Communications Legislation Bill

I am very pleased to take a call on the title and commencement clauses of the Communications Legislation Bill. Now that National members know there is an official letter, as a result of horse-trading, we can assure the Commerce Committee members that the very valid point raised by the Radio Frequency Users Association has been resolved. National members are pleased to continue to support this bill.

We are doing so well that I wonder whether Minister Maharey would like to take a call to give us further reassurance that the Government’s move to introduce a new provision, in Part 2, to assign radio frequencies to entities through means other than a competitive process would not result in horse-trading in a very non-transparent way to bidders. It has been a very revealing Committee of the whole House process, because we have seen how the parliamentary transparency process can be slightly sabotaged by horse-trading between Ministers and the parties that prop up this Government. Although National members support the result, we do not endorse the process. The public should be even more alarmed after last week, when the Government, in indecent haste, passed the parliamentary expenditure validation legislation. Now we learn that horse-trading happened behind the scenes, even after the select committee process—

💬 Hon Members: Pay the GST!

I seek leave to table the member’s bill in the name of Dr Don Brash that would allow the National Party to pay the GST.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is perfectly entitled to do so, because interjections from the other side of the Chamber led to it. Leave has been sought to table the bill. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.

That is telling, is it not? The Labour member sitting on the other side of the Chamber did nothing to contribute to the legislation that is before us. That lazy Labour member did not even take the trouble to read this legislation, but continued to interject to challenge National to pay the GST bill, then refused leave for me to table Dr Brash’s bill so that we could do that. Well, I have bad news for Labour members: the public has a long memory. I am very happy to come back to this legislation, if Labour members take the trouble to get up on their lazy legs, take a call, and contribute intelligently to the debate about the legislation that is before the Committee.

The National Party supports this legislation, even though we are totally unhappy with the incompetence of the Labour Government. Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act 2001, which was set up to finish the business within 5 years. But we are here to extend that period for a further 2 years, because of the inability of the incompetent Labour Government to finish the task of examining the 13 designated services, which the Hon Paul Swain said would take the Commerce Commission only 5 years to do. We have agreed that we will support this legislation. The last thing we want to do is create uncertainty in the telecommunications sector, which has been through enough because of this inefficient, incompetent Labour Government. For that reason we reluctantly agree to support the passage of this bill.

I rise to speak to the title of the Communications Legislation Bill, and to thank the chairperson of the Commerce Committee, Katherine Rich. It is interesting to look at the membership list of the committee, and to see that young Charles Chauvel joined the committee on 3 August 2006. We are looking forward to Mr Chauvel taking a call and enlightening us with his knowledge of the Communications Legislation Bill.

In speaking to the title, I say that National supports the bill, which deals with matters that are both urgent and necessary in the telecommunications sector. The bill is aimed at avoiding unintended consequences in both the telecommunications and the radio communications industries.

There are a couple of key things about the bill that I will summarise. Firstly, the bill prevents the unplanned expiry of regulations on a narrow range of communications services. We can see that Part 1 addresses that issue, on the likes of local telephone number portability services, cellular telephone number portability, national roaming—which I will touch on a little later on—and co-location on cellular mobile transmission sites. The second thing the bill does is give legal certainty to allowing the full use of the radio spectrum, despite some listeners choosing to use inappropriate radio receivers such as band expanders, which I spoke on in an earlier speech.

The Communications Legislation Bill is an omnibus bill; it amends two Acts—the Telecommunications Act 2001 and the Radiocommunications Act 1989. As the Hon David Cunliffe—“Lord Cunliffe”—said in his first reading speech, the bill maintains a commercial environment of certainty and confidence for both telecommunications services and the use of the radio frequency spectrum.

Speaking to the title, I will deal with Part 1 in terms of the Telecommunications Act 2001. Members will recall that Part 1 was debated 2 weeks ago. Under the Telecommunications Act we see the issue of the expiry of a number of licences. The bill aims to extend by 2 years—to December 2008—the regulation of 10 services originally regulated under the 2001 Act, and those are the services I referred to earlier that include the likes of local telephone number portability, cellular telephone number portability, and national roaming, etc. As I said, the regulation of those services is due to expire in December 2006, unless that regulation is extended by an Order in Council on the recommendation of the Minister, following an investigation by the Commerce Commission. At the moment the Finance and Expenditure Committee is dealing with the likes of the local loop unbundling issue under the Telecommunications Act. It is very important that those regulated services are clarified and in good order. The necessary investigations by the Commerce Commission are under way right now, but the final decision on those investigations will not be acted on until late December 2006.

So the situation has arisen where we could extend the regulated period by a number of years under an Order in Council, but there is a time frame that would not be able to be reached. As a result, under this bill we have created legislation to allow it to happen earlier. That will allow certainty to telecommunication service providers and customers, which they need in this industry. The industry requires big investment dollars and it is very important that investors from overseas know there is security of services going forward. The bill therefore extends the regulation of 10 services through to 2008. We have certainty of tenure in that regard—at least for 2 years.

