Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:6026] 
Communications Legislation Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 10 October. 
Part 2 Amendments to Radiocommunications Act 1989 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 We are very pleased to resume the debate on this legislation. There are three issues that we would like to bring to the attention of the Committee. First is the issue with regard to the position advised by the officials that stereos in second-hand Japanese cars that may not receive radio signals would not be considered an inappropriate device that would interfere with the allocation of radio frequency. National agrees with that position. In my hand I am holding a copy of the Ministry of Economic Development’s information leaflet on the FM reception problem and the Commerce Committee is quite comfortable for that education approach to be taken. 
I would like to seek comments or commitments from the Minister in the chair Pete Hodgson on the next two issues that I bring to the attention of the Committee because National members on the select committee were assured of some conditions before we agreed to continue to support this part. The first issue is the introduction of the possibility that in future the allocation of radio frequency will be conducted by means other than a competitive process. Some submitters showed a lot of nervousness about what the Labour Government could do in terms of interference and the introduction of a lack of transparency into the process. For example one submitter suggested that these provisions allow the Government to allocate radio frequency by means other than a competitive process which means that the Government can choose whom they negotiate with. Some commercial operators indeed feel very nervous. They reckon that under the existing legislation there is provision for Government to do that anyway. The submitter reckoned that this new provision was introduced to allow the Crown to require further payment to be made when radio licences are allocated by those other means because under Part 13 of the existing Radiocommunications Act the Crown could allocate those radio frequencies anyway. So is it an issue of introducing further levy payments by stealth? I think the Minister in the chair should take a call to assure those submitters that the introduction of this new provision to allow radio frequency to be allocated by arrangement or agreement is not an underhand way of charging further fees to those organisations who may be the successful recipient of frequencies. 
The other prospect of introducing this flexible mechanism raised a concern by others about the Government allocating those very sought-after radio frequencies in a very non-transparent manner. We heard the Minister not too long ago announce two additional frequencies for commercial use and two for community use in the various regions. Putting the community frequencies aside if the allocation of commercial frequencies is to be awarded without a transparent competitive process some people are concerned about what the criteria are and who is likely to receive those frequencies. They are a very marketable product. In fact people in the market to acquire radio frequencies could find that they attract very high prices. I believe that the Minister in the chair should take a call to assure the public that the introduction of new frequencies does not have a hidden agenda for interference by Government. 
The second issue I would like to raise before my other colleagues take a call—and once again I urge the Minister to rise and give the public an assurance—is the issue raised by the Radio Frequency Users Association of New Zealand. This association is a non-profit organisation consisting of members such as local government authorities and transport communications courier forestry farming taxi and consultancy organisations. These members use a number of different radio bands mainly for non-profit purposes. They are very anxious that in the first instance they were not consulted on this legislation and they were very very unclear as to what the impact would be on them. They are seeking an assurance that they will have security of tenure. During the select committee process I recommended with the support of all the members that the chair ensure that officials carry out further consultation with this group. But at the time we came to deliberate the issue had not really been resolved. That association wrote to us again and said it was nervous and had not been reassured of the tenure of those frequencies for non-profit users. 
The association also suspects that the driving reason for officials not supporting its amendment to secure its tenure is that the officials are already planning further conversions of some of the spectrum to other uses. I tell the Minister that National has agreed to support the bill only on the assurance of the officials that the Government is in the process of reviewing in this financial year the security of tenure for all radio licences. The officials said that this would address the concerns raised by that association. The officials have said that the proposition to offer great certainties of tenure to holders of the radio licences is a good argument because that might facilitate the increased investment in radio infrastructure. However they claim that at this stage policy work on this issue needs to be undertaken with full consultation. 
I tell the Minister that I think this is a very very serious issue. The Radio Frequency Users Association is responsible for a lot of the transmitted emergency community news. The fact that it was not consulted in the first instance has led to the select committee requesting the officials to go back to the association and hold a consultation. I understand that at this stage it has not been fully resolved. I would like to see the Minister in the chair take a call to reassure the public and the Radio Frequency Users Association that the policy work is genuinely under way and there is no hidden agenda to assign the frequencies currently operated by it for other usage. 
