Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

I think it is fair to say that the debate on the preliminary clauses is one in which there is a certain review of what has happened. In particular, we go to the appropriateness of the dates and times that are set out. I think it is also fair to say that Labour will not be heavily opposing clause 3 of the bill. It is probably the best clause in the whole bill. It is one of the few that the Minister for Communications and Information Technology has managed to get right and get through unamended. It is probably an indication of the problems the Minister has had with the bill that there are so few clauses within the bill that are unamended.

I think it is also fair to say that one could invent a number of more appropriate titles for the bill. For example, we could call it the “Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband, Telecom Subsidy, and Avoidance of Regulatory Matters) Bill” or a number of other things.

It is probably important at this stage to restate Labour’s point of view vis-à-vis the bill overall and to restate the warnings that have occurred earlier. I want at this stage to thank Dr Brash. I am not quite sure of the rules and whether we are allowed to address people outside the Chamber, but in passing I thank Dr Brash for drawing the attention of the media to some comments I made last week during the Committee stage.

It is important to make clear that this legislation will be the subject of a review by the new Government. The implication of that is that there will be more legislation that drops out in 2020 and 2019 than there is currently. With that goes a warning that with a change in the regulatory method and in the financial arrangements, people who enter into this sort of arrangement do so at some risk.

I have heard some criticism from members opposite—though, notably, not from Sir Roger Douglas. I thought it was telling that Sir Roger Douglas, who does actually understand regulatory reform and the right of Governments to make changes going forward, was not at all critical, whereas Dr Brash, who is opposed to broadband and made it clear during his task force report that he thought Government involvement in broadband was a waste of money, was critical.

We have made it very clear that the Commerce Commission will be involved in this area in a way that it is not allowed to be under the current legislation. That could well have—it will almost certainly have—implications in the regulatory arrangements for Telecom, if, in fact, it positions itself to get into this contract. The difference between this approach and, say, the approach used in the past by, for example, Sir Robert Muldoon is that there is clear notice of this fact before Telecom makes the decision to structurally separate and before the final contractual arrangements become effective. So if Telecom chooses to continue down this track, it will do so in the full knowledge that there is a very real possibility of a change in regulatory environment within the term of this arrangement and that it is at some risk of not being able to have what any thinking person would regard as excessive profit and an excessive regulatory advantage during that time.

It is nothing that could be compared to the Chilean experience, for example, or that of a number of other countries where there have been nationalisation-type approaches without notice. It may be that for regulatory change and legislation change, the legislation is reviewed and changed and the Commerce Commission is involved. Both Telecom and Chorus are at some risk in this, and both of them are satisfied with the ongoing situation. But there is a very real risk if this matter is not made clear to them. I am sure that Steven Joyce, being a responsible Minister and, in fact, one who would probably like to stir the pot as well, will make clear to Telecom the risks that sit there for the company, including this particular risk. There is probably a whole pile of other risks he is not prepared to tell Telecom about, but I think it is becoming clear to Telecom that it does not have legislative certainty over the period of this contract.

A point I want to make and really reinforce is that there is nothing this Government can do by way of contractual arrangements that indemnifies Telecom against future legislation. It has to be made absolutely clear in this Chamber that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament. This Parliament will not be and can never be in the position whereby it is bound by a predecessor. Each Parliament is unique, and each has the ability to make decisions. If a Parliament makes changes, it could well be criticised for them and that might be appropriate, but that is something we want to make clear will not happen.

There are a number of things that one could do in order to defer this legislation coming into force. Again, I acknowledge Sir Roger Douglas and the fact that he has taken a principled position on this legislation. I think it is relatively unusual to share some of his views in relation to the quality of regulation. I find it very surprising that Rodney Hide, the current Minister for Regulatory Reform, could possibly vote for such an abuse of regulatory powers as forms part of this bill. But it is good to know that at least some of the ACT members are prepared to act by the party’s principles.

The party I very much have regret for in relation to its position and its stated vote on this legislation coming into force is the Māori Party, because through this legislation it is undermining a significant Māori asset in 2degrees. There has been a lot of argument over a period of time about the appropriateness of the decisions I was part of back in 2000, when working at the time with Bill Osborne, as I remember now—I do not know whether Bill is even still involved—in order, if we like, to avoid—

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Did you ever play football with him?

I did play football with Bill Osborne, and I lasted the game and he did not. Poor old Bill ended up with a rather severe heart problem as a result of that game. It was not a heart problem of the sort that Bill, in his playing days, might have been more renowned for.

