Communications Legislation Bill

I move, That the Communications Legislation Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Commerce Committee and that the committee present its final report to the House on or before 28 July. This bill is a largely technical measure that is designed to prevent unintended consequences, to correct certain anomalies in the wording of the present legislation, and to deal with some timing issues. The bill is narrow in scope, as demonstrated by there being just one substantive clause in Part A, which amends the Telecommunications Act. The bill is not related to any decisions on the broader telecommunications stocktake. It was introduced to Parliament on 6 April, well prior to finalisation of stocktake decisions. Those broader matters will be considered through separate and later legislation.

This bill contains a number of urgent, technical matters that need not, and should not, await that wider review process. The Communications Legislation Bill is an omnibus bill that amends both the Telecommunications Act 2001 and the Radiocommunications Act 1989. The bill will contribute to improving the efficient operation of the communications sector of the economy as part of the economic transformation of New Zealand society.

A robust, up-to-date communications sector is an essential part of an innovative, growing economy. The bill maintains a commercial environment of certainty and confidence for both telecommunications services and use of the radio frequency spectrum. That will benefit both producers and consumers of goods and services, be they providers of telecommunications services, radio spectrum licensees, or customers, viewers, or listeners.

Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act 2001. It extends by 2 years, to December 2008, the regulation of 10 of the services originally regulated under the Act. Regulation of those services is due to expire in December 2006, unless extended by an Order in Council on the recommendation of the Minister, following an investigation by the Commerce Commission. The necessary investigations by the commission are under way, but final decisions may not be able to be acted on by December 2006. Full investigations necessarily require a thorough process, utilise the scarce resources of the commission, and, of course, take time to finalise. However, telecommunications service providers and customers need as much certainty as is practicable, and it is undesirable for recommendations on renewal of regulation, or otherwise, to be made without proper scrutiny. This bill therefore extends until 2008 the existing regulation of the 10 telecommunications services mentioned. However, the commission can still make any necessary investigations, and regulation of servers can be discontinued, if that is seen as appropriate, by a similar process of recommendation and Order in Council that would normally extend regulation.

Part 2 amends the Radiocommunications Act 1989. Again, the amendments are 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. 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 a public register. Put simply, accommodating poor-quality receivers can limit the spectrum available for new licences and lower the economic utilisation of the radio frequency spectrum as a whole.

The bill therefore establishes a process by which inappropriate receivers are not to be taken into account in the certification of new licences. The need for that provision is underscored by current issues regarding receivers in vehicles for VHF-FM broadcasting reception. Used vehicles imported from Japan are normally fitted with an FM receiver that can receive only two or three FM stations in New Zealand, because the FM band used in Japan is different from the international band used in New Zealand. The best option for consumers or vehicle dealers is to fit a new radio on importation, but some importers or dealers have fitted a cheaper device, known as a band expander, to allow reception of more stations. Those devices have inherent limitations and, in some cases, will give degraded or no reception of certain stations.

Although it is a consumer choice not to install a New Zealand - specification radio receiver, or to purchase a car that has one, that choice should not destroy or deny normal, efficient use of the radio frequency spectrum for other listeners with New Zealand standard receivers. That becomes increasingly important, as further use of the VHF-FM band is being planned.

The present Radiocommunications Act provides for management rights and underlying spectrum licences to be created for periods of up to 20 years. That gives certainty of investment for services using the radio spectrum. In addition, management rights—termed “successive management rights”—can be created prior to expiry of existing rights, but as separate rights. The bill allows, in limited circumstances, the aggregation in time of an existing management right and a successive right. That will facilitate an efficient transition from one right to the next, and will give improved certainty and efficiency in the radiocommunications sector as rights created from 1990 onwards reach their 20-year expiry date from 2010 onwards.

The bill includes provisions to allow radio licensees to resolve any contentious issues by arbitration, in a similar manner to the existing provisions for commercially allocated spectrum licences. Issues concerning radio licences, which are issued administratively, have previously been resolved by decisions of the ministry. The other provisions facilitate electronic processing by removing references to duplicate copies, correct wording relating to the expiry of successive management rights, improve the efficient recovery of unpaid regulation fees, and give amended regulation-making powers. All of those amendments are intended to maintain and enhance the efficient operation of the regime prescribed in the Act.

The communications sector is subject to rapid changes in technologies and, therefore, in services. It is also characterised by long-term investment in physical infrastructure issues. Those characteristics require a regulatory environment that allows a fair return to those who own the infrastructure assets, while protecting consumers, and one that is able to keep pace with the rapid changes in technologies and services.

This bill is a relatively small but important step in New Zealand keeping its regulatory environment up to date. The issues are narrowly focused; however, they are relatively urgent, and need to be dealt with now. Wider legislative changes will be proposed later this year, in order to progress decisions arising from the telecommunications stocktake, but those provisions are necessarily more detailed, and will benefit from a full discussion at the select committee in due course.

In conclusion, I say that the Communications Legislation Bill is an important though narrow piece of legislation. It is acknowledged as being largely technical in nature, but it is critical to maintaining and improving the efficiency of the communications sector. It does not pre-empt decisions of the Commerce Commission, but allows its expert view on continued regulation, or otherwise, of communication services to be adopted in sensible time frames within the resources available. It deals with matters in the sector that are both urgent and necessary. The bill will avoid unintended consequences in both telecommunications and radiocommunications by preventing the unplanned expiry of regulation on a narrow range of communications services, and by giving the legal certainty to allow the full use of the radio spectrum, despite some listeners choosing to use inappropriate radio receivers, such as band expanders. The bill also deals with enhancing the regime in the Radiocommunications Act in several minor but important ways. As such, I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to speak for the National Party. I make it clear from the outset that we will most certainly support the bill going to the select committee, and, unless there are small modifications to it, probably support it going right through the whole process.

