Dada 5000, real name Dhafir Harris, reportedly suffered a heart attack and renal failure before collapsing from what looked like fatigue in a fight with Kimbo Slice at Bellator 149 on Feb. 19, 2016? in Houston, Texas. He was not released from the hospital for nearly two weeks; there are multiple reports he nearly died.
Harris had lost nearly 40 pounds to make the 265 heavyweight limit, and the process apparently depleted him. Although he had a record of 2-0, it was against fighters with a combined record of 1-16. The lone win among his opponents was a DQ from an illegal kick.
There was criticism of Bellator for putting someone with so little skill in a main event. However, what league president Scott Coker has termed “fun fights” are enormously popular with fans, and thus are likely to continue.
Then Harris reported that he believes he was poisoned before the fight, perhaps by Kimbo Slice‘s camp, and was going to produce evidence at some point. He also said it was hard for him to believe that Bellator didn’t know. To be blunt, this is aliens-abducted-me-and-probed-my-nether-region-with-a-blue-glowing-light territory.
Coker recently appeared on Ariel Helwani’s The MMA Hour, and addressed some of the issues surrounding the debacle. He began with the weight cutting issue, while Harris reportedly dropped tens of pounds over time before the fight, Coker explained that he was only one pound over the heavyweight limit of 265 when he arrived in Houston for fight week.
“He didn’t have weight-cutting to do,” said Coker, as transcribed by Marc Raimondi for MMA Fighting. told Ariel Helwani, on Monday’s edition of The MMA Hour. “That’s where there’s a lot of misinformation and people aren’t getting their facts straight.”
“Everybody has their opinion,” he said. “Dada, God bless him. I’m glad he’s healthy and safe. He has his own platform to go fight in and he’s gonna do his thing.”
“I think we should just be friends,” said the president. “Friends is a good thing. Friends are forever.”
Bellator 149 had Kimbo vs. Dada and Royce Gracie vs. Ken Shamrock 3 at the top of the card, and broke league records. So Bellator is not done with “fun fights” but Coker does not want Bellator to be defined by them.
“To me, it’s like, c’mon, you’ve gotta give us a little bit of a break, because the math works the other way and not the fun fights way,” said Coker. “So to me it’s like, a couple times a year we’re gonna put on those fun fights, but the other 23 are right down the alley, right down the lane for what you like and what the hardcore fans like. To me, we have something for everybody.”
Whether Bellator becomes defined by the freakshow “fun fights” comes down to simple math. If its most popular shows are the “fun fights” then the league will in fact come to be firmly defined by them. The UFC is defined by its biggest PPVs. Joe Frazier is defined by fighting Ali. Floyd Mayweather Jr. is defined by his biggest fights. That’s how fighting is.
Slice tested positive for steroids after the fight. The Texas Department of Licensing and Registration changed the fight to a No Contest, and suspended Slice for 90 days. Given that he fought once in 2009, once in 2010, then once in 2015 and once in 2016, the suspension is not onerous. In fact, he won’t notice it. He is fighting James Thompson at the “Big Tent” event Bellator 158 on July 16 in London, England.
Bryan Caraway recently picked up an impressive win over the previously unbeaten Aljimain Sterling and is now 4-1 in his last five Octagon appearances.
Caraway recently spoke to Fox Sports about where he ranks in the division and made his case for getting the next title shot against Dominick Cruz:
“I want to fight for that world title. I want to fight Dominick Cruz. I feel like I’ve earned that,” Caraway explained. “I’ve been in the sport for a long time. I was finishing a lot of guys. The last two were very, very tough guys. One was a former champion in Eddie Wineland and Aljamain Sterling was a super tough, up-and-coming young guy that was undefeated. I beat both those guys at their own game. If that doesn’t show that I’m well-rounded, I don’t know what else does.