The point I am making is that this change is one that significantly undermines the assets of 2degrees. It means that that company will be much less competitive and that it will find it much harder to attract capital. I think it is bad that Māori are treating Māori so badly.

It is traditional in the debate at the Committee stage on the title and commencement clauses to use the debate on the title to draw together some of the themes of the discussion. The Opposition is with a certain sense of sadness, I guess, witnessing the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill moving its way through the Committee. Maybe one could call it the “What a Difference a Day Makes Bill”, if that day were the day of the last election. There is a contrast between the regulatory framework that was pro-competitive, which led to an upswing in investment and a better deal for consumers under the previous Government, and this slide back to the bad old days of Maurice Williamson’s wet bus ticket, where the legislation favoured the dominant incumbent. Here, sadly, we are creating a new monopoly structure on fibre to replace the existing monopoly or dominant structure—or the pre-reform dominant structure—on copper.

There are a number of reasons why that is true. The first is the so-called regulatory forbearance period—the regulatory holiday—that the Government proposed, which took the cop off the beat. The Commerce Commission is the industry cop that stops people from abusing market power, but that regulatory holiday would have tied the industry cop’s hands for a decade. That was obviously a nonsense. As my colleague Trevor Mallard said, it is a matter of great regret that only late in the piece did the Māori Party apparently wake up and have a discussion with the Government about that period, which apparently led to some change, although not good change. Part of the regulatory holiday is still there on point-to-multipoint services, which in Labour’s view is inappropriate, and which the Minister for Communications and Information Technology has never explained.

More important, the rest of the regulatory forbearance period has been exchanged for a taxpayer-funded guarantee to an incumbent. If it is caught out in future years with excessive margins because the cost of providing the service has fallen but the price has not, that incumbent will not pay if it is penalised by the Commerce Commission; the taxpayer will pay. That is extraordinary. An extraordinary insult is being added to injury; the original injury was to the regulatory coherence of this industry. That is why everybody in the industry, except for the incumbent telecommunications company, was united in saying that the Government’s legislation was utter and absolute rubbish. The Finance and Expenditure Committee heard submission after submission and, although the submitters raised a range of issues, they were unanimous—other than Telecom—that this bill should not proceed. But here we are. What a difference a day makes. The Government is simply using its numbers to put through what in its heart of hearts it must know—the Minister must know—is simply misguided legislation.

The second key issue why this is a very, very bad bill concerns the lack of rigour in the open access regime. That is less important, we agree, in terms of retail, because we assume that the structural separation of Telecom will proceed, but it is crucially important in wholesale and network access. It is crucially important in that critical dark fibre access, where other wholesalers now have no guarantee that they will be able to access the same product, at the same price and in the same way, that Chorus will provide to its own. We are replacing a problem of vertically integrated dominance on copper with a new problem on fibre. That will mean that everybody who is in the gallery watching will pay too much for their broadband in years to come—for at least a decade to come—under this bill.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Or for their copper.

That is right. Mr Mallard raises an important point—it is the next one on my list—which is the mandatory averaging on copper pricing. The broadband costs in fibre are so high that the only way the Government could make it worthwhile for the industry to play was to raise the price on everybody’s existing phone bill, for no change in service. The brief to us said that it would be $5 a month extra for the average house in a city. But the price will now be averaged, as a matter of Government policy, between city consumers and rural consumers. Once again, it looks as if the farming sector is getting a sweet deal out of this Government, while urban consumers are being penalised.

I tell people that their phone bills are being put up by this Government to make it look like a better deal—or a no-worse deal—for them to swap to fibre, which is too expensive. Why is it too expensive? Because the Government subsidy was inadequate. There was not enough money, but the Government wanted a commercial rate of return on the deal. The telecommunications company said it could not pay, so the Government sold the law to the tune of what the officials have advised was between $400 million and $600 million of disguised subsidies. It made the rules slacker and allowed the telecommunications companies to rip off the consumer. That is an outrage; it sets the course of the industry back a decade.

It was painful to get the progress that was made, but the progress was real—the progress was real. Here is the proof of the pudding: New Zealand climbed up the broadband rankings in the “noughties”, but it has fallen back since 2008 from being about 5th or 6th on those criteria to being about 12th or 13th. We have tumbled down the international rankings, because the Government and this Minister went around parading the $1.5 billion broadband plan, but—like everything else under this dishwater-shallow National administration—there never was a plan.