It is incumbent on the Government to give that assurance to ensure the continued support of National on this issue. We have accepted the words of the officials at this stage but it would be helpful if the Minister could take a call to assure us that in the meantime before the policy work and the consultation is undertaken there is no hidden agenda or plan to convert the spectrum that at the moment is operated by the Radio Frequency Users Association for other purposes. Otherwise National will continue the Committee stage. I am sure that my good colleagues will support me. I can see that Chris Tremain is ready to charge on furthering that questioning. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Communications Legislation Bill. Members of the public who are listening will be aware that it has probably been a couple of weeks since we have spoken in the Committee stage of this bill. As a quick reminder of where we have got to I point out that the Communications Legislation Bill is an omnibus bill that attends to both the Telecommunications Act 2001 and the Radiocommunications Act 1989. Listeners may recall if they were listening to the debate on this earth-shattering legislation that in Part 1 we dealt with the Telecommunications Act. Right now we are looking at the Radiocommunications Act 1989 and some amendments to that Act. 
As Minister Cunliffe said in the first reading the bill is aimed at maintaining a commercial environment of certainty and confidence for both telecommunications services and use of the radio frequency spectrum. So from that point of view the National Party certainly supports that and is behind the bill in that regard. 
Both parts of the bill are narrow in scope. That is demonstrated in Part 1 by there being only one substantive clause which amends the Telecommunications Act. The wider bill is not related to the decisions of the broader telecommunications legislation that is currently before the Finance and Expenditure Committee so members of the public should not be confused by that. That bill is proceeding. At the Finance and Expenditure Committee we are dealing with the local loop unbundling and we should be reporting to the House on that particular bill in I believe early December. 
In terms of Part 2 there are two key things on which we need to focus. One matter that my colleague Pansy Wong discussed earlier is the issue of inappropriate receivers. If we look at the purpose of the bill set out in Part 2 we see that it deals first with inappropriate receivers. Clause 6 states: “The purpose of this Part is to … (a) provide that radio engineers and others considering questions of interference and technical compatibility should not have regard to the reception of radio waves by inappropriate receivers:”. To many people that might sound like a heck of a lot of gobbledygook so I will attempt to explain exactly what we are talking about here because it is somewhat confusing. In fact it all comes down to property rights and whether people who own parts of spectrum are receiving their property rights. CanWest took a court case back in 2004 in Christchurch. The case was between two radio stations More FM at 92.1FM and Niu FM at 104.1FM. CanWest the owner of More FM took legal action against Niu FM for infringement of its property rights because it believed that there was significant interference being emitted on its signal and it was being confused with the Niu FM signal. As a result of that the two signals were combining in the same radio frequency and therefore More FM believed that it was losing a property right. 
Part 2 of this legislation aims to overcome that. It states that irrespective of that particular situation it will not change the actual law. It comes down to the actual receivers in cars. The situation that has arisen with Japanese cars is that in Japan the frequency on which FM stations are received is between about 76 and 90 megahertz whereas in New Zealand we receive it on the frequency between 87 and 108 megahertz. Since Japan uses a different spectrum band for radio broadcasting—as I have said 76 to 90 megahertz—the radios that turn up in New Zealand in imported cars are incapable of reception above 90 megahertz. So for instance we were talking 92.1FM which was above that level so it became a problem. It also includes the majority of New Zealand stations which are in the higher band spectrum. If we think about our own FM stations—in Hawke’s Bay for instance we have 92FM— 
Craig Foss 
: Hauraki. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
:—and Radio Hauraki which Mr Foss listens to—they tend to be at the higher end of the spectrum. When Japanese cars come over here with their bands at between 76 and 90 megahertz in order to pick up 92FM in Hawke’s Bay people need to do one of two things. Firstly they can put in a new radio. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak on the Communications Legislation Bill. Previous National speakers have alluded to the fact that yes we are supporting this bill. First though I have to declare an interest having lived in Japan for a couple of years. Frustratingly and sadly I brought home a few Japanese radios and what at the time I thought were flash stereos and I cannot pick up anything after 90 megahertz. I cannot even pick up Radio Kahungunu The Rock Radio Hauraki and so on. So I learnt a lesson there. 