“I beat the No. 6 guy in the world with striking when he’s labeled as one of the best strikers in the division, and then I go out there and outwrestle and outgrapple the No. 4-ranked fighter in the world that’s labeled ‘the next best guy in the division’, and he’s supposed to be the best grappler and I outgrapple him. I think beating the No. 6 and the No. 4 guy should earn me that title shot. I’m willing to wait, I’m willing to do whatever to get that title shot.”
GE VACCINE: The Green Party is furious that a living genetically modified organism in a cholera vaccine passed into New Zealand. Over 50,000 people have taken the vaccine. The Greens say the genetically modified organism could now have passed it’s way into the environment and be well established. The Government says it will get an alternative vaccine from Sweden to replace the genetically modified one. Health authorities say the vaccine is unlikely to pose any risks to personal health as it has been approved by the World Health Organisation for use.
SHIPLEY’S HEART TREATMENT: The doctor behind Jenny Shipley’s heart treatment says the former Prime Minister was treated no differently from any one else. Mrs Shipley was rushed to Newtown Hospital in Wellington yesterday afternoon in an ambulance because of chest pains.
EMAIL LEAKS: There has been some embarrassing leaks of some New Zealand defence documents to a teenager. The teenager has asked the documents to stop but the Pentagon continues to send her highly classified information by email.
BUDGET ANNOUNCEMENT: Labour’s first budget as Government will be announced tomorrow. Research and Development are likely to be key parts of the Government’s package. Many in the agricultural industry says the paperwork involved in getting a grant for R&D has put many off applying. Help for the regions is also expected with Northland, one of the worst hit regions from the eighties and nineties reforms, expecting help from a country package. A young Wellington family, both beneficiaries with 5 young children, is hoping the Government will reduce the cost of education.
NZIER PREDICTION: The New Zealand Institute of Economic Researcg (NZIER) believes widespread pessimism will ensure the economy will only expand three per cent in the next year, contrary to the expected growth of near four per cent
CHRISTMAS ISLAND REFUGEE CRISIS: Early this morning the Australia Senate has rejected proposals to strengthen laws against refugee boat people. A Norwegian freighter with more than 400 asylum seekers aboard is now sitting 4 miles off the coast of Christmas Island. SAS soldiers boarded the freighter yesterday. Meanwhile the NZ PM is calling on the United Nations to intervene in the crisis.
CENTRE FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES: The Government has emphatically denied a claim that it has acted to cut funding to the Centre for Strategic Studies. All three funding agencies for the centre, MFAT, The Ministry of Defence and the Defence Forces have cut funding and the Centre may have to close at the end of the year.
BOUGAINVILLE: A peace agreement between PNG and Bougainville rebels is to be signed today in Arawa. The agreement culminates negotiations that will give the island autonomy.
EAST TIMOR: 100s of thousands of East Timorese go to the polls in a few hours. These are the first free elections in the territory. Sixteen parties are contesting the vote with Freitilin out in the front.
PRISON STRIKE: State Services Minister Trevor Mallard says a Corrections Department industrial action may lead to the suspension of prison officers.
MARK BURTON TRIAL: A second psychiatrist will give evidence today in he trial of Mark Burton for matricide. Yesterday a psychiatrist criticised decisions to discharge Burton the day before he stabbed his mother to death.
MICHAEL COFFIN MURDER: The police investigating the suspected killing of Auckland man Michael Coffin say it is taking time to piece together a picture of the missing mans life. After finding his car yesterday a missing person investigation was upgraded to a homicide inquiry.
RAIL PURCHASE CONCERNS: Concerns are being raised in Wellington about the speed with which the regional council is moving towards taking over the Wellington commuter rail network. Some mayors are concerned that the process is going to fast.
BLACK GRACE: An Auckland based dance company Black Grace is the only new arts organisation receiving institutional funding from the Arts Council.
I'm still in the 'new Minister' stage of going through a lot of 'firsts' and this is no exception. This is my first speech to a secondary school principals' audience. It is good to see so many familiar faces in the audience.