There never was a plan. There was a marketing slogan, designed by Crosby/Textor or some foreign spin doctor, to get National elected, but there never was a plan. I can think of no other reason why it took an intelligent man like Steven Joyce 2½ years of nothing to come up with a policy. But 2½ years later he has come up with an absolutely rotten, retrograde policy that will set the industry back a decade. It will cost everybody in the gallery, and everybody out in New Zealand, 5 bucks a month more on their existing phone bills, and will consign them to higher prices on broadband—ultra-slow broadband—for 10 years to come. This is not UFB—ultra-fast broadband. It is USB—ultra-slow broadband. It took Steven Joyce nearly 3 years to think up a set of dumb rules that cost the public too much money: mandatory averaging, an open access regime that does not work, and a stupid regulatory holiday that even in the end the Māori Party could not support.

Here is the next bit: an asset split. This Government is supposed to be running the show. How do members like this? Telecom gets to decide how it structurally separates and it tells the Minister only after the fact. After the board has signed off to its own internal commercial satisfaction, the Minister has zero prerogative to override the substance and zero requirement to consult the industry, and Telecom—how do members like this—has zero requirement to put all the details in the public domain. A summary of the asset split is OK. Who would know? If I were running that company now, and under an obligation to my shareholders to maximise profit, I could certainly hide a few lurks and perks in the detail that neither the Minister nor the public would ever know about until it was too late. Has the Government been asleep for the last 20 years? Does it not know the games that are played in this industry? Why is it playing back into the hands of dominant incumbents and creating a new problem of monopoly on wholesale fibre, just as existed with copper?

There is much more to say, but I will not go through it all now. This bill is so bad that it probably breaches New Zealand’s World Trade Organization undertakings, because it is a disguised subsidy to a local incumbent. How bad is that? It also probably—or possibly, we should say; there is conflicting advice on this—conveys some favourable tax treatment on certain members of the industry. We are not quite sure about that, but it certainly was not case proven in the select committee.

To sum up very briefly, this is the “What a Difference a Day Makes Bill”. We used to have fast broadband, but now we get ultra-slow broadband. People are paying too much for their phones. They will be consigned to slower, more expensive fibre than they would have had if this bill was not passed.

I would like to focus my comments on the commencement date and the interrelationship between the clauses in the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill that were to have limited the ability of the Commerce Commission to intervene in the event of uncompetitive practices by participants in the telecommunications industry and the clauses that are said to be in the contracts under which the Crown indemnifies Telecom in respect of all losses it may have in the future if it is found to have been acting anti-competitively and loses some of its revenue that it was otherwise expecting to get. How could this be relevant? It is possible that, in the future, part of Telecom could act in a way that abuses its dominant position. There is no doubt that once Telecom builds this fibre network, it will be the dominant supplier of wholesale fibre in the country. If Telecom abuses that and charges some of its competitors too much or some of its consumers too much, then consumers lose from both the loss of vitality of competition from other telecommunication providers and facing higher prices than need be the case.

We have already heard David Cunliffe comment that one of the effects of the Government’s policy in this area is to force up the price for people who do not have broadband. The consequence of the arrangements that the Government has seen fit to enter into with Telecom is that those who get their internet connections through the copper network will be forced to pay a higher price than they would pay if nothing had been done. One of the reasons for that is to have a lesser price difference between internet services on copper networks and internet services on broadband fibre networks, or fibre-based broadband networks, in an effort to improve for Telecom the likely take-up of fibre-based broadband. The cost differential will not be as great, as the price of copper has been pushed up falsely. The effect of this bill is just that. People who have existing services will be paying more for them. There will also be a cross-subsidy from urban areas to rural areas.

This is part of a pattern that we see from this Government. The latest Budget provided a subsidy of $35 million, I think, to the rural sector for new irrigation schemes. At the very time when the Government will not support jobs in the KiwiRail workshops to build wagons, it is subsidising the agricultural sector to that tune. We also have this cross-subsidy in respect of the telecommunications industry, whereby copper wire - based internet connections will be charged a falsely high amount in order to make the gap between the price for that service and the price for fibre-based broadband smaller. One can understand why the Labour Party is critical of these decisions. Indeed, we are also critical of the fact that there was an over-promise, really, before the election, as National said it would have the fast roll-out of broadband. Here we are, 2½ years into the National Government’s term, and it is only just passing the legislative framework. The final contracts have not even been signed. The fibre that has to be physically put in place to deliver broadband has not even started to be laid, pursuant to the Government’s policy arrangements.