In doing a bit of research for the Committee stage today I was looking at the Minister’s first reading speech. I have here a couple of interesting quotes from the Minister when he introduced the bill. Minister Cunliffe talked about Part 2 which we are dealing with now. He said that the changes in Part 2 were “largely of a technical nature but they are critical for the efficient functioning of the regulatory environment for services that require use of the radio frequency spectrum.” Then—and this is most important—he spoke of the underlying spectrum licences that are created for periods of up to 20 years which gives certainty of investment for services using the radio spectrum. Those comments on their own are fine. It is nice rhetoric but as with so much of the current administration they are nice ideas but there is hopeless hopeless execution. 
As I said I would like to speak on Part 2 and in particular on clause 6. Clause 6 deals with radio licensing spectrum management etc. I would like to touch on the WiMAX spectrum of which our Ministry of Economic Development has been undertaking auctions over the last couple of years. It is the 2.5 to 3.5 gigahertz part of the spectrum. For the uninitiated out there they come in pairs. 
Members will remember that the Minister said we need certainty of investment and that these spectrum licences were for 20 years. I would just like to quote from a couple of written questions that I asked the Minister and his replies. They are quite illuminating. This is a reply I received on 10 March when I asked the Minister whether he was satisfied with the distribution of the 3.5 gigahertz WiMAX spectrum and if so why. The Minister said that yes he was satisfied that the spectrum in question had been allocated appropriately. I thought that was interesting and I will tell members why in a minute. Another question I asked was whether he was satisfied with the process of the allocation of the 3.5 gigahertz WiMAX spectrum; if so why. The Minister said that yes he was satisfied that the allocation process to date had been fair and equitable and that it met the policy intentions of the Government. Again that reply was received on 10 March 2006. Finally I asked the Minister what the original time frame was for the allocation of the 3.5 gigahertz WiMAX spectrum and whether any adjustments had been made to that timetable; if so why. The Minister answered—and I ask members to bear with me—“The process for allocation of area spectrum licences in the two remaining Crown-retained management rights”—they are the ones that are up for auction—“was originally planned to be completed in late 2005. It is now expected that this will be completed in April or May 2006.” 
 Well I say to the Minister that we are in October 2006 now so that was 6 or 7 months ago. The WiMax auction—the allocation—is still going. The result has been an absolute shambles. There has been delay upon delay upon delay. There have been cancelled auctions. There have been suspended auctions. There have been further investigations of auctions. Winning bids—as part of the spectrum as part of this efficiency and certainty that the Minister speaks of—have not been able to prove and they do not have the resource to come up and pay for their winning spectrum or auction. I wonder whether the Minister is even aware of that because in the telecommunications industry in the sectors on the blog sites etc. it is pretty easy to find out that stuff. Again I think the execution of what is a good idea is absolutely hopeless. Not only can the winning bids not even afford to pay a deposit now but they have no resource whatsoever to pay the balance. I believe that the minimum was 17c per head per region. Some of the winning bids have no background whatsoever in telecommunications. They have no network in the telecommunications industry. How on earth will New Zealand move its infrastructure forward when after virtually 2 years when this auction was first started we really have no one off the ground? We have nothing but a few headlines. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I rise to make a contribution to the debate on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Communications not that I am myself a person with great expertise in this matter I might say. Following on from a contribution from Pansy Wong and perhaps National Party colleagues prior to her—I was not listening to the debate earlier—and certainly subsequent to her it seems that the National Party is unaware of some recent developments. If I can give the tenor of those to the House it might help progress the debate. 
