Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2), Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2)

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) Link to this

I move, That the Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. These bills have arisen from the Communications Legislation Bill, which was initiated to improve the overall regulatory environment for both telecommunications and radiocommunications. It will be no surprise that an efficient and effective communications sector is recognised as being essential to support the economic and social outcomes to which this Government is committed. These bills continue the Government’s progress towards ensuring that the communications sector continues to deliver those broader outcomes.

These bills are relatively minor pieces of legislation designed to maintain the effective and efficient operation of the communications sector. They contain largely technical measures that preclude unintended consequences, correct certain anomalies in the wording of the present legislation, and resolve some timing issues. The measures are narrow in scope, but none the less are of an urgent nature. There were no fundamental concerns raised in submissions during the select committee process, but rather the process led the Commerce Committee to make improvements in some areas of the legislation. The committee gave a unanimous report back.

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

The amendments to the Telecommunications Act are simply to prevent the premature expiry of the regulation of 10 specific telecommunications services. I reiterate the Minister’s comments made in earlier readings of the Communications Legislation Bill that this legislation is not related to the decisions being made on the broader telecommunications stocktake, which is being considered under separate telecommunications amendment legislation at present before the Finance and Expenditure Committee. These broader changes will deliver much greater benefits and will necessarily be considered in depth before the select committee reports back to this House. This underlines the wisdom of proceeding with the more limited but relatively urgent amendments in this legislation.

Without any further action, regulation of these particular telecommunications services would expire in December 2006. The Government’s intention to continue this regulation was signalled with the introduction of the Communications Legislation Bill, and this signal improved the level of certainty in the industry. The certainty has increased as the provisions have progressed through the parliamentary process. The extension by 2 years of the regulation of these services is entirely consistent with the recent report by the Commerce Commission. Submissions to the select committee were supportive, and no submissions were received opposing the proposal. I understand that the select committee gave a unanimous report back supporting the 2-year extension. The only issue, therefore, is to determine the best process to achieve that outcome.

The Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) will create the greatest certainty in the earliest possible time frame, and is therefore to be preferred. There is no reason why this House should not accept the collective wisdom of all parties concerned and enact this legislation. Under the present Act the Commerce Commission can recommend that regulation be extended or even discontinued. There is already a process, consequently, that gives the necessary flexibility in a relatively fast-moving telecommunications environment. Extension of the regulation on the 10 services until 2008 is necessary, and is achieved through this legislation.

The amendments in the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) are intended to keep the Radiocommunications Act up to date and to incorporate improvements that have been found necessary. The rights of existing licence holders who are complying with the requirements under their licence, and the requirements of the Act and regulations, will not be affected adversely by this legislation. The fundamental concepts in the present Act of a dual regime of administered radio licences and a parallel commercial property rights system are not changed by the legislation. However, the legislation will bring the two regimes closer together in respect of licences that may be issued in the future.

In addition to this, certainty will be provided regarding certification of licences by approved radio engineers. The main amendments to the Radiocommunications Act concern criteria for certification of licences, aggregation of consecutive management rights, and extension of applicability of existing arbitration procedures. The provisions of the legislation will improve and clarify the requirements for certification of licences. The purpose of certification is to ensure that pre-existing licences are not adversely affected by any proposed new licence. As such, it is a technical process of evaluation conducted by approved radio engineers.

What the Act does, and what the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) clarifies, is establish exactly what criteria should or should not be taken into account in the certification process. Specifically, the bill establishes a process whereby regulations can be created to define inappropriate receivers, which need not be taken into account in certification. Making provision in certification for poor-quality or otherwise inappropriate receivers can limit the spectrum available for new licences and lower the economic utilisation of the radio frequency spectrum as a whole. There are obvious reasons why New Zealand should ensure that the full potential of the radio spectrum is available for use, and this legislation facilitates that objective. It establishes a process whereby inappropriate receivers, once defined by regulation, are not to be taken into account in certification of new licences. Submissions on the Communications Legislation Bill were supportive of this approach and, indeed, some sought a wider approach. Useful additions were suggested by the New Zealand Law Society to clarify the purpose of defining inappropriate receivers, and the Minister is certainly pleased to see these reflected in the legislation.

