand that generally it was unanimous in its support of the bill. 
I see that the bill was referred to the committee in May 2006 so I do not quite understand the comments made by the previous speaker. I wonder whether he got a little confused about the years. The Minister may be able to enlighten me as to whether there was a previous bill because I do not understand why the previous speaker was talking about May 2004. I think he was a little bit confused because according to the report this Communications Legislation Bill was referred to the committee in May 2006. The closing date for submissions was June so there was about a 6-week period for submissions to be received and they were heard. I note also that the Ministry for Economic Development gave advice to the committee. 
The committee has made reference to the definition of “interference” in clause7. I come cold to this bill but it does seem that there was a need to define the word “interference”. I will share that definition with the House. Subclause (4) states: “Section 2(1) is amended by repealing the definition of interference and substituting the following definition: Interference (a) means the effective radio waves owing to 1 or more emissions radiations or inductions or any combination of 1 or more of those things on the reception of radiocommunications; but (b) does not include any effect on the reception of radiocommunications by inappropriate receivers.” 
I think Maryan Street who was a member of the committee did go to great lengths in her speech to explain what all that was about why that definition was changed what all the implications are around the term “interference” and why that was important. As the report states: “Clause 7 amends the definition of “interference” In the Radiocommunications Act to clarify that it does not include any effect on the reception of radiocommunications caused by the use of inappropriate receivers.” 
To some extent I am not quite sure what this means. To me interference on the radio is a kind of static. Usually in our offices if we hold on to the aerial we stop getting that static. It seems that if a human being hangs on to the aerial for long enough one does not get that interference. I admit to the House I am not really au fait with what the select committee has done but I trust that good advice was given to it and no doubt the new definition is much better. 
The report states: “We recommend amending the bill so that the Minister can recommend that a receiver be declared inappropriate only if satisfied that the type of receiver concerned might compromise the best use of the radio frequency spectrum. This will make clear the purpose of declaring a receiver inappropriate.” I am getting a nod from the Minister who says he completely understands what his responsibilities are in this regard. I am glad he does and I am pleased we have a competent Minister in this area. He is a Minister who is fully cognisant not only of the contents of the bill but also of his responsibilities under it. We look forward to the Committee stage of the bill.