My colleague the Minister of Communications met with David Thompson chairman of the Radio Frequency Users Association last Monday and sent him a letter last Wednesday. If I put into the public record a couple of paragraphs from that letter it may help. I will give the essence of it: “I have already agreed that the issue of security of tenure for radio licences should be addressed urgently commencing with the release of a discussion paper.” He then goes on to point out that the discussion paper is due to come out later this year with decisions in June of 2007. The letter continues importantly: “In the interim period prior to the outcome of the discussion paper process being known you may be assured that there are no plans to announce any further changes to the spectrum allocations in relation to land mobile bands (as set out in Public Information Brochure 21). I will seek to confirm this through a statement of general policy of Government under section 112 of the Radiocommunications Act 1989.” 
I think that might answer the questions of Pansy Wong and other colleagues about whether the Government has a secret agenda. This letter has gone to David Thomson and I am happy that the essence of the letter is in the House. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
:  
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Minister is reading from a letter that is quite important to our deliberation so I seek leave for the Minister to table it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You cannot seek leave for the Minister to do that. It is up to the Minister whether he wishes to do so. It is an official State document and you can request it but you cannot seek leave for the Minister to do that. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 This is probably a very appropriate time for New Zealand First to come into the debate given that contribution by the Minister in the chair Pete Hodgson because it was New Zealand First that facilitated those meetings with the Minister. I can confirm that what the Minister was saying was absolutely correct because I have a copy of the letter in front of me. It states that New Zealand First expressed its concern in the second reading with regard to this particular issue regarding the Radio Frequency Users Association of New Zealand and the radio mobile spectrum. We said at that time that we would be putting up a Supplementary Order Paper. 
I can say that as a result of the meetings that have been held with David Thompson the Minister representatives of the Radio Frequency Users Association of New Zealand and members of the Ministry of Economic Development matters have been resolved. David Thompson has been in communication with me and said that the association is more than happy now that the issues its members raised at the Commerce Committee—which they considered had not been addressed appropriately through the select committee process—have now been addressed as a result of the work by New Zealand First. I asked the association what the problem was. I found it was that New Zealand First did not have a member on that select committee to pick up the genuine issues that were raised there so somebody outside the select committee needed to pick up those issues and genuinely run with them. I guess the situation was like this. The association had gone through the normal processes put up its submission to the select committee and been ignored. Its members had been shunned and there is some reference to that in the report back. But they came to New Zealand First and asked whether we could help them to fix that. We said yes we could and we have done that. So what the Minister said is correct. 
The issues that revolve around this particular matter are not unimportant issues. The part of the spectrum that we are talking about is the part that was captured by the Radiocommunications Act 1989. All the other users of that spectrum got their incumbency tenure except for the users of the land radio mobile part of the spectrum. Since 1989 even though it is in the sixth schedule of that Act nothing has been done about that matter. Whereas the owners of the other parts of the spectrum have been able to get investment in there because there is security and they are secure in their future use of it this legislation was creating a high level of insecurity. And not only was that the case but the legislation was also creating what could have been seen to be an environment in which there was no value in providing any long-term investment and the actual users themselves felt under threat. 
I will quote from the Minister’s letter because I am sure he will not mind that in order to give members some understanding of just how important this part of the spectrum is. He wrote: “It is acknowledged that the land mobile service provides essential services to both Government and private industry as highlighted during the recent severe snow storms in southern Canterbury where for a lengthy period such services provided the only reliable form of communications.” It was that part of the spectrum that was under threat. National and ACT would probably say it should be sold to the highest bidder. New Zealand First has a much more responsible view of the whole thing; it believes that such things as social responsibilities have to be balanced against economic imperatives. New Zealand First therefore although we did not even have a member on the select committee that looked at this legislation said that no something had to be done about the issue. We facilitated the meetings we achieved the necessary outcomes and as we say we have once again fixed it. Thank you Mr Chairman. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Standing Order 368 “Quoting documents” states: “Whenever a Minister quotes from a document relating to public affairs a member may on a point of order require the Minister to lay the document on the Table. The Minister must then lay the document on the Table unless it is of a confidential nature.” 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is the member requesting— 
PANSY WONG 
: I am seeking leave for that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member cannot seek leave but she can request that it be done. 
PANSY WONG 
: I can request it? OK. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am very happy to put the document on the Table. It is already on the Table and Pansy Wong has already seen it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Communications Legislation Bill. I will speak about the position advised by officials of imported Japanese cars that would interfere with radio frequency in addition to other aspects of the bill. 