But I raise, first of all, an issue of process. One of the things I find interesting about this bill is that it seeks to extend the expiry date of some of the regulated services by another 2 years so that the Commerce Commission can consider those services and report to the Minister of Communications. I have to ask the Minister, David Cunliffe, outright—in fact, I have to ask the whole House—what the point is. We have a regime at present whereby there is a dedicated person called the Telecommunications Commissioner. The commissioner, Douglas Webb, beavered away for as long as he did and used all the resources he could use—because there were a lot of meetings, research, and consultation—then he made a recommendation on the unbundling issue, which was not to unbundle. The Government of the day accepted his recommendation. Nothing has changed in terms of any of the commissioner’s recommendations to the Government, yet suddenly, one day, out of the blue, from a leaked Budget paper, we found that the Government is going to completely ignore the commissioner.

I actually think there is no problem with Ministers making the decision. I think that Ministers are elected and Governments are there to make hard calls and tough decisions. But I say to the member that I find it absolutely unconscionable that we spend the level of public money we do on a Telecommunications Commissioner’s office and all the resources that go with it, and say that we want the very best possible advice we can get from the commissioner, then when the Government finally gets that advice, it says that actually there will be some political consequences unless it does something different, so it announces that it will unbundle the local loop anyway. Douglas Webb’s office should just be closed down and he should be given another job—maybe he could become a decoy cop or do any of the other jobs that are going at present. It is a silly thing to have that office.

It is a little bit like the issue we had with the Minister of Conservation and Whitianga Waterways. The case went right through all the process—through courts and environment courts—then the Minister said that he did not care what the courts had said and that he would override them. Well, let us cut out the middleman and just have the Minister make the decisions. We should forget about needing to extend services for another 2 years while we wait for the Commerce Commission to report. Why do we not just ask the Minister what he will do, because it might be that the Minister will completely ignore the commission’s report.

Having said that, I think it is worthwhile to canvass the two parts of this bill—the amendments to the Telecommunications Act, which basically give the extension of time, and, more important, some of the stuff around the Radiocommunications Act. I have to say, as a member of Parliament—probably the only member, I think, in this House, although I might be wrong—who can solve Faraday’s differential equations governing the propagation of the electromagnetic spectrum—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What a sad member!

Well, I understand it if other people have more interesting things to do at night-time. We will not canvass Mr Cosgrove’s nocturnal activities here. I often go home at night and solve Faraday’s differential equations under the duvet, because I find them quite elegant and exciting. But I think the electromagnetic spectrum is probably the most misunderstood issue, and this bill will play around with some of the rights and licensing.

I will let members know some interesting points about the electromagnetic spectrum. It used to be that there was really only one part of the spectrum—the short wave, long wave, and microwave part. As the years have gone by and technology has got smarter and smarter, we have found new ways to use it. The spectrum is actually in the same part of the world; it is in the ether, the atmosphere, and it travels through whether there is air there, or it is outer space, or whatever else. It is just the frequency at which the electromagnetic signal beats. If it beats at quite a low level, it can start off down in the chunk we call the AM band, and as it gets faster it can go into the VHF band. Halfway through the VHF band it locks into a space, and in that space is the FM band. Then there is the VHF second band up—VHF means “very high frequency”, and it is called that because everyone thought that that was about as high as it could get. But then we moved into UHF, which is ultra-high frequency, and now we are up into the gigahertz parts of the spectrum, where it beats thousands and millions of times a second.

I want members to hear this analogy, because I hope it puts this in perspective. The chairman of the International Telecommunication Union in Geneva gave a speech a few years ago and said that if all of the spectrum that is currently utilised in the world could be represented by a sheet of A4 paper, then the spectrum that is not yet used, but that one day will be, would reach past the sun. I think that puts into perspective how much further we can go—to the trigahertz, then to the gigatrigahertz and the gazilliontrigahertz, and so on, of frequency. We cannot do that at present, because we do not have the devices or the microchips that are smart enough and capable of using the spectrum. So if members think that a Radiocommunications Act is a thing that is passed once and then it is all over, I tell them that we will need a regular tranche of radiocommunications amendment bills to address issues along the way.

One of the most important issues that needs to be dealt with—and this bill goes some way to doing it—is that of interference. Again, a lot of people do not understand it. Let us consider Lake Taupō on a lovely, smooth, glassy day. If someone down at the southern end of Lake Taupō, by Tauranga-Taupō, and someone up at the township end each dropped a pebble in the lake, then the little circles that emanated out from the pebbles would not touch each other—actually, they would, but so slightly that it could not be measured. However, if those people each dropped a very large boulder in the lake only about a kilometre away from each other, the outgoing circles would hit each other and form a whole series of diversion patterns. That is one of the serious problems that goes on in this country all the time. Clayton Cosgrove is sitting there completely flummoxed by all of this. After he left standard 4 he never studied any of this stuff, but I can tell him—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: That’s not fair!

Is that not fair? Well, the best 5 years of his life were in standard 5. I will tell the member about the situation we have now. If a new radio station starts up and is on a particular frequency—let us say it is on a 702 kilohertz band in Auckland—it may be that a radio station in Hamilton is on the same frequency, and there may be interference. But the interference may be about an integral number of harmonics. It is interesting how much of the sign wave of a harmonic we can get interference from. It happens regularly. Members of this House may not know it, but a new radio station will start up, and within days there will be a complaint from someone in an unexpected area who says that something has happened to his or her reception and that it has gone very fuzzy and hazy. Then we get into some of the rules about who has first right to that frequency. As this bill makes clear, somebody might already own the licence and not be using it. Someone else might own another licence and be using it, and when the person who has the first licence starts up an operation, he or she will want to claim incumbency rights. But the person who has been broadcasting to customers for some years might think that he or she has incumbency rights. This bill goes part of the way to addressing that issue.