I am intrigued by how the provisions relating to Commerce Commission supervision of this industry have metamorphosed over the period of this legislation’s stages. The bill when introduced into the House provided that there would be relief from Commerce Commission supervision of this industry, and this was achieved by Part 2 inserting some changes into the Commerce Act. This effectively ousted the jurisdiction of the Commerce Commission to take action, even if it found that there was anti-competitive practice on the part of a dominant participant in the industry. That ran into problems. There was severe criticism of that move at the Finance and Expenditure Committee by other industry participants who thought that that was inappropriate. They foresaw the risk that Telecom, if it was the successful contracting party with the Government, would do in the future what Telecom has done in the past, which is to use its position of dominance to the detriment of both consumers and other industry competitors. They danced and jumped up and down and said that this is wrong. They convinced every political party in this House, other than National, that they were right and National was wrong.

As a consequence, National faced the reality that it would not be able to pass the legislation in this House in its then form. There were doubts from the ACT Party, from the Māori Party, from the Greens, and from Labour—all of which said that we should learn from our history. Overly permissive regulatory regimes are taken advantage of by dominant telecommunications company players, to the detriment of consumers. If we are creating a dominant player with monopoly powers, we ought to make sure that they are overseen with proper regulatory powers on the part of the regulator, in this case the Commerce Commission. In the face of the reality that the Government probably could not have passed the legislation in that form, the Minister brought forward very late in the process, through a Supplementary Order Paper to this Committee, changes that backed away from some of those changes to the Commerce Commission’s powers. Again, we do not have the benefit of what the competitors in the industry might think of that, because they have had no opportunity to submit on what is now proposed.

In return for the Government moving away from removing those powers from the Commerce Commission, we are told that instead it has conferred an indemnity under the form of the contract that it proposes to enter into with Telecom. The indemnity promises Telecom that if it loses revenue because of a future Commerce Commission action, then the Government will make good that diminution in revenue even though the abuse of its dominant position in the market would have been the basis for that revenue being taken off Telecom in the first place. The Minister in the chair, the Minister for Communications and Information Technology, is shaking his head and saying that that is not the case, but, of course, the trouble we have with that is that we have not seen the nature of these indemnity clauses. We are told in the media that that is the effect of these indemnity clauses—that the Government will be indemnifying Telecom against all losses occasioned by Commerce Commission risk. That is how I would paraphrase it. If we have that wrong, well, how are we to know? At this stage when we are passing this legislation, how are we to know? There is a lack of transparency in relation to what exactly is proposed.

Labour will be voting against the commencement and title clauses of this—

💬 Paul Quinn: David, that’s sad.

It is sad, is it not? It is sad because we think there should be regulatory certainty that goes beyond one Parliament. We do not think it is desirable that there is regulatory uncertainty. It is true that that creates uncertainty for market participants, not just for Telecom, which is the market participant in this context that the Government keeps focussing on, but also for the other telecommunications providers. We need them to be secure in their future business models in order to compete and to cost-effectively provide services to New Zealand consumers, so that we have real competition in this market rather than being even more reliant on the dominant provider, Telecom.

We have a number of problems with the process that has been adopted to get here in terms of the legislation, the delays we have had in the practical implementation of broadband policy, and the bad policy we have as an outcome of those matters.

Perhaps I can provide some helpful assurances about a few things for Mr Parker, in particular, although in answer to his question about what we will do about these things, I tell him that he could think. Thinking would be a good thing, for starters. One of the things he could think about would be the chances of a fibre network having a monopoly position at any time in the next 8½ years. He could contemplate that, for a kick-off. He could contemplate the fact that the copper network continues to be regulated, notwithstanding, I think, three quotes from three different speakers from the Opposition trying to suggest that somehow it was not, and so on, and so on.

Opposition members are making things up all the way through the discussion. I think it is a bit sad, I have to say, because rather than actually studying the bill, looking at it, and looking at what a great deal it is for this country, they are just playing ridiculous politics all the way through, thrashing around, and opposing—which I think will be sadder for them than for anybody else—one of the most exciting investments that New Zealand can make for its future. They are opposing a tremendous deal for consumers and a tremendous deal for taxpayers, and a tremendous deal in terms of the cost to the country of getting this built, which I think is very exciting for New Zealand.