A further issue raised in submissions was specifically in regard to receivers in imported vehicles designed for use in Japan, and the potential prohibition of such receivers. I note the select committee commentary that this can be better approached as a consumer information issue, and the committee makes a suggestion on how this could be achieved. Certainly the Minister concurs with this viewpoint, which is also consistent with a recent declaratory judgment in relation to the narrow issue of certifying VHF FM broadcasting licences. However, the legislation provides a framework for defining inappropriate receivers for any radiocommunications service, not simply those receivers used for FM broadcasting.

The present Radiocommunications Act provides for the management rights and underlying spectrum licences to be created for periods of up to 20 years. This gives certainty of investment for services using the radio spectrum. In addition, management rights termed successive management rights can be created prior to the expiry of existing rights.

There is so much more to include in the third readings, but I will cut to the conclusion. These bills are important in the overall context of an efficient and effective communications sector. They are recognised as being largely technical in nature but are critical to maintaining and improving the efficiency of the communications sector. They address key issues in telecommunications and radiocommunications, both of which are of crucial importance to the information age and to continuing to grow an innovative economy. The principle of the bills is not controversial. It is designed to extend existing regulation of a narrow range of telecommunications services for a further 2 years; to confirm the legal certainty that the radio frequency spectrum can be fully used despite potential use of inappropriate radio receivers by some parties; to open the opportunity for arbitration of potential disputes between holders of radio licences rather than place reliance on decisions made by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Economic Development to cancel or otherwise impose changes on such licences; and, finally, to enhance the regime of the Radiocommunications Act in several minor but significant ways, thereby improving radio spectrum utilisation and the overall economic benefits of such use. Therefore, I commend the bills to the House.

PANSY WONG (National) Link to this

Despite the exciting speech delivered by the Minister, National remains very reluctant to support the Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2). We do it only in order not to create more uncertainty in the telecommunications sector and for the current and potential radio frequency operators.

In 2001 the Labour Government introduced the Telecommunications Bill, which set up a 5-year time frame for the 13 regulated services to be investigated and finalised by the Commerce Commission. In 2001 one of the many Ministers of Communications in the last 7 years, the Hon Paul Swain—it was his turn—proclaimed that the introduction of the bill would establish a framework to ensure that the telecommunications industry could move forward in an orderly manner.

Well, I doubt very much that anybody would believe that the telecommunications industry under Labour’s watch is orderly—it is anything but orderly. The uptake of broadband still remains slow. Billions of dollars have been slashed off the value of Telecom, one of New Zealand’s biggest companies, due to a U-turn and the incompetent handling of the unbundling issue. Of course, now many staff working for Telecom are facing the prospect of job losses. What is worse, after 5 years only three of the 13 regulated services have been investigated by the Commerce Commission.

The House is now being asked to approve this legislation to allow for an extension of another 2 years. But the sad reality is that in the Commerce Committee when we listened to the submitters, we learnt that they have by now come to accept slippage, delays, and the missing of time lines. Political meddling is now being accepted by those submitters as part of the Labour governance style. I doubt whether any business in the competitive world would have the luxury of simply extending a time line by 2 years without having to pay a penalty or go out of business. Sadly, the Labour Government has no appreciation and no experience of business discipline or business risk. However, reluctantly we will support the extension for another 2 years in order not to create even more chaos and uncertainty.

During last evening’s Committee stage of the debate on the Communications Legislation Bill we learnt a lot more about the art of horse-trading and how the select committee process could be overridden. It did not reflect very well on how influential Labour’s rising star, Shane Jones, was on his Government. During the Commerce Committee’s consideration of the legislation it heard from the Radio Frequency Users Association of New Zealand, which is a non-profit organisation whose members include local authorities, the transport and courier sector, the farming sector, and private individuals. The prime function of that association is to protect, promote, and preserve the rights of organisations and individuals who require lawful access to the radio spectrum. Its members use a number of different radio bands to provide a large number of essential services to the public. The association was outraged because no consultation was carried out with it in regard to the changes introduced in the bill and it was very nervous about the security of tenure for land mobile radio licences. The Commerce Committee members were all of one mind; we shared the association’s concern and we believed it raised very valid concerns. So Shane Jones MP generously volunteered to extract an assurance from the Minister to elevate its concern, and the select committee sought extension of time for that to happen. No assurance was forthcoming from the Minister, and Mr Jones threw his hands in the air and conceded defeat at that time. Nonetheless, the Commerce Committee was assured by officials that there would be no drastic policy change and that they would consult the association on their policy paper due to be released soon.