The bill will define what new spectrum licences are and give very specific limits. The duration of a new radio spectrum licence will be 20 years. It will clarify and refine the disputes resolution process—again, I refer to the two boulders falling into the lake and the interference. I know that Clayton Cosgrove is totally flummoxed by this; I might draw him some little diagrams later of the boulders and the lake. We might say to a radio station that we will let it stay on a frequency but that it will have to tweak its dipole. It would have to broadcast at a certain number of watts or kilowatts, but only into, say, an elliptical area in one direction and with none of its frequency being broadcast back behind that area, or into a basin in another direction, or wherever, because that is where the interference goes. Let me tell people that a lot of broadcasters—radio and television stations—hate being told that, because they say they have customers there. The disputes resolution can become really nasty.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What’s it called—a dipod?

I am talking about tweaking the dipole—a dipole is the little unit that carries out the transmission of the device. There are all these contour graphs—again, another concept the member will be struggling with—that show which area the frequency covers and at what power. As I pointed out, the real issue is that a lot of people will say that they have been broadcasting somewhere and that now we are taking away their rights. So this legislation goes to address that matter.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the bill addresses the issue of a number of those telecommunications services that are currently regulated and about which the Commerce Commission says it cannot complete its investigations into those services within the 5-year time frame. The fact that the commission cannot do that should send shivers down people’s spine to start with. The commission will receive a 2-year extension, but I would like the Minister, if he takes a right of reply call at the end of this debate, to tell us whether he will accept the recommendations of the Commerce Commission this time, or whether he will just say that he does not care what the commission says because he will override it, anyway—in which case, there is no point in having such a commission.

I must concede that Maurice Williamson was right about one or two things. I was quite perplexed by some of the very elegant scientific arguments he was making. We now know what Mr Williamson spends his time on in respect of his duvet, so he tells us, and he talked about this concept of tweaking one’s dipole. I suspect he may have spent too much time tweaking his dipole, because I think that what he said did not have a substantial amount of relevance.

The purpose of the Communications Legislation Bill, as we know, is to set out mainly technical amendments to provide sufficient communications in a regulatory environment. In view of Mr Williamson’s comments, I would say that the National Party has a problem with this telecommunications bill, and with other legislation that will soon come forth from this Parliament. It is called a lack of credibility. I should declare my interest. As one who worked in the telecommunications industry for a time—not for Telecom, but for, as it was then called, Clear Communications—I may not have as eminent a knowledge of the technical parameters as Mr Williamson does, but I do have a knowledge of the industry, and I understand competition policy and a number of the things contained within this bill. Mr Williamson, as I recall, as the Minister of Communications—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: A very good Minister, too.

—he is on his dipole again—was the staunchest advocate for Telecom. In fact, when I worked for Clear Communications, it was well known in the industry that no one was more staunch an advocate for Telecom than the then Minister of Communications, Mr Williamson.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Who privatised Telecom?

Indeed, the former Labour Government privatised Telecom.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Without any conditions.

No, with the Kiwi share condition. There were a number of conditions surrounding the Kiwi share, as the member knows. Mr Williamson spent a good 9 years defending like a fortress the monopoly position that is, and was, Telecom. The question is why. The National Party has zero credibility.

As the Minister of Communications said earlier today, we have had three versions of telecommunications policy from the National Party. Mr Williamson, of course, says the National Party does not have a telecommunications policy in place and is not undertaking any consideration of a policy. It is interesting that while we debate this bill Mr Williamson can stand up and pontificate on the technical aspects of it, and tell us honestly—and he is an honest guy; I will say that—that the National Party has zip in terms of telecommunications policy. Then, as Mr David Cunliffe has said, there is Mr Ryall’s point of view, which is that National is not putting up any fresh ideas deliberately. Well, “deliberately” is right—National members are incapable of putting forward any fresh ideas, full stop. That is the truth.

The third National Party position on telecommunications policy is that of its leader. Interestingly, at 10 to 10 last night—for those who were not here—he chose to walk in on the one bill he should not have walked in on, and that was the Coroners Bill. The walking dead walked in on the Coroners Bill. I thought that was quite ironic. Dr Brash says that National would not reverse the unbundling announcement that Mr Cunliffe has made. What I am getting to in this speech in respect of the Communications Legislation Bill is that the National Party has been hard at it in respect of its dipoles but it has no policy and no credibility on telecommunications issues, at all. So even though Mr Williamson was a staunch advocate for Telecom—not for the telecommunications industry but for Telecom—as Minister, for nigh on 9 years, my advice to National members would be to go home and think again, because no one views that party as having any credibility.

In my own patch, there are telecommunications issues that will be dealt with by this bill in part, but there are other telecommunications issues, like toll boundaries, for instance, and the issue of what rural people will get out of this bill. Well, I can tell people that after Mr Cunliffe executes his policy, in my patch there will be no more monopoly in terms of telecommunications. No more will it be the case that the people of Kaiapoi have to make a toll call—using technology that possibly may be addressed in this bill—to Rangiora, yet can make a local call to the southernmost extremities of Christchurch. Why has that been the case? Because of an absolute monopoly in respect of local calling. The question is why that position was protected for so long by Mr Williamson, and why, when his leader said he will support the new policy, Mr Williamson again staunchly defends that position.

Even after the chief executive of Telecom has told us that the company has been hoodwinking the market, delaying, dragging the chain, and treating us as if we are ostriches with our heads in the sand—that is a good, truthful statement, and I am glad it is finally out there; it substantiates what I knew about the industry when I worked in it—Mr Williamson gets up and defends the good old position. He does that even after his leader says that National will support the new policy. Mr Williamson is staunch to the end. The last of the mavericks still stands up and supports his mates. [Interruption] I just say that I look forward to the ongoing debate about the Communications Legislation Bill. [Interruption]

The member talks about the share price. Well, if the member knew anything about the telecommunications market, he would know that in whatever form an unbundling announcement is made—have a look at Australia—if the company, the monopoly incumbent, has never had a plan B, has never invested, and has never prepared for a day when a Government of some shade may unbundle the local loop, then what happens? The share price takes a knock. Who is responsible for that? The dopey directors and board members are responsible—for not having a plan B, not having invested in the network, and not having a contingency plan for when market conditions may change.