The introduction of the possibility of allocated radio frequencies resulted in a number of submissions. Mr Donnelly is quite correct that the Radio Frequency Users Association of New Zealand referred in its submission to the land mobile radio band and I will be speaking to that point. It is not something that was ignored by the National Party members on the Commerce Committee. Some submitters though were concerned about the process to be used on the allocation of radio frequencies. I know that earlier speakers have already discussed this issue but I intend to canvass it again because I am not entirely sure that those who made submissions would be comfortable with what we have heard so far from the Minister. 
Why we have a Government controlling allocation other than by competitive tender is the question. We have already been asked whether this is simply a means by which the Crown can hike the costs whether it is a tax by stealth or whether it is an underhand way of charging further fees. The Minister has given us a peep of a letter which is now tabled and which he says is now in general circulation—well he did not quite say that but he said it was available—and I look forward to seeing that letter so that as a member of the select committee I can have some sense that all is being done as it should be. 
That did raise a concern about the allocation being conducted in a less than transparent manner. It is unfortunate that we are now receiving ministerial letters after select committee hearings. 
Craig Foss 
: Same old same old. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Same old same old. If the allocation is to be made on a basis other than competitive tender what will the criteria be? TelstraClear in its submission to the bill raised the same nervousness that has been commented on by those organisations referred to by my colleague Pansy Wong when it said that an allocation of radio licences by any means is a matter of concern to it. This is in section 116(1)(e) which is to be substituted by clause 30 of the bill. TelstraClear stated in its submission about the allocation of radio licences by any means: “TelstraClear opposes clauses 30 and 32 of the bill which provide that radio licences may be allocated by any means not just by competitive tender or auction. They would like to make it clear that they are talking about the allocation of spectrum for commercial purposes not areas like scientific research. The proposed amendment creates uncertainty over the allocation method and opens up the prospect of arbitrary and non-transparent allocation of radio licences.” This is exactly the nub of the question that is now being discussed. “Providing allocation by any means will result in a party seeking to obtain a radio licence not knowing what requirements must be met in order to obtain a radio licence. Allocation by competitive tender or auction promotes economic efficiency as these methods ensure that parties that place the greatest value on licences obtain them. Providing for allocation by any means opens up the possibility of allocation on a political basis favouring some parties at the expense of others.”—and we all know about that—“This would be particularly problematic for those parts of the spectrum that are used by the service providers for telecommunications. TelstraClear accepts that its part of the radio spectrum may only have a limited number of users or have characteristics that mean that a non-financial method of allocation is appropriate. However the Act should be clear about when these considerations should apply. TelstraClear submits that such considerations would not apply when there is competition for the spectrum when the spectrum has been determined to have a commercial purpose. In these circumstances spectrum should only be allocated by competitive tender or auction.” 
I could absorb the time of the Committee by speaking of other protestations and concerns expressed by submitters but basically the bill is small and technical. It was interesting to listen to the officials—and we did listen I say to Mr Donnelly—and to submitters. They went to great lengths to try to explain their very complex submissions and to make them more easily understandable and we certainly had a good understanding of the submissions. 
National of course supports the bill’s laudable aspects but we continue to have some concerns. One of them relates to Japanese imports which have a 76 to 90 megahertz frequency. They are incapable of reception above that so the majority of FM stations in New Zealand are excluded. This imposes some difficulties in terms of civil defence—and that was indicated by Mr Donnelly. In speaking to this issue the officials mentioned that they sought to provide a reassurance that broadcasts in civil defence emergencies would be available on National Radio AM. Being a West Coast resident I was able to advise them that we on the West Coast do not receive National Radio AM. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Thank you for giving me the call Mr Chairperson because now that the Minister of Health has tabled the Hon David Cunliffe’s response to the Radio Frequency Users Association I would like to make further comments. 