I met many of you while travelling the country as the Labour Opposition spokesperson on education. I found my visits to schools invaluable in developing Labour's education policy. That policy is now the base of the Government's education policy.
So thank you to principals whose schools I visited, or whose meetings I attended. I have always appreciated the free and frank discussions I have had in school staffrooms and in your studies. And while there is no doubt that my time is a bit more of scarce commodity these days, I am determined that I will continue to visit schools on a regular basis and maintain the dialogue with people working at the grassroots of education.
I also hope that you will extend invitations to my Associate Ministers who work with me on policies that affect schools. Lianne Dalziel has the delegation for special education, and Parekura Horomia is responsible for school transport and for Maori education.
Steve Maharey is working in the tertiary education area, but you may come across him in areas like careers advice, the transition between school and work and when you look at the new apprenticeships programme.
I have retained responsibility for teacher education. There are obvious issues like loans and allowances that come under Steve's umbrella, but I feel that teacher education is a crucial component of the compulsory education sector and policy decision in that area should be closely related to what's happening in schools.
It's been 16 weeks tomorrow since I became Minister of Education and I think it's probably been the busiest time of my life. It's also been one of the most satisfying. After several years in Opposition it is good to be able to work through policy areas and to actually know that the end stage is implementation.
We've been busy so there's no shortage of subjects to talk about today and I'm sure you won't have difficulties thinking of questions to ask afterwards.
Two days ago, legislation was introduced to Parliament that includes changes in three major areas - bulk funding, enrolment schemes and school governance. The legislation will be debated next week and then be referred to select committee for consideration.
Under this legislation, the right of parents to send their child to their neighbourhood school will be enshrined in the law. If they wish to go elsewhere they can, but local children will always have priority. Where there are more outside-zone children wishing to attend a school than there are places available, ballots will decide who gets to attend - with siblings given priority.
We will never be able to satisfy everyone. If two students from outside a school zone want to go to a particular state school but there is only one place available, one student is going to miss out. The Government believes those children should be given an equal chance through a ballot system rather than schools choosing which child they want.
Also under this legislation is our policy to end the bulk funding of teacher salaries. There is a range of opinion on this issue and I'm sure that range is reflected in this room.
Bulk funding has been one of the most divisive and destructive issues in education. While some schools have no doubt enjoyed the benefits of bulk funding it has led to an unfair distribution of funding between schools and it did not recognise the educational needs of schools. Over time bulk funding would have exacerbated the problems of schools in poorer areas in recruiting and retaining the best teachers.
I'd also give some advice to the Act education spokesperson who is trying to incite bulk funded schools to take legal action against the Government. It is a core responsibility of the Government to fund schools, and to determine the funding system that it feels is fairest to the entire school sector, and that is what we are doing through this legislation. I regret that some money voted for education was used to pay for lawyers. I understand that the advice explained the role of government in setting policy.
The extra money and to a lesser extent, the flexibility, are the two major reasons given for schools' support for bulk funding. I am working on changes to incorporate that flexibility into the new funding formula and will make announcements on that later this year. As for the money - well I can only say that there will be significantly more money in the schools sector next year than there is this year so more schools will be able to introduce some of the 'extras' that bulk funded schools have enjoyed.
Some of you may have already caught up with the news that details of the one-off payment to centrally-resourced schools were made public yesterday. Depending on the efficiency of New Zealand Post the letters outlining how much you'll receive will be at your schools either today or tomorrow. Already my office has had complaints from bulk funded schools about why the payment was restricted to centrally-resourced schools. The answer is simple. Bulk funded schools have already had their share of the extra money set aside by National to entice schools into bulk funding. This is the leftovers as a result of fewer schools than National anticipated opting into bulk funding.
It is not as much as many schools would have got had they switched to bulk funding. I wish it could be more. But it is $15.1 million that would have been sent back to Treasury under National's rules.
Ministry officials are currently working through the formula that will be used next year and you will know what funding you will receive by the end of August. I can tell you that for non bulk funded schools it will be significantly more than the one off payment.