Members opposite show their ignorance of business if they assume that boards of directors never prepare for a market change. So, for the good old Kiwi battler who had telecommunication shares, the responsibility is sheeted home to those who did not have business plans, to those who did not invest in the network, and to those who did not have a plan B if market conditions would change. Those members show their ignorance.

But, we have a Telecommunications Commissioner to give good, learned advice, and learned advice has been given on this. Then we have these wonderful things called Ministers of the Crown in a Labour-led Government, who have this wonderful skill called decisiveness. They actually make decisions. I know that for 9 years the then Minister of Communications in a National Government was incapable of making a decision—or just did not want to—in respect of trying to create a competitive environment for Kiwis and lowering the price of telecommunications. Was he incapable of making a decision, or did he just not want to, and if he did not want to, the question is why. I will leave that for him and his conscience to answer.

On this side of the House we listen to the Telecommunications Commissioner, we listen to a number of experts within industries, and then we come up with a policy, and then we do something that is unique to us—we make a decision.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Is that why we have a Telecommunications Commissioner? [Interruption]

Is it not great; listen to them! The headless chooks on the other side of the House show their ignorance by their comments. I love it! I hope they do it at the next election. I love it! They show their ignorance by their silly comments.

When average Kiwis consider the Communications Legislation Bill we are debating today, and the other decisions that David Cunliffe has made, and when they consider what they will face—they may be in rural communities like Rangiora, where they have been screwed to the floor by artificial toll boundaries—they are loving it. They are licking their lips, because those rural communities will get a competitor in there and they will get a choice as to who provides their telecommunications. Then the prices will drop. There will be no more street by street pricing and no more regional pricing. They will get a choice.

I just say to Maurice Williamson, a former Minister of Communications, that I wonder what history will say about him. I am going to be complimentary. I say that history will say Mr Williamson, as communications Minister for 9 years in a National Government, preserved the castle, preserved the status quo, and preserved a monopoly position. Every Kiwi who pays more than the average Australian for his or her local calls, rental, and toll calls can thank Maurice Williamson. Every Kiwi who lives where there is a toll boundary and who does not have a choice with regard to local calling can thank the mystery man, Maurice Williamson. I suggest he goes back and plays with his dipole a little bit more.

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.

As the Minister of Communications said in his introduction, this is a very narrow bill. In fact, the challenge is to try to spend 10 minutes talking about it. That probably explains why the contribution from Clayton Cosgrove, I think, did not refer at all to any of the elements in the bill. In fact, it was not until the last minute of his speech that he actually mentioned the name of this Communications Legislation Bill. I thought he was talking about something else and was in general debate mode.

Nevertheless, I have to commend Maurice Williamson for his contribution. It is true that Maurice has a better understanding of the physics surrounding this particular issue than possibly anybody else in the House, and he has the elegance of language to be able to explain it very clearly. I just wish he would explain to his colleague Tau Henare that 2 plus 3 does not make 6, as Tau tried to argue last night in the House. Maurice is one of those people who are fascinated by the physics involved. I totally believe that before he goes to bed each night he tries to solve Faraday’s differential equations as well as spending some time tweaking his dipole.

New Zealand First, although it will not have a member on the select committee, will be supporting this bill, and we are very, very pleased to see that National will, as well. We will have a lot of confidence if Maurice is a member of the select committee the bill will go to. I have worked in select committees with him, and he is a very, very good member in that particular role. He certainly works assiduously at the detail and, because of his knowledge of physics, he will make a tremendous contribution to the details within this.

💬 Dr Ashraf Choudhary: This bill is not one of Maurice Williamson’s.

No, but I am making some nice comments, just so Maurice goes away from the House today feeling good about himself.

I refer now to some of the details of the bill. It rolls over a number of controls that were already in existence and were due to expire in December 2006. It rolls over regulation on 10 out of the 13 services, largely because the Commerce Commission possibly will not be able to fulfil the work it has to do by that time. This seems to be very, very sensible, and it is also very sensible that the other three services, which are the national toll-free telephone number portability service, Telecom’s fixed public switched telephone network to mobile carrier pre-selection service, and the co-location of equipment for fixed telecommunication services at sites used by BCL, are not being rolled over. Good justification has been made by the commission as to why none of those things actually need to be rolled over. Certainly, there are satisfactory explanations for that.

The part of the bill that caught our interest, to make sure we knew exactly what we were talking about, is the issue around band expanders. We well know that the band on many of the Japanese used vehicles coming into the country in increased numbers is not big enough to pick up a wide range of radio frequencies here in New Zealand, so people install band expanders. As the Minister pointed out, some of them are not up to New Zealand standards and, therefore, do not get one or two frequencies in certain areas—in fact, I think it happens in only one area of the country. That should not be a reason for that part of the spectrum not to be able to be used. We think this is a sensible modification to overcome some of the unintended consequences of the existing legislation.

The bill also clarifies that the maximum duration of a radio spectrum management right is 20 years from its commencement date. Once again, we think that move is sensible. Also, we think it is sensible to include a limited ability to aggregate management rights in time, in order to simplify the management of the radio spectrum.

To that end, New Zealand First will be voting in favour of this particular bill. We hope that the select committee, which we are not represented on—but we do have confidence in some of its members—will look at the details to ensure that they are right so that the bill can proceed through to its final reading.

I rise to speak on this bill on behalf of the Green Party and to indicate, as I think all members have so far indicated, that we will be supporting this legislation. I want to put that within the context of the very real commitment the Green Party has to New Zealand developing a world-class telecommunications system. That relates to things like broadband, and the steps the Minister of Communications has taken to regulate and unleash some of its potential in this country. In relation to things like mobile telephone rates, it is well known that we pay very high rates for mobile calls in this country. We have a real commitment to the development of that system, because for us it is about creating a sustainable economy. If we take a triple bottom line analysis of the matter, then for us world-class telecommunications have a social pay-off in that they are about participation—the ability for all New Zealanders to actively and effectively participate in our society. The kinds of technologies we are talking about have enormous potential to increase participation, and therefore to give a sense of inclusion and involvement in our society and our communities.