First of all I am just wondering why we did not bring the Reserve Bank Amendment Bill into this debate because Part 2 of that bill talked about horse racing and I think we are now talking a lot about horse-trading in debating Part 2 of the Communications Legislation Bill. I was looking forward to Barbara Stewart of New Zealand First taking a call on her Supplementary Order Paper that seeks clarification of security of tenure for the Radio Frequency Users Association. I now understand that that Supplementary Order Paper has been withdrawn. 
Why I was particularly interested was that Mr Shane Jones a Labour member on the Commerce Committee went to great lengths at the select committee—and my very hard-working colleague can back me up on this—to try to resolve the longstanding uneasiness of the association. He actually went to discuss the matter with the Minister of Communications Mr Cunliffe. We had to seek leave to delay the deliberations until Mr Shane Jones could come back to the select committee members and assure us that a secure path could be resolved. Well after three attempts and a delay of about 3 weeks in our deliberation on the issue he came back empty-handed and we were left no clearer as to why. Well I have bad news for Mr Shane Jones the rising star of the Labour Party: his action unfortunately did not secure much and did not count for much with his Minister. I think he needs to learn to trade horses a little better. Maybe he should take a lesson from National’s senior whip Lindsay Tisch who is better at horse-trading and knowing how to secure a guarantee. 
It was interesting to find that the letter went further. The Minister stated in the letter that he understood that the association was seeking “a 5-year window after the announcement of changes to the use of a land mobile band during which time mobile licensees could not be compelled to relinquish radio licences … Further you want to be assured that licensees will have access to alternative spectrum that the frequencies provided for replacement licences are suitable and that there is consideration of compensation for the related conversion costs.” I congratulate the association on very successful horse-trading through New Zealand First. But it does raise an issue. I think in future members on the Commerce Committee will certainly make sure that we do not easily accept any advice in good faith from the officials without every assurance that we will not be ambushed. We are actually happy with the outcome but we are also disappointed that that clear assurance from the Minister could not have been communicated to us in the first place through the Labour member Shane Jones. 
It is interesting: one never knows what one can discover in the Committee stage—last-minute horse-trading could prove to be quite fruitful for the Radio Frequency Users Association. I want to refute what New Zealand First’s Brian Donnelly was saying about the Commerce Committee members. We were of one mind in seeking the assurance and we fought very strongly on behalf of the Radio Frequency Users Association. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on the title and commencement clauses of the Communications Legislation Bill. Now that National members know there is an official letter as a result of horse-trading we can assure the Commerce Committee members that the very valid point raised by the Radio Frequency Users Association has been resolved. National members are pleased to continue to support this bill. 
We are doing so well that I wonder whether Minister Maharey would like to take a call to give us further reassurance that the Government’s move to introduce a new provision in Part 2 to assign radio frequencies to entities through means other than a competitive process would not result in horse-trading in a very non-transparent way to bidders. It has been a very revealing Committee of the whole House process because we have seen how the parliamentary transparency process can be slightly sabotaged by horse-trading between Ministers and the parties that prop up this Government. Although National members support the result we do not endorse the process. The public should be even more alarmed after last week when the Government in indecent haste passed the parliamentary expenditure validation legislation. Now we learn that horse-trading happened behind the scenes even after the select committee process— 
Hon Members 
: Pay the GST! 
PANSY WONG 
: I seek leave to table the member’s bill in the name of Dr Don Brash that would allow the National Party to pay the GST. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is perfectly entitled to do so because interjections from the other side of the Chamber led to it. Leave has been sought to table the bill. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. 
PANSY WONG 
: That is telling is it not? The Labour member sitting on the other side of the Chamber did nothing to contribute to the legislation that is before us. That lazy Labour member did not even take the trouble to read this legislation but continued to interject to challenge National to pay the GST bill then refused leave for me to table Dr Brash’s bill so that we could do that. Well I have bad news for Labour members: the public has a long memory. I am very happy to come back to this legislation if Labour members take the trouble to get up on their lazy legs take a call and contribute intelligently to the debate about the legislation that is before the Committee. 