It was then interesting for us to find out that New Zealand First tabled an amendment to the bill to address the concern raised by the association. The Minister of Commerce then suddenly had a change of heart and was willing to issue a letter of assurance to that group, and New Zealand First duly withdrew the amendment. The Labour Government had the numbers to pass this bill anyway but it had to do a deal with New Zealand First and had to issue that ministerial assurance. So the interesting question is what Labour wants in return for the concession made in this instance, when it did not even have to make one. What price is Labour asking in return for New Zealand First’s concession in this instance? The public should be worried that horse trading is now a blatant part of this Government’s method in situations where such an activity does not even appear to be necessary.

As a member of the Commerce Committee I feel despondent and offended because the transparent process in the select committee was overridden. The Minister could have given that assurance to the select committee, because we were all of one mind and we all supported the giving of the assurance. It could have avoided the time delay and upheld the transparency of the select committee, not to mention not causing Mr Shane Jones to lose face. So National—reluctantly, and just for the sake of not causing uncertainty in those sectors—supports these bills.

MARYAN STREET (Labour) Link to this

I rise to speak to the third reading of the two bills: the Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2). It is clear that certainty and efficiency around the communication sector is highly desirable for the economic progress and development of New Zealand and this Government’s economic transformation agenda. These two pieces of legislation are critical, even though they are not major pieces of legislation.

The Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) was, as has been noted by previous speakers, reported back unanimously by the Commerce Committee, and concerns, in fact, a matter of an extension of time because of the imminent expiry of particular telecommunication services in December 2006. Therefore, it is a technical bill and I do not think there is anything of major import in it.

I come to parts of the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) and will pick up points that were raised previously, by the Minister David Cunliffe in particular. I will come to items about the select committee’s deliberations in a moment. First, when talking about the management rights in the Radiocommunications Act, it should be noted that the present Act provides for management rights and underlying spectrum licences to be created for periods of up to 20 years; this gives certainty of investment. In addition, management rights—termed “successive management rights”—can be created prior to the expiry of existing rights but as separate ones. The Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) allows, in limited circumstances, the aggregation in time of an existing management right and a successive right. This will facilitate an efficient transition from one right to the next and give improved certainty and efficiency in the radiocommunication sector, as rights created from 1990 onwards reach their 20-year expiry date from 2010 onwards.

The Government has already completed the commercial offer and acceptance process for UHF television licences and will soon make offers to holders of licences for AM and FM sound broadcasting services. Policy on renewal offers for cellular services is now being developed. These renewal processes make it clear overall that this Government is committed to creating certainty, on commercial terms, for the major users of the radio frequency spectrum. The bill enhances the legislative environment for such certainty. The present Act has provisions that allow holders of spectrum licences to enter into arbitration regarding alleged interference between licensed frequencies. The criteria for arbitration are altered under the bill to become identical to the considerations used in initial certification of the licences.

The bill also allows holders of radio licences to move into the arbitration process. This is an example of how the two distinct regimes are being carefully altered to bring them closer to each other. A residual power remains for the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Economic Development, who grants radio licences in the first instance, to intervene if appropriate. But an agreed arbitrated solution is likely to achieve better outcomes for both parties than a solution using imposed powers of revocation. There was no opposition to these provisions in submissions to the select committee.

The other provisions amending the Radiocommunications Act facilitate electronic processing by removing references to duplicate copies, ensure correct wording relating to the expiry of successive management rights, improve the efficiency of recovery of unpaid regulation fees, and enact amended regulation-making powers. Concerns were expressed by some submitters about the proposed regulation-making powers in respect of the allocation of radio licences. But the select committee thought that this could be addressed appropriately through liaison with the industry as and when any new regulations were developed, and the Minister concurs with that view. Apart from that point, the other changes that I have just identified were generally supported by submitters.