Regarding environmental issues, the Prime Minister has talked about the need to start thinking about how we move towards a post-oil economy—the need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels because of the reality of peak oil and the enormous environmental challenge we face in terms of addressing climate change—so having an effective telecommunications system to allow us to interact, communicate, and meet in various ways apart from having physically to move people around is a crucial part of that. Of course, in terms of economics, if we are to overcome our geographical isolation in this country and the disadvantages of a dispersed population with low density, then we have to become serious about taking advantage of the technologies available in the world today.

If any nation is capable of doing that, it is our nation—New Zealanders, the people of Aotearoa—because we are a creative, innovative people. Whether we are talking about the descendants of the Polynesians who came here—the Polynesian pioneers; the “Argonauts of the Pacific”, who made their way here and created a unique and rich culture—or the more recent pioneers, people of European, African, and Asian descent, we know we are descended from people who took risks and chances. In this country we were early adopters of technology. We thrive on new ideas, new challenges, and new technologies, so we are well equipped to pick up the challenges and potential of the technology available to us today.

I thank Mr Williamson for his physics lesson. I thought it was enormously helpful, and I was amazed to hear Clayton Cosgrove say that he still did not quite understand. That is unfortunate, because I thought it was a very good lesson. Mr Williamson talked about the potential frequency available, and I was staggered to hear the analogy he used. I, for one, was not aware that that is what we are talking about in terms of potential frequencies. I thought that his analogy about interference on the airwaves was also a very good way of demonstrating what we are talking about. I think that for many of us in the House it was a valuable contribution. The points he made reinforce the point made by the Minister that while this is a technical bill, it is important. It deals with some serious issues that we have to address. I am pleased we are doing that—that we are debating the bill, and that it is about to go to the select committee and work its way through the process.

Of course, we cannot have discussions about a piece of communications legislation without acknowledging the context we are operating within, following the Government’s announcement on local loop unbundling, unconstrained bitstream separation, and naked DSL. Those issues were raised by Maurice Williamson and Clayton Cosgrove, and are part of the broader context within which we are operating, and it is something the Green Party is enormously supportive of. We are 100 percent behind the policy package the Government has announced. I congratulate Mr Cunliffe on having the courage to take some pretty bold steps, and I look forward to being part of the whole process in seeing that package through to reality.

One thing we need to start addressing, in the context of that package and the whole telecommunications review, is the issue of the cost of mobile calls in this country, because it is an area in which we are significantly disadvantaged. One issue in clause 4 specifically relates to that. It is about extending the cut-off period from 5 years to 7 years, to allow the Telecommunications Commissioner the time to address the 10 issues set out in new section 65(1A), inserted by clause 4. New section 65(1A)(j) lists “co-location on cellular mobile transmission sites.”, which is actually a big issue. It relates to a question I asked the Minister during question time today about how we will prevent Telecom from deliberately delaying negotiations around access to the copper wire network in order to delay the benefits of local loop unbundling. I think the same applies to co-location, because at least some people would say that the difficulty in negotiating a fair price and terms for access for co-location has hindered the entry of other mobile network players into the New Zealand duopoly environment. So we are disadvantaged by the duopoly we are subject to, and we have to take seriously how we can start to create conditions that make it feasible for new entrants to come into the market to create real competition and, therefore, to benefit New Zealand consumers.

I support competition in terms of service provision, and that is why I am supporting local loop unbundling and this issue I am just speaking to. But I think it can be shown that in the provision of infrastructure, competition is not always helpful. Competition can create perverse incentives for inefficient behaviour. But it is in service provision that competition is most important. If we look at the way the infrastructure around mobile phones has developed in this country, we can see sites where there are multiple towers within an area. That is hugely inefficient in terms of resource use, it is economically inefficient, and it has been caused by the environment in which the infrastructure has been developed. I understand that now we are starting to see a move towards cellular mobile transmission sites being built in ways that do not even allow co-location. They are actually being physically engineered so that extra gear cannot be co-located, because it is physically not up to it. I think that that is an enormous problem. How we get into that and actually create meaningful regulation for co-location, is a very important issue.

It is perhaps going a bit beyond this bill, but there is another issue where the regulator has recently made a finding around termination rates. Those are the costs that mobile phone companies charge landline companies for calls that terminate in the mobile phone. Although there is the ability to regulate termination rates, I understand there is no ability to ensure that any savings that landline companies get from the regulated termination rates are passed on to customers. To me, that is ridiculous. That is a clear flaw in the Telecommunications Act, so although that is a bit beyond this legislation, it is one of the things we need to start looking at, as well. I though it was important to raise it in the context of the debate, because we have to look at these things within the context of the broader picture. I reiterate that the Green Party is supporting this bill, and we congratulate the Minister on the work he has been doing.

Tēnā tātou katoa i te Whare. When Te Māngai Pāho first started, it was looking for a mission statement. Kāterina Mataira, one of Te Māngai Pāho’s first directors, coined the most beautiful of phrases to express its role. That phrase was: tuhia te hā o te reo ki te rangi; to suspend the essence of the language in the heavens. Being able to communicate is the life-force of a people’s language and culture. Being able to communicate well should be the focus of this bill.

The 2000 ministerial inquiry into telecommunications found that there is a risk that differing capacities to participate in the information economy can create, or amplify, inequalities—or, in simple language, if one is behind the start line, one will come last. The Māori Party wants to know that if the Government wants to put more rules on the telecommunications industry, Māori will not be disadvantaged or left out the back when it comes to investment, competition, opportunity, and consumer benefit. We know that Aotearoa’s digital future means having a low-cost, efficient, and competitive telecommunications set-up. We also know that Māori interest will be best served by ensuring that such a set-up is available to all. Those interests are, of course, reinforced by the 1999 Waitangi Tribunal finding that the Radiocommunications Act 1989 was in breach of the Treaty, in that it permitted alienation of spectrum rights without consultation with Māori and without allowing Māori a fair and equitable share of those rights.