The National Party supports this legislation even though we are totally unhappy with the incompetence of the Labour Government. Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act 2001 which was set up to finish the business within 5 years. But we are here to extend that period for a further 2 years because of the inability of the incompetent Labour Government to finish the task of examining the 13 designated services which the Hon Paul Swain said would take the Commerce Commission only 5 years to do. We have agreed that we will support this legislation. The last thing we want to do is create uncertainty in the telecommunications sector which has been through enough because of this inefficient incompetent Labour Government. For that reason we reluctantly agree to support the passage of this bill. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the title of the Communications Legislation Bill and to thank the chairperson of the Commerce Committee Katherine Rich. It is interesting to look at the membership list of the committee and to see that young Charles Chauvel joined the committee on 3 August 2006. We are looking forward to Mr Chauvel taking a call and enlightening us with his knowledge of the Communications Legislation Bill. 
In speaking to the title I say that National supports the bill which deals with matters that are both urgent and necessary in the telecommunications sector. The bill is aimed at avoiding unintended consequences in both the telecommunications and the radio communications industries. 
There are a couple of key things about the bill that I will summarise. Firstly the bill prevents the unplanned expiry of regulations on a narrow range of communications services. We can see that Part 1 addresses that issue on the likes of local telephone number portability services cellular telephone number portability national roaming—which I will touch on a little later on—and co-location on cellular mobile transmission sites. The second thing the bill does is give legal certainty to allowing the full use of the radio spectrum despite some listeners choosing to use inappropriate radio receivers such as band expanders which I spoke on in an earlier speech. 
The Communications Legislation Bill is an omnibus bill; it amends two Acts—the Telecommunications Act 2001 and the Radiocommunications Act 1989. As the Hon David Cunliffe—“Lord Cunliffe”—said in his first reading speech the bill maintains a commercial environment of certainty and confidence for both telecommunications services and the use of the radio frequency spectrum. 
Speaking to the title I will deal with Part 1 in terms of the Telecommunications Act 2001. Members will recall that Part 1 was debated 2 weeks ago. Under the Telecommunications Act we see the issue of the expiry of a number of licences. The bill aims to extend by 2 years—to December 2008—the regulation of 10 services originally regulated under the 2001 Act and those are the services I referred to earlier that include the likes of local telephone number portability cellular telephone number portability and national roaming etc. As I said the regulation of those services is due to expire in December 2006 unless that regulation is extended by an Order in Council on the recommendation of the Minister following an investigation by the Commerce Commission. At the moment the Finance and Expenditure Committee is dealing with the likes of the local loop unbundling issue under the Telecommunications Act. It is very important that those regulated services are clarified and in good order. The necessary investigations by the Commerce Commission are under way right now but the final decision on those investigations will not be acted on until late December 2006. 
So the situation has arisen where we could extend the regulated period by a number of years under an Order in Council but there is a time frame that would not be able to be reached. As a result under this bill we have created legislation to allow it to happen earlier. That will allow certainty to telecommunication service providers and customers which they need in this industry. The industry requires big investment dollars and it is very important that investors from overseas know there is security of services going forward. The bill therefore extends the regulation of 10 services through to 2008. We have certainty of tenure in that regard—at least for 2 years. 
I would be interested to hear the Minister in the chair the Hon Steve Maharey clarify whether there will be an Order in Council to extend regulation beyond post-2008 and explain the Government’s plans. He could say whether the matter will be left in the hands of the new Government of the day which is likely to be a National Government. 
Part 2 deals largely with amendments to the Radiocommunications Act and they are mostly technical in nature. Once again they are critical for the efficient functioning of the regulatory environment for services that require use of the radio spectrum. Listeners will have heard much about the firming up of the regulatory environment in regard to the radio spectrum. We have talked in particular about the certification of licences and the ensuring of property rights around those licences. The present legislation provides for proposed new licences to be assessed against existing licences to ensure that the new use is technically compatible. The Act requires a certificate to be provided by a suitably qualified and approved radio engineer attesting to technical compatibility prior to registration on the public register. 