I am pleased there will also be some changes to school governance which provides some flexibility within the school board structure.
Of particular interest to you is that we will allow for voluntary staggered board elections for half the parent representatives every eighteen months. The main reason for this is to help schools avoid situations where all their parent representative members are new after an election.
We're also bringing back students' right to an elected representative on secondary schools' boards of trustees.
I know most of you - 73% to be more precise - do have student representatives on your boards. They can make a valuable contribution to the running of a school and I think the students have a right to having a democratically elected member.
Under these changes, student elections will be held by October of each year. This will enable a 'hand over and training' period from one years' representative to the next. An October election will also ensure the student representative is well established in their role before the next school year begins.
One of the decisions I have made this year which is perhaps of most interest to you is the extension of the timetable for the introduction of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement.
It was not an easy decision to make but on balance there was a risk that teachers are not entirely confident in the training and support they will have had. I've been heartened by the overall response to the decision. It would be fair to say that there has been a wide a range of responses to it from principals - from a letter saying that the decision 'sucks' to delighted letters from people trying to seize an opportunity to relitigate the whole issue. I think there's probably a similar range of opinion among people sitting in this room right now.
Let me say quite clearly that I am not opening the door to go backwards. There has been too much disruption in senior secondary school qualifications over the past two decades for me to feel comfortable about opening the can of worms again.
And this new certificate can solve long-standing problems at senior secondary school level. It has all the best elements of the traditional examination system: externality; fairness; rigour.
At the same time it recognises that there are great many skills and abilities that examinations can't measure and that employers want to know about.
I believe that the record of learning associated with the NCEA will provide a comprehensive record of student achievement and a student's assessed strengths and weaknesses.
For example, knowing a student got merit in arithmetic and statistics, and a pass in measurement, but did not reach the required standards in algebra or geometry, is very much more useful than knowing only that the student got 53% in mathematics. In the NCEA conventional subjects will be reported both ways - if a mark is your preferred way of reporting, you can use it. If you want more information, it will be there.
So to anyone hoping to get the Government to back away from the proposed changes - I'm sorry to disappoint you.
But I hope that you will support my objective to advance on some fairly comprehensive professional development for teachers. We do need to do as much as possible to ensure teachers are confident in their knowledge and skills and are ready to undertake the internal assessments that are needed.
By the end of 2001 I want to be sure that every teacher of a qualifications class will have participated in at least four full days of teacher professional development - working with their peers from other schools to ensure that their expectations of student achievement are consistent; and they have common skills and understandings of what and how to assess and report.
The Government has decided to grant two teacher-only days this year, and request schools to build in two call back days next year to achieve this.
Finally, I'd like to talk about a policy which I am particularly keen on and which I see as being crucial to the long term enhancement of the schools sector - that is the staffing review.
We are in the process of developing the terms of reference for that review. It will take into account factors such as rurality and size of a school, changes to the curriculum, the workloads of teachers and principals, the particular needs of Maori and Pacific Island students.
The assumption that a school with 200 pupils has only 20% of the administrative workload if a school with 1000 pupils is just wrong.
I will be chairing the staffing review myself. We will develop priorities to be implemented over several years.
But I am delighted that this morning, Howard Fancy announced that he has secured the services of Hutt Valley High School Principal Graeme Marshall to play a major part in this process. Graeme will be the project manager and will plan and manage the work programme for the review, and chair it when I am unavailable.
As MP for Hutt South, I am very sorry to lose the services of such a high calibre local principal and I expect some of my constituents will not be too pleased with me.
As Minister of Education, I am delighted that I will be working with Graeme on a project which I believe will significantly benefit schooling in New Zealand.
First, the contribution the proposed agreement would make to ensuring that trading arrangements contribute to improved standards of living and improved standards of environmental protection.
Second, the extent to which the sovereign ability of New Zealand is retained, enabling New Zealanders to make laws in its own economic, social, cultural and environmental interest.