The Māori Party also notes the further finding of the tribunal that the Crown had breached its obligations to protect Māori language and culture, and that the measures taken by the Crown to remedy the decline of the Māori language were insufficient. These are not merely issues for interesting policy chatter. These are vital matters of survival for Māori. They are about who we are, how we communicate, and how we preserve and develop our unique language and culture.

In this regard, we will forever be indebted to the legacy left by the claims of Huirangi Waikerepurū on behalf of Ngā Kaiwhakapūmau i te Reo, Sir Graham Latimer on behalf of the New Zealand Māori Council, and Piripi Walker, Whatarangi Winiata, and other pioneers. It was through their efforts that Māori involvement in the communications industry now plays an increasingly more positive role in promoting our culture and language. It is not just the impact of www.maoriparty.com that has set the world on fire—although that is the place where one can buy the T-shirt, do the blog, have the chat, vote, translate, and google away to one’s heart’s content about anything and everything to do with Te Ao Māori.

The Internet is also having a positive effect in education and long-distance, real-time communication. We recognise, also, that efficient access and price competition have as many benefits for Māori as they do for all other Kiwis. The question is whether the proposed amendments to the Telecommunications Act 2001 and the Radiocommunications Act 1989 will make a difference. Will the regulation of the communications sector be improved by this bill, and how will these changes ensure our survival?

The Waitangi Tribunal acknowledged a Māori right to develop resources as a Treaty right, resulting from article 2. It also recognised that that right could not be fossilised as at 1840, and limited only to resources used back then. The resource existed in 1840, even though, like oil, grazing land, and orange roughy, it had zero value until it was discovered and developed. Who owns the wind, the airwaves, and the water? These are not trick questions. The Waitangi Tribunal finding that Māori had a legitimate claim on the radio spectrum provided an opportunity for Māori to create economic benefit, as well as add huge social capital to the wealth of this country.

As we all remember, of course, the Tribunal’s report was another one the Government chucked into the rubbish. It refused to accept that generation of radio waves was a taonga under article 2 of the Treaty, that Treaty principles required spectrum rights to be allocated to Māori, or that the Radiocommunications Act was in breach of the Treaty. But here we are today, with a flourishing Māori radio industry, and Māori Television—the only national television channel dedicated to the promotion of home-grown programmes. Yet, despite those successes, there is scant evidence to suggest the telecommunications industry gives Māori knowledge equal standing, or that equal Māori involvement in spectrum decision-making is provided for.

Other initiatives prove indigenous success in managing and producing economic return from telecommunications, and I wish to refer to an interesting case study from our whanaunga from overseas. The Native American population of the United States is just over 2 million, half of whom live in rural areas and one-third of whom live on reservations. Most of their tribes are now heavily involved in telecommunications, ranging from Internet access to the full provision of telecommunication infrastructure. Along the way they have had to deal with critical issues of cultural preservation, ownership, tribal identity and values, and the culturally appropriate management of technology. That technology is seen as a key to improving their educational and economic options, particularly given their large rural populations. Although America is not particularly noted for its support of indigenous programmes and values, it does have numerous sponsorship and support programmes to assist with the development of communication technology.

I contrast that situation with our own efforts back home. The 2000 ministerial inquiry into telecommunications recommended that Telecom improve the quality of its services in rural areas, and that the Telecommunications Commissioner monitor and, if necessary, enforce those obligations. That requirement is particularly important to Māori given that good telecommunications have always been limited by geographic location and the fact many Māori still live in rural areas. Six years after that inquiry I can confirm there are many, many areas in Te Tai Tokerau, Tainui, Waiariki, Ikaroa-Rawhiti, Te Tai Hauauru, and Te Tai Tonga that still suffer from a lack of quality telecommunications. Although the promotion of third-generation cellular telephone technology as the new wave in wireless communications is an admirable exercise, it is pointless when the favourite phrase one’s phone keeps saying is “Searching for network”. That does not just limit our ability to communicate for social and economic reasons; it also severely hampers the capacity of our tamariki to receive their full entitlement to education.

I congratulate those from Te Rūnunganui o ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori o Aotearoa for their foresight in trying to build a videoconferencing system for the wharekura network, but I also note that 6 years after that initiative was launched, the current telecommunications network appears to be unable to supply the required bandwidth for various wharekura around the country, and that despite the wider coverage of Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) as a high-speed digital telephone service, Telecom has indicated that ISDN will not be available for all wharekura because of the functionality requirements and associated costs and Telecom’s commitment to develop other parts of its network.

In a society where Māori are consistently labelled as welfare dependent, having management rights to radio spectrum—and thereby having the means to participate effectively in the telecommunication industry—will give Māori an opportunity to create economic independence, and, as a consequence, benefit the nation as a whole. The Māori Party will support this bill in order to provide an opportunity for further debate to consider allowing opportunities for other providers to compete for clients and force New Zealand’s mobile phone prices down to a realistic world price, and to ensure that mechanisms are in place to allow Māori to participate effectively in the telecommunications industry.

I return to the phrase with which I opened my speech, because I love it so much: tuhia te hā o te reo ki te rangi; to suspend the essence of the language in the heavens. Being able to communicate is the life force of a people’s language and culture. Being able to communicate well must be the focus of this bill.

I rise on behalf of United Future to take a brief call on the first reading of the Communications Legislation Bill. There are a number of things I would like to mention in particular, as we debate this bill. The first is that one of the objectives in Part 2 is to clarify and update the radio spectrum management regime.

The commentary on the bill states that a well functioning regime is critical for a number of important sectors, including the communications and broadcasting sectors. That statement, of course, is self-evidently true if we want to keep moving New Zealand communications—telecommunications and radiocommunications—into the modern world. But I want to mention that I would like the select committee to pay careful regard to submissions that it will likely get from the community and charitable sector.