There was a submission to the select committee seeking a particular amendment to enhance the present transitional provisions of the Act for land mobile services. The legislation as introduced did not deal with such policy matters as this, nor did it propose any changes to the transitional provisions. The select committee concurred that it was inappropriate to modify the legislation to address this topic, but also recognised that the issue will be addressed by a wider policy development process concerning security of tenure of what are at present annually renewed radio licences. Such a wider process can consider not just the concerns of some land mobile licensees but other services, such as fixed point-to-point links, maritime and aeronautical uses, and other similar applications.

A Supplementary Order Paper was initiated by New Zealand First, as the previous speaker, Pansy Wong, mentioned. That was done to further address the land mobile issues and has proceeded to the point where we now have the legislation ready for its third reading.

This wider policy development process will give an opportunity for all sectors of industry to provide their views and for a balanced outcome to be achieved. As with all such processes, the Government remains open-minded as to the outcome of the intended discussion paper. Whether the eventual outcome will warrant legislation, obviously cannot be determined at this time, but it is important to welcome the recognition that the wider process is the appropriate mechanism to address these issues.

All the provisions of the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) are intended to maintain and enhance the efficient operation of the regime prescribed in the Act. The radiocommunication sector is a fast-moving and dynamic section of our economy, but it continues to require infrastructure, investment, and physical assets. In many cases investment in radio spectrum licences or management rights is quite small in comparison with the cost of physical infrastructure.

The Commerce Committee had an amicable consideration of this legislation and, despite the comments of the previous speaker, Pansy Wong, that would impute something to the contrary, it did come down unanimously in support of these two bills.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) Link to this

I thank Pansy Wong for her contribution, in which she was able to demonstrate with so much awe and wonder just how New Zealand First is able to punch so much above its weight. There is a lesson in this, because she made a reference to that and asked what Labour wanted out of New Zealand First to be able to gain ground on this issue. It is a lesson on how MMP operates, because I can say this: Labour wanted absolutely nothing. It was purely and simply that the Minister of Communications was prepared to listen to the case we were putting forward, he saw there was some merit in it, and he was able to take the necessary steps to move forward.

As Nanaia Mahuta has said, the two bills, which the original legislation has been separated into, are relatively minor and they are relatively technical. She did, however, make the statement that telecommunications is a fast-moving area. I would have to agree with Pansy Wong in terms of one criticism, which is that the Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2), which was Part 1 of the Communications Legislation Bill, extends for 2 years some work that should have been completed by December 2006. The Commerce Commission now says it cannot guarantee that it will be finished by 2006. That work was set in place by the Telecommunications Act of 2001. So one would have to raise some questions as to the rapidity with which that work is being carried out. Of the 13 services, only three have, in fact, been completed. Nevertheless, given the situation as it stands, it is eminently sensible to extend the time frame.

The other little issue covered by the legislation, as people will know, is to do with imported cars, particularly Japanese imported cars, which often have limited bands. So people put band expanders into their cars. If the band expanders are standard and decent there are no problems, but some people have been putting in some el cheapo band expanders, which are not standard. They have been interfering in a certain area—I think it is in Christchurch—with the correct usage of the spectrum, and that could have affected the full usage of the spectrum. Therefore, once again, this is sensible legislation and New Zealand First will certainly be supporting it.

It was Part 2 of the Communications Legislation Bill, which has become the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2), that New Zealand First had some issues with. We were not on the Commerce Committee, but we did listen to the issues that were raised, and I will just go through them. When the Radiocommunications Act of 1989 was introduced, it was expected that the spectrum would be moved quickly to the then new management right regime. Spectrum that was identified specifically in the Act for early attention was that used for sound broadcasting, television, cellular services, and land mobile radio. A land mobile radio spectrum was specifically identified in the sixth schedule to the Act. In the ensuing years all such identified spectra, with the sole exception of the land mobile radio spectrum, have been converted to the management right regime.