"We cannot reduce tariffs only for the benefits to accrue to the stronger partner. Integration that causes destructive movements of capital, skills or labour defeats our purposes. Balanced development and equitable trade relationships must be our watchwords."
The Alliance recognises that New Zealand is a trading nation, and that the exchange of goods and services with other nations helps to create jobs, rising income levels and development we need.
The Alliance fully supports, and believes the Government should facilitate however it can, trade and investment that increases employment, raises incomes and boosts development, provided arrangements are not environmentally destructive.
Trade with other nations will not necessarily bring unequivocal benefits, however, where other nations have a competitive advantage based on exploitation of workers or the environment.
For example, New Zealanders support a free trade agreement with Australia because we recognise that Australia has a very similar economy and social structure to ours. In particular, Australia features a similar minimum wage, social security services, democratic government, rule of law and environmental protections.
Free trade with a country such as Australia needs to be contrasted with free trade with the hypothetical example of a country that has no minimum wage or social security; that exploits workers in the tradeables sector; or that exploits the environment destructively. Singapore is not in the latter category. However, the contrast between a near-optimal trade opportunity, such as CER, and a negative hypothetical example provides a template for analysing proposed trade agreements, including the proposed Singapore-NZ CEP.
International trade arrangements should be based on trade advantages in areas other than labour costs, social security or the environment.
If the only way a nation can gain an advantage is by imposing exploitative wages and employment conditions, or by destroying the natural environment, then the gains of trade can be more than wiped out.
The Alliance believes trade arrangements should be organised to lift trading nations and their citizens up, rather than to impose a ‘race to the bottom.’
The Alliance supports trade policies that make the strongest possible contribution to New Zealand's development. Agreements that can contribute to a reduced standard of living for many New Zealanders, or to destruction of the environment, undermine, rather than contribute to, New Zealand's economic development.
Positive outcomes are usually claimed by the supporters of free trade. The Alliance believes that positive outcomes can be ensured by stipulating them as conditions of agreements, rather than leaving them to chance, or the market, lest they become merely the results of failed experiments.
In practice this would mean building in to both bilateral and multilateral agreements provision for improvement in minimum standards – for example, the development of a minimum wage standard and its steady improvement; or the use of environmental measurements and a commitment to improve environmental outcomes.
If trade and investment agreements deliver the gains that are claimed, then such conditions would impose no more than very low monitoring costs.
The Alliance believes it is particularly important to include minimum employment and environmental standards in the Singapore agreement when it is being regarded by many of its proponents as a model to be applied to other countries.
The Alliance believes that as a sovereign country New Zealand should retain as much control as possible over its own economic, social, environmental and cultural destiny.
The proposed agreement restricts the ability of a future government of New Zealand to make laws protecting New Zealand’s economic sovereignty.
Alliance policy on overseas investment supports investment that is in the national interest, for example, because it helps to create jobs, introduce new technology or boost exports without negative environmental effects. However, the Alliance does not support investment that is simply the purchase of existing assets where that entails the loss of jobs, the withdrawal of technology of the destruction of the environment.
It is possible that at some time a Government of New Zealand may wish to introduce laws enacting protections to sovereignty, such as national interest criteria. For example, pose the question, how much of New Zealand would we think it was too much to sell? We have been relatively relaxed about the sale of the first few thousand hectares and the first 60% of all publicly-listed companies. However it is possible to imagine that New Zealanders may be more protective of the sale of the last square inch of New Zealand to an overseas owner, or the last share in the last public company. In that case, it may be that a future government may wish to restrict, rather than to maintain or liberalise further overseas investment rules.
The proposed CEP with Singapore makes it virtually impossible to lower investment thresholds from current levels for Singaporean investors. Another example is that it is unlikely to be possible to introduce local broadcast content quotas, for example, that favour New Zealand content, New Zealand producers or New Zealand artists over Singaporean content, producers and artists.