The community and charitable sector, through things like Access Radio and other arrangements, at the moment has what we might call preferred status when it comes to the New Zealand radio spectrum. But, of course, they cover niche markets. That sector covers special-interest groups in ways that mainstream radio will not do, and it would be very, very keen to ensure that it retain that status in the future. United Future, as a party that is very, very much focused on the need to grow and expand community and charitable services in New Zealand, wholeheartedly supports those objectives, and we hope the select committee will take special care to ensure that the access of that sector to the radio spectrum is protected going forward.

The other thing I would like to comment on briefly is a point that has been commented on already by Nandor Tanczos of the Green Party. I sometimes marvel in life, particularly in parliamentary life, at the succession of events. As members know, last week, on Wednesday night, the announcement was made about unbundling the local loop, which is something that United Future supports. We believe it is a necessary step if we are to move broadband and other high-end spectrum telecommunications and information technology into the First World.

Over a dinner party on Thursday night we were talking about it, of course, and there was a person there who said he had just been in Ghana and Nigeria. He said he was amazed that the Ghanaians and Nigerians were all walking around with cellphones on their ears virtually all day. He said he found it quite amazing that in countries that experience relative poverty—in fact they are definitely part of the Third World, not the First World—people find themselves able to afford to use mobile phones to that extent.

On Friday morning a delegation came to me as United Future’s spokesperson in this area to talk about mobile phones, and the expansion of the network in New Zealand. This is the same point that Nandor Tanczos was talking about earlier. I told them what had happened the night before, and they said that that was exactly right. They told me that the cost of mobile phone services in New Zealand at the moment is 10 times the cost of equivalent services in Nigeria and Ghana. I was staggered to hear that, so I asked them why. They said that it is very, very simple. They said that in those countries this sector is unregulated. They said that it is quite cheap for people to set up competition in mobile phone services and to keep the costs down. It is just basically that people are allowed to go there, they are allowed to establish without much regulation, and they are getting services going. As a result, virtually everybody in Ghana and Nigeria is able to use mobile phones.

I thought that this was a very interesting phenomenon, because when we talk in New Zealand about unbundling the loop and getting people on to broadband, the examples that the Prime Minister gave were Singapore and South Korea. Countries of that kind are clearly First World. I wanted to probe a bit deeper. I asked how this has come about. They said it is because of the duopoly that we run in New Zealand mobile phone services. We have just two major players. We have created enormous barriers to the entry of new technology—some of which is now simple and cheap—and we are keeping it out of our markets. They went on to tell me, and this will be of interest to the Minister, the Hon David Cunliffe, that at the Harvard Business School the New Zealand regulation in relation to mobile phones, and particularly the way we have allocated the spectrum, is now a case study on how not to do it. We have made it to the Harvard Business School, for all the wrong reasons.

When I heard that, I reflected on it in anticipation of this debate. I thought to myself what a phenomenal cost New Zealand has had to bear in the telecommunications and information technology area, for bad regulation over a long, long period of time. We go back to the days when the New Zealand Post Office had a monopoly on our telephone system. We remember that we were so delighted if we managed to get a phone connected within 6 weeks. That was the kind of environment we had. It was dreadful. We all used to save money so that we could ring a relative in England occasionally. By the time we had got through talking about the weather, we would say that we had to go because it was costing a phenomenal amount of money. We then went into the sale of Telecom and left it with a monopoly on the local loop, and, boy, has that cost us a lot of money. [Interruption] Others will be able to pinpoint where these decisions were made, but it is a tragic history, is it not?

In respect of the unbundling of the local loop I have to say I have very little sympathy for Telecom, from this point of view. Some of Telecom’s competitors tell me that all they wanted from Telecom was the ability to put their high-tech devices into exchanges.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: For a market price.

For a market price, exactly right. They were prepared to pay a market price to put their devices into exchanges. Telecom said that, no, it had put its choice of the latest technology, in its view, into those telephone exchanges and it would let them share that. But even though those competitors were prepared to pay for it, Telecom would not allow them to put their more expensive, faster, and better equipment into its exchanges. That is just one example.

Another example that comes to mind is one that got my brother-in-law on to television. He was doing a subdivision in Nelson and asked Telecom to put in the wiring for it. Telecom did it and sent him an account for $20,000 for wiring up that fairly small subdivision. He was on television, because Telecom in its letter thanked him for choosing to use Telecom. What a joke. The tragic thing about that is that he paid for the wiring in that new subdivision. Guess what the people who built houses in that subdivision are doing every day? They are paying Telecom to use those wires, which Telecom did not have to pay to put in.

I sincerely think that we as a Parliament still have a long way to go in this area. Goodness gracious me, if we cannot even get our costs down to the level of cost in Nigeria and Ghana, then we need a big wake-up call as a country. We are holding back our economy. I am sure that every MP in this Parliament, privately, has already come to the conclusion that what we should be doing now is looking after the interests of our consumers—not the companies, not the guys who lobby us, but the people who use these technologies in New Zealand. They are the people we have to keep in mind, and we just have to keep working hard to bring this about.

I do not know how we can undo some of these regulations—I simply do not know—but we cannot logically continue as a nation to aspire to moving our economy forward and our standard of living up, for the benefit of all New Zealanders, while we keep paying 10 times as much for our mobile phone calls as do people in Nigeria. It is dumb, it is crazy, and we need to get real and do something about it quickly.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): I rise to speak to the Communications Legislation Bill. As previous National speakers have indicated, we are supporting this bill to its first reading. Many speakers have pointed out that this is quite a technical and narrow bill, but we have just recently heard what happens to Mr Maurice Williamson before he goes to bed at night, and about dinner parties at Mr Gordon Copeland’s house. Interestingly, for the previous speaker, who was talking about Ghana—actually I think Nigeria was the one—he may be pleased to know that I believe it is a New Zealand company that has built and is supplying the billing software and network for that. The reason mobile phones are so active over there is that there was never any fixed-wire network. But he also may be interested to know that that same New Zealand company is suffering and is under threat, because of the proposed changing of the “grey list” country legislation. The investors in that company will be suffering and they may not be able to expand further into the rest of Africa.