I am pleased that both Mr Parker and Mr Mallard are in the Chamber, because they could probably have a bit of a powwow about their views on contractual matters for Governments. The other day Mr Mallard declared that contracts would not be safe with a change of Government, or words to that effect. [Interruption] No, he actually said “contracts”. I can quote it back to Mr Mallard, if he would like. Then Mr Parker came in yesterday and clarified it. He said that the contracts will be fine. He said that those members do not change contracts and that it is a regulatory matter only. Then Mr Mallard popped back in today and said that, no, it is a contractual thing again. I recommend that having a team huddle to discuss what the actual position is might be worthwhile. A group huddle might be worthwhile to discuss whether Labour members really will take the view that Government contracts could perhaps be overthrown at any stage, as those members are suggesting. That would be new. That would be reasonably new in the history of the New Zealand Parliament.

I think that is the way Labour members are at the moment. Those members are thrashing around in the swamp like an old crocodile, trying to snap at anything and pretend they have an answer, when the reality is that they have not even read the bill or Supplementary Order Paper 247. That is clear from all the things that they have raised.

With regard to the suggestion that copper prices will go up, given that we are talking in terms of averaging about 4 percent of the copper-based broadband services, that was huge hyperbole from a man not unknown for hyperbole, it has to be said. Mr Cunliffe could possibly be said to be called Mr David “Hyperbole” Cunliffe. Once again, he was diving in where truth fears to tread, getting stuck in, making some wild assertions, and trying to look knowledgable, serious, and grave about New Zealand’s future, when we all know that he is just playing for political points.

It is important to point out that we have made some changes to the bill. We were clear all the way along when dealing with the regulatory forbearance matters that if a better solution could be found, then we would be happy to take it. In fact, the Labour members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee had no solution, and the industry proposed a solution that was the same as the regulatory forbearance. But, with the support of the Māori Party, we were able to come up with a solution that provides additional confidence to consumers over that initial period, which was very good. We also were able to do it in such a way that it costs the Crown no more money, which is important, and, again, that has been misrepresented by Labour members. With all their misrepresentations, one is tempted to say that although we could grant them a few on the basis that they did not understand things, a little bit of a pattern is starting to show. I suspect there might be a possible degree of intent in relation to this matter, because they want to sabotage a brilliant policy for New Zealand. It really is; I think it is very exciting.

I think ultra-fast broadband and rural broadband is exciting for this country. I have a huge pile of endorsements from rural communities around the country. We have not talked much today about the rural broadband enabled by this legislation, but it is so important for New Zealand. It is exciting, and I have to say that it is politically exciting. It is politically exciting, because National will have the opportunity at the election to get up and say that Labour opposes ultra-fast broadband, it opposes faster broadband for rural areas, and it opposes things that give us an economic step change. I am pretty excited about that, politically. As well as the scheme being exciting economically for New Zealand, I am pretty excited about it politically. The reality is that I cannot wait for that discussion on the campaign trail later this year.

Anyone who got up on the hustings and said that Labour was opposed to ultra-fast broadband would be a liar. Anyone who got up on the hustings and said that we were opposed to rural broadband being improved would be a liar. Anyone who got up on the hustings and said that Labour did not support and promote the use of ultra-fast broadband for education would be a liar. Anyone who got up on the hustings and said that Labour did not support the use of ultra-fast broadband for health would be a liar. I do not know who would be stupid enough to tell lies in that way. I do not know who; I heard there might be one or two people around who are prepared to tell that sort of lie, but they would be foolish to do so.

Labour wants—and Labour has made this very clear—ultra-fast broadband. But Labour does not want an inappropriate subsidy to go to the overseas owners of Telecom, and we do not want the inappropriate regulatory environment that is coming in under this bill. To be fair, I think it is coming—and I do not think there is any debate about this—because the Telecom lawyers, the Telecom engineers, and the Telecom executives are a lot brighter than the Minister for Communications and Information Technology. They are a lot brighter than the Minister.

They have basically conned him into an arrangement whereby they will have a regulatory environment where they will have a licence to print money. We are told that the average connection cost for Telecom is about $2,500. We are told that the average connection cost for Vector is $700 or $800. That might be better explained in relation to the method by which they do connections, and their concentration. That could be the reason. But we are also told that the average cost of this work would be $50 a month per consumer. Even Sir Roger over there can do the maths and work out that that is a 24 percent rate of return. It is a 24 percent rate of return on each of those connections. I say that it is just outrageous that we have a Government that puts into law a guaranteed return of that type, then says that if the Commerce Commission finds later on that the company is rorting, the Government will make up the money to it. If the Commerce Commission applies the rules, even the bent rules that this Minister, Steven Joyce, is promoting, and finds that Telecom, or any other minor organisation involved, has breached the almost un-breachable rules within this arrangement, then there will be an underwrite for them. Well, that is something that is clearly not acceptable to members on this side of the Chamber.