The heavily reduced ability to regulate investment flows in the national interest is particularly important because of the strategic position that Singapore occupies. Singapore is an internationally renowned transit point for international investment. Under the proposed CEP, it will be relatively easy for investment to be directed via a Singaporean base.
Many proponents of the proposed agreement see its main feature as being tactical: The agreement is a device to kick-start a regional free trade and investment process.
The use of bilateral agreements designed to expand into regional agreements has gathered pace since the collapse of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. One of the main reasons that the MAI foundered was that it threatened to reduce the ability of sovereign nations to regulate for their own economic, social, cultural and environmental protection. The expanded use of agreements such as the proposed Singapore-NZ CEP revives the same possibilities.
It is inevitable that there will always be some trade-off between the desire to protect our own sovereignty, and our desire to influence the conduct of other nations. For example, we sign international agreements renouncing torture in exchange for an undertaking from other countries similarly to restrain themselves from barbarism.
The Alliance believes, however, that there is a very important distinction to be made between participating in international agreements designed to improve the level of human rights across all countries on the one hand, and on the other hand granting foreign citizens the same rights as citizens of New Zealand to unlimited commerce on our own shores.
It is unusual for members of a government to publicly oppose a trade agreement prior to signing. However, we are following historical precedent and the mechanisms specifically agreed to by the Labour-Alliance Coalition Government for dealing with coalition differences.
In 1932, the British National Government Cabinet ‘agreed to differ’ on the issue of tariffs, allowing Ministers of one party to speak and vote in the Commons against a tariffs bill proposed by a Minister from another party.
In 1975, Prime Minister Harold Wilson explicitly permitted opponents of the European Common Market to campaign against it from within the Cabinet.
New Zealand's procedures for dealing with such differences have been carefully developed since MMP was introduced, and the Alliance believes stable mechanisms are in place. Although in 1932 the ‘agreement to differ’ was viewed as constitutionally controversial, all modern constitutional scholars now accept it is permissible. See for example, Geoffrey Marshall (Constitutional Conventions: The Rules and Forms of Political Accountability, revised ed., Oxford University Press, 1986, page 57):
“Perhaps the principle (of Cabinet unanimity) in its entirety is a matter for the Cabinet and the Prime Minister between them to apply or not as they wish.”
For New Zealand, the Labour-Alliance Coalition Government put in place a mechanism for differentiation by agreement back in December 1999. Cabinet has since explicitly agreed on a process for dealing with the proposed Treaty.
Coalition partners will follow carefully agreed processes. The proposed agreement will be put to a Select Committee for public discussion and comment. Following that, it will be brought to the House for full debate. There will be a vote in the House on the matter.
Once the vote is taken, the Alliance will accept the decision of the House. This means that if the House votes in favour of the treaty, the Alliance will not use its special position to frustrate the decision of the majority of Parliament.
In formal terms, it is the Cabinet, and not the House, which accepts international obligations and treaties. However, the Alliance has long campaigned that Parliament's views should be predominant in the acceptance of international treaties, because of the enormous significance of such treaties on New Zealand domestic law.
Although not formally binding, therefore, in practical terms for this proposed agreement, the House's vote will settle the issue. The Alliance believes it is inconceivable that the Cabinet would ratify the Treaty against the wishes of the House.
Cabinet has agreed that the proposed Singapore-NZ CEP agreement will be referred to a parliamentary select committee and public submissions on it will be invited. The agreement will then be the subject of a vote in the House.
The Alliance will be voting against the agreement when it comes before Parliament because the Alliance believes the agreement should incorporate measures to improve the standard of living of New Zealanders and to protect the environment, as well as making provision for the protection of New Zealand's economic sovereignty.
Minister of Maori Affairs Hon Parekura Horomia is distressed about the state of the Solander Street property in Tolaga Bay and said that the whanau is already taking immediate action about the situation.
Mr Horomia is the executor of an estate that has as its beneficiaries his niece and nephews, including William Crawford. The estate includes the property at 30 Solander Street Tolaga Bay.