What does all that mean? Put simply it means that if we accommodate poor-quality receivers we can limit the spectrum available for new licences and lower the economic utilisation of the radio frequency spectrum as a whole. That was the point I made in referring to the issue that arose with two Christchurch radio stations where CanWest took Niu FM to court arguing that Niu FM had overtaken some of its frequency and it was unable to get its full listenership on board because listeners who had imported new Japanese radios were flicking between the two stations albeit not through CanWest’s fault. CanWest went to court to get a decision about whose fault it was. I quote from the decision by Justice Chisholm in which he stated that he would not uphold CanWest’s claim since it was “reasonable to assume that the certifying engineer at RSM might not have known about the problem.” 
This legislation sorts that out. It says that receivers that do not receive properly will not be taken into account. The legislation will clearly initiate licences going forward and provide security of property rights to radio spectrum owners. 
That summarises the two key parts of the bill relating to the Radiocommunications Act and the Telecommunications Act. The legislation deals with matters that are both urgent and necessary in the sector. It will avoid unintended consequences and ensure some security of tenure in the next couple of years. I say in summary that first it will prevent the unplanned expiry of regulation on a narrow range of communication services—and I have talked about co-location in that regard—and second it will give legal certainty to allow the full use of the radio spectrum despite some listeners choosing to use inappropriate radio receivers such as band expanders. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to make a fairly brief contribution. First I would like to respond to some of the things Pansy Wong said. I have to say to her that in fact her party can pay back the GST any time it wants. All it has to do is take out the cheque book put in the correct figures get the signatures and amounts on the paper put “TVNZ” on the top of the cheque and send it off—and the bill would be paid. 
New Zealand First had a bit of a conundrum with this legislation because we supported Part 1 but had some difficulties with Part 2 which we have pointed out. In respect of Part 2 we alerted Parliament to the fact that we had concerns and we alerted Parliament to what those concerns were during the second reading debate. We said we would put forward a Supplementary Order Paper on the second part and we made it very clear to the Government that if the Supplementary Order Paper did not proceed we would not be able to continue to support the second part of this split bill. 
As it was we were able to take our concerns to the Minister of Communications David Cunliffe and I believe there is a lesson here for some of the Opposition members in learning how MMP actually operates. The Minister instead of saying: “No no no—that’s all been sorted out by the select committee. No there are no issues here—I don’t want to hear you.” actually sat down and listened. When he listened he found there were genuine concerns. As a result he was able to facilitate meetings with the groups concerned and once again he was open-minded enough to say that there were some genuine issues involved and that he would do what he could to respond to them. He did respond to them in such a way that it placated the concerns of the particular users group that had brought the concerns to New Zealand First and we were able to proceed with this legislation with everybody feeling somewhat more secure about its outcomes than they did before. 
That is MMP in operation. No one party has a mortgage on all the wisdom in this Parliament but unless certain parties that have been in power in the past learn that lesson they will in continue in the positions where they are for a long long time. I know about coalition and I tell members here and now that when it comes to education Wyatt Creech and I could teach many people here how MMP can operate and operate constructively. 
The problem that was pointed out by the Radio Frequency Users Association actually emanated from the Radiocommunications Act 1989 under which there were certain obligations for the Government to meet. The Government did meet those obligations when it came to cellular broadcasting television and cellular services but it completely failed to meet them when it came to the land mobile radio spectrum. The question therefore has to be asked: who was in Government for 9 of those years since that time? In fact the party that did not meet the obligations under that Act is the party now sitting on the Opposition benches. That needs to be recognised. 
After all that time—from 1989 when the Act came in and there has been a problem ever since—what party was able to reconcile the issues and fix the problems? The answer is that New Zealand First was able to take up the cudgels of that vitally important group and the services it operates—vitally important particularly in emergencies—and New Zealand First was able to say that something had to be done. We would use the power of our vote in this Parliament to be able at least to get some leverage with the Minister. Fortunately we had a Minister who was prepared to listen and we were able to move the thing forward in a constructive fashion. New Zealand First is very proud of what it has been able to achieve in terms of this legislation and we will be very pleased to vote for it. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2)  
divided into Telecommunications Amendment Bill Radiocommunications Amendment Bill 
 pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper60. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.