What is acceptable to us is a fair set of rules. I think it is fair to say that under this bill, which is due to come into force on the day after it receives its Royal assent—except the part that will come—

💬 Sandra Goudie: It’s OK; we understand.

Well, the idea that the retiring member understands broadband or legislative matters, much less the pair of them put together, is something that is making even her colleagues laugh. I can see Maurice Williamson rolling around in his chair, laughing at the suggestion that Sarah—what is her name—Goldie—

💬 Grant Robertson: Sandra.

Sandra Goldie—

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Goudie.

I apologise; she has made an impression on me over the years that she has been in Parliament! The suggestion that she understands is wrong.

But I will go back to the question of the shape of the commencement clause, and in particular the fact that as a result of the deliberations of the select committee, that clause has been divided from one clause into four subclauses. I ask the Minister in the chair how those provisions will be affected if in fact Telecom chooses not to enter into structural separation, as Telecom shareholders can do, and are currently considering doing. Some Telecom shareholders are putting forward a good argument that they should sit tight, maintain their copper network, compete—because they have an advantage of incumbency for a long way around the country—and not proceed with the structural separation. I ask the Minister what effect that would have on clause 2(3), which is the requirement on Telecom to publish the date of the separation day.

The next question I have is a drafting question. It is whether subclauses (3) and (4), which are about the separation day, are in fact appropriate subclauses to have within a commencement date. We know that the separation day, which may or may not occur, is something that is involved in both Part 1A and Part 2A of the bill, but I am not sure—and I would be obliged if the Minister would tell me—whether a separation day is something that is appropriate. We can see that subclause (2) of the commencement clause states: “Subpart 2 of Part 1A and sections 23HA to 23S come into force on separation day, but only if an Order in Council has been made under section 23E.”.

Here is an interesting question. I thought the Gazette was an official document, so how can Telecom publish something in the Gazette? How can Telecom gazette something? It cannot. The officials are wondering about that now. Clause 2(3) states that “Telecom must publish the date of separation day in the Gazette as soon as practicable after it is known.” It may be that this in itself, as part of a commencement clause, creates a special right for Telecom to publish something in the Gazette, but does that nationalise Telecom? Only State organisations, generally, can publish in the Gazette, and often it requires a ministerial signature to do so. So is there any implication? As an old left-winger, I now see a lot of potential here. Is the Minister having a sneaky nationalisation of Telecom here? I think it is fair to say that this Minister—

💬 Grant Robertson: MediaWorks has gone now, so he needs—

Well, no; I think he is going to nationalise MediaWorks, because—

💬 Grant Robertson: It’s broke.

It is going to go broke. It is going broke; he has lost the Government’s money—

💬 Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We have allowed quite a wide-ranging debate, but this debate is on the title and commencement clauses. It is fairly narrow, and the former Minister there, I think, is going way outside the scope of what the title and commencement clauses are.

In all my time in Parliament I have never seen, as part of a commencement clause, a requirement for a private sector organisation to publish something in the Gazette. But that requirement is in this clause, it is unique, and it is therefore debatable.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I agree that that is debatable, but I was struggling to see the relevance to the member’s argument of some of the illustrations he was using. In that respect I uphold the point of order. I ask the member to debate the issue upon what he said was in the clause.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): A new point of order?

Well, a related point of order, Mr Chairman—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, I have made a ruling, and I think it is fair.

OK—all right. In an attempt to avoid the Chairman struggling—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Oh, that is getting close to commenting on my ruling.

Well, Mr Chairman, you did say that you were struggling to understand. I would not have said that myself—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will respond to that, because the member knows that he cannot bring the Chair or the Speaker into the debate. So I rule him out on that ground. Proceed.

I am sure you do resemble the remarks! The point I am making is that under the commencement clause, in subclause (3)—but relating back to subclause (2)—there is a requirement for Telecom to publish a date of separation in the Gazette as soon as is practicable after it is known. The question I am asking the Minister is whether this is the clause that grants Telecom the ability to act as if it is a Government organisation. Would this require a ministerial signature? Normally, for something to go in the Gazette it goes in by the authority of a Minister, chief executive, or similar. Who is the agent here?