This has resulted in security of tenure for broadcasters and cellular operators, with much of it obtained under the favourable incumbency provisions of the Radiocommunications Act 1989. A recent Government initiative for rolling over early management rights has continued this certainty. Certainty of tenure has permitted such operators to enter into long-term contracts and also to raise investments. The problem was, however, that those using the land radio spectrum have not had such good fortune, because the land mobile radio spectrum was not brought under the management right regime. Therefore, uncertainty hangs over the industry, and investment has been hard to obtain.

What the original legislation would have done was to create even more uncertainty, as it seemed to create an environment that made it easier for officials to alienate current users from incumbency rights without compensation. I will just go to the part of the report back from the select committee to which this legislation was referred. It states: “We heard from an organisation seeking amendment to the transitional provisions in the Radiocommunications Act covering land mobile radio frequencies. We understand the Ministry of Economic Development intends to include a review of these provisions in its work programme. We recommend no amendment to the bill.” There was no minority report and no signalling that there was an issue of concern, which is why New Zealand First had to step into the fray, even though we were not on that select committee.

The current use of this particular part of the spectrum includes back-up services for emergency services, and the state of insecurity would have continued as a result of this legislation. That would have created a problem as far as New Zealand First was concerned. For example, we were fully aware that during the recent severe snowstorms in southern Canterbury, the only reliable form of communication for a lengthy period of time was dependent upon the very spectrum we are talking about in this legislation. We believe that it needs to be protected and not go to the highest bidder. It is now a matter of history that New Zealand First intervened on behalf of the radio frequency users, and we take our hat off to the Minister David Cunliffe for his willingness to listen and to recognise that not every party has a mortgage on all good ideas.

Meetings were facilitated between the Minister and the Radio Frequency Users Association, and also between the Minister’s reps and Ministry of Economic Development officials. From those meetings came some memorandums of understanding and some letters. I had a phone call from David Thomson, who said that the Radio Frequency Users Association is now extremely comfortable with the situation it finds itself in.

Just to wind up, although New Zealand First did not play a part in the select committee process, we have played a part in the ensuing process of the second part of this legislation, the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2). We are particularly pleased about the constructive role we played to make sure that the legislation does not lead to a worse situation than what New Zealand now has. New Zealand First is pleased about the role it has played, and will provide its support to these bills as they are now presented to the House.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) Link to this

National supports the splitting of the Communications Legislation Bill in this third reading into the Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2). We have had some doubts, and we have expressed some views about the legislation during the Committee stage. We are now happy to support the legislation, but with some reservations, which I will just highlight.

There are two main objectives in splitting the legislation into two bills. The first bill amends the Telecommunications Act of 2001 by extending by 2 years—to December 2008—the regulation of 10 of the 13 telecommunications services that were originally regulated under that Act. I will come back to that matter and spend some time specifically on that point. The second bill amends the Radiocommunications Act of 1989 by updating the management of radio spectrum. Radio spectrum management rights run for 20 years, and the legislation allows the aggregation of rights in order to simplify the management process. In addition, adverse impacts of inappropriate receivers, such as the band expanders used in imported Japanese cars, are not to be considered when distributing radio spectrum, as this could limit the full utilisation of available spectrum. An option of arbitration is introduced for resolving disputes between radio broadcasters.

We support this legislation, although it is mainly of a technical nature. Under the 2001 Act, telecommunications companies can apply to the Commerce Commission for determination on the terms and prices of access to specific services. In 2001 Labour made it very clear that it was setting up a 5-year time frame for the 13 designated services to be investigated by the Commerce Commission. At that time the then Minister of Communications, Paul Swain, proclaimed that the introduction of the legislation would establish a: “framework for ensuring that the telecommunications industry can move forward in an orderly way.” Well, here we are, with this legislation, having to ask that that 5 years be extended out for another 2 years, because after 5 years only three of the 13 designated services have been investigated. Now the Government is asking for another 2 years to be able to investigate the other 10 services. It is a sad reality of the Government. Although it proclaimed earlier that it was important we move forward, it is now asking for an extension of time from 5 years to 7 years, because it has been able to deal with only three services.

