Copeland Gordon: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7140] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 The explosion of the Internet and the resulting global connectedness that that has brought to the human race is surely one of the great marvels of our age. I for one as a technophobe from way back find quite amazing the extent to which we can now from any given spot on this planet with access to a computer or mobile phone communicate over vast distances in the blink of an eye. That global interconnectedness is therefore a present reality for New Zealand not only for its citizens in terms of the way they communicate with one another—family and friends—but also of course from the footprint as it were of New Zealand exporting industries and other companies to the rest of the world. 
Our geographical isolation gives New Zealand a comparative competitive disadvantage in relation to the rest of the planet. We are within the OECD officially the nation that on average is the greatest geographical distance from its major markets. Those realities simply mean that when it comes to telecommunications we have to be not at the tail but actually at the head of telecommunication development. We have to be smart we have to be clever and we have to be on the pace if we are to stay in touch and develop our society going forward. That is essentially what this Telecommunications Amendment Bill is about. It seeks to ensure that through better competition better combined technology better investment and smarter writing of programs etc. we have competitive telecommunication services at a price that represents world-best standard. As I say I entirely agree with the Government’s aspirations that we need to be up there in the top half of the OECD when it comes to broadband uptake and other parts of the telecommunication network. 
I would like to touch on a few things that have not been covered by other speakers during this second reading. Firstly I agree with others that the select committee process has been a very very good process. The Finance and Expenditure Committee picked up very quickly and I well remember the submission from InternetNZ what we call the three-box model of operational separation—separation between the equal access network function with an independent oversight group and the separation of Telecom’s wholesale and retail divisions. New Zealand’s largest single company will now be divided operationally into those three separate sections to enhance competition by basically ensuring that any perceptions of a natural monopoly in terms of the local loop etc. disappear and we bring free and open competitive Internet markets to New Zealand. 
I want also to say that I very much enjoyed the submissions to the select committee by the Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand; it also brought to our attention some very valid points. In the process Telecom was also I think very good. As others have mentioned during the select committee process we shifted ground enormously from mere accounting separation in the bill as introduced to now a complete operational separation into those three divisions. With a lot more work to come in terms of the implementation of that through binding undertakings a draft separation plan and a final separation plan I am sure that will keep the Minister and the officials who expertly guided our committee very very busy in the weeks and months to come. It is vitally important work and I wish the Minister and the officials all the very best in taking this through to completion. 
I want also to convey personally the House’s thanks to the sometimes unsung people in this process and I refer to the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the drafting that was necessary for this bill. We put the drafters under enormous pressure—not only time pressure but pressure in terms of the complexity of what we wanted to see in the bill. Believe you me that is not a straightforward process. I remember that at our first meeting with Telecom its representatives brought along a diagram and circulated it to each member of the committee. I would defy any person who does not have an advanced postgraduate degree in telecommunications to ever begin to explain even one little section of that diagram to a technophobe such as myself. It just demonstrates I suppose the sheer complexity of what we are talking about—the number of permutations and other variations that are possible in this whole area. 
To be able to sort all that through within the very very tight time frame that we were given along with the long hours that the committee put in—including as others have said—evening sessions I think was a great tribute to the select committee process of the New Zealand Parliament. I think this is a demonstration of how important the select committee process is to our democracy. It is not common in other jurisdictions for a bill like this to go through such a process. What has emerged at the other end is I think we would all agree a vast improvement on what entered the process after the first reading of the bill. As I have said however this represents just the beginning of a process that will go on in the weeks and months ahead as those vital undertakings are worked through.  
I want to take a moment to talk a little bit about Telecom and its importance to the New Zealand economy. As is well known the circumstances surrounding the announcement of the Government’s decision to unbundle the local loop were very very unfortunate. There was a scandalous leak of that announcement to Telecom before its formal announcement which was originally planned I believe for the Budget. As a result about $2 billion was removed from Telecom’s value at the stock exchange. I think that was going to happen anyway but it was indeed an unfortunate beginning to the whole matter. But I wish Telecom all the very best for the future. It is important to New Zealand that Telecom remains a strong company. I believe that the bill as presented back to Parliament will allow Telecom to remain profitable and successful going forward. It is not the intention of the bill to bring that to an end. It is very very important that Telecom does because the fact is that the copper wire system we have which Telecom owns in this country is unique and will probably remain unique for all time to come. It is the only copper wire system we have that goes into our rural areas for example. 
I would like to mention particularly Internet services into rural areas. They need to be lifted and lifted significantly if we are to maintain the major part of our exporting base which is still the primary sector in good shape going forward. I believe that Telecom—and probably Telecom alone in the short term at least—is the only company that will be able to ensure that that continues. I know that in Australia there has been real concern that Telstra over there has not kept pace with the needs of the rural areas so I want to put in a plug for that to continue.  
I want also to mention very briefly property rights—an issue that was brought up by a number of submitters. They brought it to me personally because as is known I have a bill before Parliament to introduce property rights into the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Can I just say that at no stage was that subject ever brought to the committee by Telecom itself or by the Telecom board. If there was to be an issue about property rights then I would expect it would be taken up at that level.  
I would like to mention also the point mentioned by Te Ururoa Flavell in relation to mobile phone services. It is true that Econet came and made very very strong submissions to the committee and it would be fair to say went on at some length about the fact that Vodafone owned the spectrum and Econet cannot get access to it. I subsequently took the trouble to find out what the situation was and I was told that Vodafone is prepared to sell spectrum to Econet or other companies at any time for exactly the same price Vodafone paid originally and has made this clear to Econet on several occasions. It seems to me that that is a very very fair offer. I invite the Maori Party to look at that very carefully and simply ask why companies do not actually buy some spectrum from Vodafone and get into certain areas.  
I would have to say though that I went to a presentation just last week and of course they are now talking about digital radio digital wireless—this is the new thing that is coming along—and when that happens we will find a whole range of new spectrum opens up anyway. I think this is a temporary hitch. But I say to Econet and to others that are involved in advancing Maori interests in this area to get out there and give it a go and to not sit back with their hands tied expecting some sort of handout because we expect them to exercise the same commercial entrepreneurship as everyone else—something that indeed Maori are very good at.  
So with those few remarks I want to again thank the officials for their service to the committee. I think we have made a very very good start. It is not the end of the journey but it is an important step towards that goal of cheap and competitive telecommunications services for New Zealand—for its families and for its businesses.