As Executor, the property is held in Mr Horomia's name. Mr Crawford will be part owner of the property once the estate has been wound up and the property divested among beneficiaries. Mr Horomia said that the issues relating to the estate have been complex and have required substantial support from family to resolve over the past few years. However, those issues have been largely resolved and the estate is working towards being wound up and divested to its beneficiaries. Mr Horomia is not a beneficiary of this estate.
Mr Horomia said that it was agreed Mr Crawford could live in the house rent free on the understanding that he maintained the property. No rent has been received by the estate. Mr Horomia and his family have met all back rates and debts associated with the property. When approached by Mr Crawford for assistance to make repairs to the spouting, Mr Horomia gave finance for the work. That work was never completed.
"Every attempt has been made by the whanau to provide William and his family with a home during difficult times. William is my nephew and I really don't want to talk about members of my whanau in the media," Mr Horomia said.
"At no time have I been advised that the property was in need of significant repairs and I am distressed to be told of the current state of disrepair. Whanau are taking immediate action to remedy the situation. I have not received any correspondence or any repair notice form the Gisborne District Council about the property."
“The Government welcomes the report back of the Telecommunications Bill from its consideration by the Commerce Committee,” the Minister of Communications, Hon. Paul Swain, said today.
“I would like to thank the Committee for its work on this Bill, which contains a number of quite technical provisions that the Committee has considered.”
“The Bill has been subject to rigorous scrutiny by the Committee. I think that the amendments it has recommended will lead to a more robust regulatory regime for telecommunications.”
The Government introduced the Telecommunications Bill in May this year. The Bill contains the Government’s response to the Ministerial Inquiry into Telecommunications, which reported back to the Government in September 2000.
The Bill creates a new regulatory framework for the telecommunications industry (including a new Telecommunications Commissioner within the Commerce Commission), and carries over most of the provisions of the Telecommunications Act 1987.
“I understand the Committee considered a large number of very helpful submissions on the Bill, and has accordingly recommended a number of amendments to make the regime more robust.”
- immediate designation of fixed to mobile pre-selection from Telecom’s network as a multinetwork service;
- a new purpose clause for the provisions in Part 3 that relate to the declaration of Telecommunications Service Obligation (TSO) instruments. TSOs will reflect government social policy objectives to ensure that certain telecommunications services are available in areas where they may not otherwise be provided on a commercial basis, or at affordable prices;
- giving the Commerce Commission the power to choose weighted or unweighted revenues as the basis for calculating the amount payable by a liable person in relation to a TSO instrument;
- allowing the Commissioner to impute a retail price for individual services sold together in a bundle of retail services, under the designation of retail services offered by means of Telecom’s fixed telecommunications network (although for procedural reasons this recommendation was not included in the Bill as reported back. It will be addressed by Supplementary Order Paper).
“There are a number of other amendments that Government members on the Committee would like to see made to the Bill to strengthen it, but that were not agreed by the Committee because of the split in membership. These include:
- strengthening of the wholesaling regime by including price-capped services (residential local access) in the designation of wholesaling of Telecom’s fixed network services, as recommended by the Inquiry;
- mandatory reviews of the need to designate local loop unbundling and access to unbundled elements of (and interconnection with) Telecom’s fixed public data networks. These reviews are to be carried out by the Telecommunications Commissioner within 24 months of the commencement of the Bill;
- specifying two mobile services, national roaming and cellsite co-location, as recommended by the Inquiry. Specification will send strong signals to industry that access to these services must be provided if requested;
- prescribing a fast-track process for a specified service to become a designated service, if necessary (designation allows pricing principles to be resolved); and
- clarifying the matters that may be considered by road owners in imposing reasonable conditions on the work of telecommunications network operators on roads.
“The Government intends to introduce Supplementary Order Papers to amend the Bill in relation to all these matters.”
“I am aiming to progress the Bill through its final stages in good time, so that the new regime can commence as early as possible.”