te Heuheu Georgina: Communications Legislation Bill — First Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Communications Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3004] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 That was an interesting speech. It is all very well for that member to be standing there shouting and gloating that the Labour Government has made a decision. Less than 3 years ago Labour did not make that decision and why not? Why did it not make the decision 3 years ago if it is as slick and as smart as that? Why did Labour not make the decision back in 2003 when the Telecommunications Commissioner said to unbundle then said not to unbundle? This Labour outfit must have known that at some stage in the future it would unbundle anyway. So if Labour is so smart and so slick why did it not make the decision then? 
It calls to mind some comments that Paul Swain the then Minister of Communications made in 2001 when he was speaking about the Telecommunications Bill: “For the first time we have established a framework for ensuring that the telecommunications industry can move forward in an orderly way.” Well how orderly is it when the commissioner after spending time money and resources beavering away in looking at the issue comes up with a tentative decision in which he says to unbundle and a short time later says: “Do not unbundle.”? This Government decided to take that course less than 3 years ago when that happened yet it must have known then that at some stage it was going to unbundle. If it is so important to do it why did the Government not do it then? 
As my colleague Maurice Williamson has asked why set up a system where we have a Telecommunications Commissioner when the Government ends up doing whatever it was going to do anyway? Why put the taxpayers to that expense and waste time when the Government was always going to make the decision? It is all very well for the previous speaker to stand up and say: “We made a decision.” The Government may as well have made it back in 2003 and all the things it is saying the New Zealand public will benefit from might have been flowing now. I do not think there is any reason for that member to stand up be smug and smile about it. 
We are considering the Communications Legislation Bill this afternoon. Communications and the regulatory regime that support them are critical to the efficient functioning of both our economy and our communities. Improving the regulatory regime is vital for the efficient operation of the telecommunications sector. National members recognise that which is why we support the bill. We are advised that the bill addresses urgent largely technical implementation issues which will cause significant disruption to the effective regulation of communications unless they are resolved. On that basis and in the context that those provisions are largely technical National supports the first reading of the bill and its referral to the select committee. 
 My colleague Maurice Williamson is a bit of a technohead. He knows a lot about communications and his point about our probably having to review this regime from time to time because of emerging technologies is a good one. National clearly supports a regime that is supportive of the efficient functioning of our communications. That is wholly important for our economy and for our communities. 
I address now a particular point in the Part 2 amendments to the Radiocommunications Act. Clause 6 indicates that the bill’s purpose is to amend the principal Act in order to provide a number of things including the allowing of radio licences to be allocated other than by competitive tender or auction. I will be interested to see in the select committee exactly what that means. Our concern in recent times obviously is the way the Government from time to time seems to dole out assets that are wholly valuable rather than deal with them on a competitive basis. Perhaps the Minister or someone who speaks after him might expand on the allocation of assets other than by competitive tender or auction. If we are talking about a competitive framework then I am not certain what that relates to. I would certainly be concerned if it meant that at some future date the Minister was able to dole these assets out to activities that do not necessarily deserve it or to friends and associates. 
National supports the bill. We support open processes and a regulatory regime that gives certainty is simple and gives clarity—although simplicity is possibly a word not to be used in this context given the technologies we are dealing with. But we certainly support proper open competition clear rules for access and use and clear and open processes and given this Government’s tendency to sometimes make decisions that are not necessarily transparent we would want to make sure that in this area at least that value is catered for. 
Equality of access is very important. We are talking in terms of access to frequencies and to licences. We have to be mindful that these are valuable property rights and are hugely sought after. A number of players seek them and we want to make sure that the processes by which they attain them are open. We also need to make sure that those who are looking to invest their money have a clear vision of what the rules are. 
All in all National supports the bill although in the select committee we will want some clarification on one or two areas. Also we rely on the Minister’s undertaking that this bill is largely technical and is aimed at making sure that in this area we have efficiency and certainty.