As I said earlier, we do support this legislation, but I have some reservations and some misgivings. They are pretty much about the context, the current environment, all things concerning communications, data, and recent events. At the moment there is a context of total incompetence, of total commercial naivety, with the way the recent unbundling leak has happened and the reactions from the Beehive afterwards.

There is a very interesting phrase in the bill. It talks about inappropriate receivers, and perhaps that can be applied to someone in Telecom surrounding this. But because of the way this leak has been dealt to, $1.5 billion has been knocked off the share price of New Zealand’s largest listed company. That is $1.5 billion taken from the wealth of New Zealanders; that is mums, dads, superannuation funds, trusts, and individual savings—$1.5 billion. The bills for those are starting to arrive. They will arrive in New Zealand over the coming weeks when investors get the new valuations for their share portfolios, when their brokers send them their analysis. The share price was about $4.80 today, I think, down from $5.60 or $5.70. In fact, it was $7.30 not so long ago. So, in fact, about $2.5 billion over the last year or so has been knocked off the share price of New Zealand’s largest listed company. Mr Cullen is on record as saying he believes that a leak has been going on for quite some time. Well, perhaps in fact it is not a $1.5 billion leak; it may well be a $2.5 billion leak.

Also in the context of incompetence and incredible commercial naivety around spectrum, radiocommunications, and telecommunications matters, in the past week we have had a donation—an asset giveaway—of three frequencies to CanWest, another listed company; a giveaway of three frequencies to Kiwi FM. Even Neil Finn has come out saying: “That is absurd, that’s silly, what on earth are you doing?”.

In the context of the current incompetence and total commercial naivety surrounding all things communication at the moment, we actually have dormant mobile licences not being used. I believe they were partially owned and bid for by a Zimbabwe or South African consortium, as well as a Māori consortium.

There is also evidence of this. The Minister, in answer to a question today, mentioned Project Probe. Project Probe is a failure. The company that has just lost $1.5 billion off its share price—New Zealanders’ investments have gone down by $1.5 billion—received $34.3 million from the Government for Project Probe. It did not measure the outcome. It had no measures of success. It had no quality control. I have written answers from the Minister here—$34.3 million went to Telecom as the winner of some of the Project Probe regions, out of a total of $48 million - odd. Yet the same Government, in its total incompetence, has essentially led to a write-off of $1.5 billion of New Zealanders’ wealth.

There is further incompetence, and again total commercial naivety, around telecommunications and communications from the Beehive at the moment. There is an absolute shambles surrounding the current auction of the 3.5 gigahertz spectrum, also known as WiMAX. Now that might not mean much to many members in here—in fact, I would not expect it to. But essentially a new spectrum has been opened up for allocation for bidding to various regional players around the country. All well and good. It was supposed to have started last November. It was supposed to have been completed by now. It has been delayed, and delayed. Rules have been changed. It is absolute incompetence.

On the commercial side, in fact, there are allegations against one large player—in fact, I will give members a bit of background to the way the WiMAX spectrum has been set up. It has essentially been set up to stop one player getting dominant control of the spectrum. Basically, for those who do not understand, this is Wi-Fi, as some people know it, but much better. With holes in the regulations, with holes in the set-up, and general incompetence in the way it was set up, one large player has got control of this spectrum nationwide. Yet it was set up for regional players to start to create competition, as the member over there constantly refers to, to try to compete with the one large player. It is total incompetence.

The commercial reality is that the basic price for this auction was set at 17c per potential receiver of this spectrum. Well, with one large player exploiting the regulations, or basically just walking through the side door of the regulations of the auction set-up—a set-up of about $10 million—it has taken control nationwide of a spectrum, squeezing out local players, totally destroying any competitive activity, and absolutely nailing and basically cementing the status quo. It is absolute incompetence and naivety.

There is further confusion around the communications sector at the moment: the total contradiction of the Television New Zealand charter. Members may ask: “What’s this got to do with this current bill?”. Well, we are talking about radiocommunications, and we are talking about telecommunications. No one has done any work on the threat to the charter of different digital mechanisms, like Internet protocol television, and high-definition television. Again, these terms may not mean much to many people in the House, but the people out there know that they have not even been considered, and are waiting again for another knee-jerk reaction from a Government that is just totally incompetent.

There is no direction. There is no delivery or consideration, as I said, of new platforms for television. Again taxpayers’ money is at stake. Data will be delivered down different channels. This legislation is all about simple data. Perhaps some of those reasons above are why New Zealand was rated down today from No. 16 to No. 22 in the world competitiveness index. Perhaps that is why Australia has gone from No. 9 to No. 6 in the same survey—16 places higher—and that was before the awesome Australian tax cuts. New Zealand needs a better competitive environment. New Zealand needs a more productive environment. New Zealand needs more productivity. New Zealand needs more reward for taking a risk and investing in our future. Some of the points I outlined earlier are totally why we are absolutely going nowhere under this current administration.

Again I will go back to Project Probe—$34.3 million was given by this current administration to a company that it has just defected from, and it has taken $1.5 billion from that company’s value. Well, why did the Government give the $34.3 million in the first place? It has given about $4 million to another company in which about $100 million has been invested, and there are questions about the survival of that, I believe.

Again, as I said at the start, National will support this bill going to the select committee, but I have grave reservations about it in relation to its context and environment. Those who are supposed to be driving this country forward are totally inept, totally incompetent, and in charge of a country that is going downhill rapidly in the world’s competitiveness index.

Bill read a first time.

on behalf of the Minister of Communications: I move, That the Communications Legislation Bill be referred to the Commerce Committee, and that the committee report back to this House on or before 28 July 2006.

Motion agreed to.