Wong Pansy: Communications Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Wong Pansy: Communications Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5446] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 This so-called technical bill actually reveals some major problems with regard to the Labour Government’s lack of progress in the telecommunications and energy sectors and in other infrastructure areas. The reason for the lack of progress in all those areas is the lack of a final vision for those sectors. The various Labour Ministers in those portfolios have no idea of where they want to take those sectors to. We find they put up frameworks pass legislation set up commissions and sack commissioners. We end up with more consultation and more ad hoc decisions U-turns and delays. 
That last point is particularly demonstrated in Part 1 of this relatively short bill. The bill’s full name is the Communications Legislation Bill and it has two main parts. The first part amends the Telecommunications Act of 2001. I ask members to let me share some of the faults in that legislation with the public. At the time of the passage of the Telecommunications Act 2001 which is nearly 5 long years ago 13 telecommunications services were identified as designated services. The telecommunications companies needed to apply to the Commerce Commission for a determination on the terms of and process for access to those specified services. Five years ago those 13 designated services were set up obviously with the expectation that all the issues relating to them would be resolved at the end of 5 years. Part 1 is needed because an extension of 2 years is required for 10 out of the 13 services. I do not think that lack of progress deserves even a D grade. 
Five years ago the Minister of Communications—we have had many Ministers but at that time it was the Hon Paul Swain—claimed that with the Telecommunications Act the Labour Government had set up a framework for the telecommunications sector to move forward in an orderly manner. I do not think that anybody but particularly the shareholders in Telecom who lost billions of dollars from the worth of their shares would believe that that framework is assisting the sector to move forward in an orderly manner. Five years ago when the legislation was set up 13 services were identified as designated services and were regulated. Five years later we are being asked to extend the period for a further 2 years. 
But 5 years ago the Labour Government also appointed a Telecommunications Commissioner Mr Douglas Webb who was charged with addressing the problem of the lack of uptake of broadband. In his draft report he actually recommended unbundling. Then he made a U-turn which the Government accepted in 2003. But earlier this year the Government did another U-turn and decided to declare unbundling as a major plank in its 2006 Budget announcement. Incompetence in the handling of that issue led to the leaking of that information and suddenly the whole unbundling decision had to be announced in a hurry and billions of dollars were wiped off the value of Telecom shares. One can hardly say that that was done in an orderly manner so as to introduce certainty into the sector or that as the Minister just stood up and claimed the Telecommunications Act 2001 and the subsequent legislation lead business to have confidence in being innovative to take our telecommunications sector forward. 
I also would like to give a wee warning to the Telecommunications Commissioner. He should be careful about the wishes of his political masters because we have just learnt this afternoon that the electricity commissioner has been sacked. Why? Because when the Labour Government does not know where it wants the telecommunications sector or the energy sector to go it blames the commissioners for not doing their job. I think the commissioners are probably following the legislation. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would not normally interrupt a member’s speech but this is an important matter and the Standing Orders do provide for the clarification of facts. In this case it has been made clear by the Minister that the electricity commissioner has not been sacked; he is simply not being reappointed at the end of his standard 3-year term. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is opportunity under Standing Order 106 “Misrepresentation” to do that at the end of a speech. 
PANSY WONG 
: I am surprised at the defensiveness of the Minister. Surely he should be experienced enough to know that that was not even a proper point of order. We are engaged in a very serious debate on a very important sector. 
As I say I think the Telecommunications Commissioner should take note. That is very bad for the sector. The commissioners in the telecommunications and energy sectors have now learnt that they need to watch their political masters very carefully because those masters do not know the final vision for the sectors so in the meantime anybody who cannot deliver the answers may get the blame. In effect the lack of vision for the telecommunications sector is causing all the delay and the fact that we are standing here and debating this bill proves my point that if nobody knows the destination then there will be delay and uncertainty. 
National will cooperate with the Government on this legislation because we do not want to punish or penalise business just because the Labour Government has no answers. We will agree to an extension of 2 years but we are not very sure whether within those 2 years we will really see progress. 
I ask members to let me confirm the dilemma that now faces business with regard to the lack of direction and the tolerance of inefficiency in the telecommunications sector. Only one submission was made on Part 1 of the bill and it was from TelstraClear. The company supported the extension provided for in Part 1 for 2 years but stated in the reasons why it supported it that it was worth noting: “The experience of previous Commission Investigations and Determinations suggests that the Commission’s proposed timetable may slip and that any such slippage may be significant.” In other words our businesses have learnt to live with delay. I look forward to further debate during the Committee stage about the delay and uncertainty that are being created in the telecommunications sector. 
Part 2 is about changes to the Radiocommunications Act and I want to raise two points and then debate those further in the Committee stage. One is that many submitters are getting very nervous because in the bill the Government is changing the way that in future radio licences may be issued. Under the current legislation that has to be done by competitive tendering or auction. The bill introduces the term “by any other means”. So once again the industry and the users are becoming very nervous about interference and about having to watch every move of their political masters. 
The other issue we will explore in detail is a submission by the Radio Frequency Users Association of New Zealand. That is a non-profit organisation and its membership includes local government authorities and companies connected with transport communications forestry farming taxis consultancy work and tourism. It complained that it was not included in the consultation on the bill and we want to explore that lack of consultation further in the Committee stage.