I would be interested to hear the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steve Maharey, clarify whether there will be an Order in Council to extend regulation beyond post-2008, and explain the Government’s plans. He could say whether the matter will be left in the hands of the new Government of the day, which is likely to be a National Government.

Part 2 deals largely with amendments to the Radiocommunications Act, and they are mostly technical in nature. Once again, they are critical for the efficient functioning of the regulatory environment for services that require use of the radio spectrum. Listeners will have heard much about the firming up of the regulatory environment in regard to the radio spectrum. We have talked in particular about the certification of licences and the ensuring of property rights around those licences. The 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 the public register.

What does all that mean? Put simply, it means that if we accommodate poor-quality receivers, we can limit the spectrum available for new licences, and lower the economic utilisation of the radio frequency spectrum as a whole. That was the point I made in referring to the issue that arose with two Christchurch radio stations, where CanWest took Niu FM to court, arguing that Niu FM had overtaken some of its frequency and it was unable to get its full listenership on board because listeners who had imported new Japanese radios were flicking between the two stations, albeit not through CanWest’s fault. CanWest went to court to get a decision about whose fault it was. I quote from the decision by Justice Chisholm, in which he stated that he would not uphold CanWest’s claim, since it was “reasonable to assume that the certifying engineer at RSM might not have known about the problem.”

This legislation sorts that out. It says that receivers that do not receive properly will not be taken into account. The legislation will clearly initiate licences going forward, and provide security of property rights to radio spectrum owners.

That summarises the two key parts of the bill relating to the Radiocommunications Act and the Telecommunications Act. The legislation deals with matters that are both urgent and necessary in the sector. It will avoid unintended consequences and ensure some security of tenure in the next couple of years. I say in summary that, first, it will prevent the unplanned expiry of regulation on a narrow range of communication services—and I have talked about co-location in that regard—and, second, it will give legal certainty to allow the full use of the radio spectrum, despite some listeners choosing to use inappropriate radio receivers such as band expanders.

I want to make a fairly brief contribution. First, I would like to respond to some of the things Pansy Wong said. I have to say to her that, in fact, her party can pay back the GST any time it wants. All it has to do is take out the cheque book, put in the correct figures, get the signatures and amounts on the paper, put “TVNZ” on the top of the cheque, and send it off—and the bill would be paid.

New Zealand First had a bit of a conundrum with this legislation, because we supported Part 1 but had some difficulties with Part 2, which we have pointed out. In respect of Part 2, we alerted Parliament to the fact that we had concerns, and we alerted Parliament to what those concerns were during the second reading debate. We said we would put forward a Supplementary Order Paper on the second part, and we made it very clear to the Government that if the Supplementary Order Paper did not proceed, we would not be able to continue to support the second part of this split bill.

As it was, we were able to take our concerns to the Minister of Communications, David Cunliffe, and I believe there is a lesson here for some of the Opposition members, in learning how MMP actually operates. The Minister, instead of saying: “No, no, no—that’s all been sorted out by the select committee. No, there are no issues here—I don’t want to hear you.”, actually sat down and listened. When he listened, he found there were genuine concerns. As a result, he was able to facilitate meetings with the groups concerned, and once again he was open-minded enough to say that there were some genuine issues involved, and that he would do what he could to respond to them. He did respond to them in such a way that it placated the concerns of the particular users group that had brought the concerns to New Zealand First, and we were able to proceed with this legislation with everybody feeling somewhat more secure about its outcomes than they did before.

That is MMP in operation. No one party has a mortgage on all the wisdom in this Parliament, but unless certain parties that have been in power in the past learn that lesson, they will in continue in the positions where they are, for a long, long time. I know about coalition, and I tell members here and now that when it comes to education, Wyatt Creech and I could teach many people here how MMP can operate, and operate constructively.

The problem that was pointed out by the Radio Frequency Users Association actually emanated from the Radiocommunications Act 1989, under which there were certain obligations for the Government to meet. The Government did meet those obligations when it came to cellular broadcasting, television, and cellular services, but it completely failed to meet them when it came to the land mobile radio spectrum. The question, therefore, has to be asked: who was in Government for 9 of those years since that time? In fact, the party that did not meet the obligations under that Act is the party now sitting on the Opposition benches. That needs to be recognised.

After all that time—from 1989 when the Act came in, and there has been a problem ever since—what party was able to reconcile the issues and fix the problems? The answer is that New Zealand First was able to take up the cudgels of that vitally important group and the services it operates—vitally important, particularly in emergencies—and New Zealand First was able to say that something had to be done. We would use the power of our vote in this Parliament to be able, at least, to get some leverage with the Minister. Fortunately, we had a Minister who was prepared to listen, and we were able to move the thing forward in a constructive fashion. New Zealand First is very proud of what it has been able to achieve in terms of this legislation, and we will be very pleased to vote for it.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2), pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 60.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.