Although submitters support the extension—because they have come to accept the delays, the slippage, and the missing time frames—I doubt that any business in a competitive environment actually has the luxury of time to be able to extend something for 2 years without having to pay a penalty for that. Otherwise it would find itself in a competitive environment and possibly going out of business. This Labour Government does not understand what makes the world go round. It does not understand this, it has no appreciation of it, and it has no business acumen, at all. It thinks it is all very fine to extend out this period by 2 years. We are happy to support that—reluctantly, as Pansy Wong identified in her speech—but we certainly have those concerns.

In completing this short piece for National, I say that we will be supporting—

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou te Whare. I am always wary about rushing bills through the House just because some guru reckons to do so will put us into a bigger, better, and faster world. This stuff all sounds a bit like Star Trek to me. “Captain James T Cunliffe-Kirk” wants to take us boldly where no man has been before by updating the spectrum regime, tidying up the licensing rules and procedures, and making sure that everybody pays their unpaid fees.

The problem with the whole Star Trek analogy, though, is that we have already been here before—on 10 March 1999, to be exact. On that day Rangiaho Everton registered Wai 776 at the Waitangi Tribunal. It was a claim concerning the part of the electromagnetic spectrum known as the radio spectrum, which is used for telecommunications and information technology—the Internet, mobile phones, search and rescue operations, video links, videoconferencing, and all that stuff. At the time, the Crown was planning to hock off the rights to manage part of the radio spectrum for 20 years. Funnily enough, the legislation we have today says exactly the same thing. It is hardly a matter for urgency and hardly next generation stuff.

This legislation is supposed to amend the Telecommunications Act and Radiocommunications Act in order to improve the regulation of the communications sector. But a major issue at the heart of the debate is that of control, and how that relates to the management of spectrum rights. In 1999 Piripi Walker said: “It was the Crown’s attempts to sell licences to operate portions of the spectrum into private ownership that had provoked Maori claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. Maori were concerned with the Crown’s ‘commercial approach’, which would see the alienation of the resource to powerful corporations.”

If we fast track forward to today, we see that the same question can be applied to steps being taken to enable the telecommunications sector to catch up with the OECD. The one essential difference between then and now is that the Waitangi Tribunal, in summing up Wai 776, accepted the claimant’s argument that the spectrum was indeed known to Māori and was a taonga. The tribunal also said that Māori had a right under the Treaty to the use of that spectrum after 1840, and the right to a decent share of radio frequencies being offered by the Crown. Its finding followed the Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Te Reo Māori Claim, which also said that Māori language and culture were taonga, which the Crown was bound by article 2 of the Treaty to preserve.

The tribunal said: “We think that the two Treaty partners could then work out a long-term plan for the management of future allocations of spectrum rights. As we have suggested above, the ownership and management of spectrum frequencies, perhaps in joint-partnership operations, could facilitate Maori participation in the telecommunications industry.” Yet here we are in 2006, still in the same virtual space and the same virtual time, where getting access to frequencies and spectrum management rights is still blocked by the unwillingness of the Government and bigger industry players.

We have also noted the advice of the Radio Frequency Users Association of New Zealand, whose prime focus is protecting, promoting, and preserving the rights of organisations that need access to the spectrum. The association’s members collectively hold more licences than any group, organisation, or company in Aotearoa other than Telecom. So members can guess how surprised the association was that during the drafting of this legislation, neither it nor its members were consulted. That is kind of like trying to pick the All Blacks without having any rugby players to pick from. One has to ask how the Government can put up legislation to improve the performance of our communications sector without including the players with the greatest expertise.

The Commerce Committee report stated that the industry would be consulted before rules were made on allocation, but given the Government’s history on the legislation itself and on its consultation with Māori on Māori issues, we are not holding our breath. However, the Māori Party will support this legislation, because it extends the range of services subject to regulation, it enhances the ability of the Telecommunications Commissioner to implement those services, it empowers the commissioner to monitor and enforce compliance effectively, and it provides greater certainty, investment, competition, opportunity, and consumer benefit.

But the Māori Party is also aware of five other golden principles that we believe this legislation could have addressed. I refer to the Treaty principles of partnership, rangatiratanga, fiduciary duty, mutual benefit, and development. In the Waitangi Tribunal claim I mentioned earlier, we note the statements supporting the Māori right to ongoing resource development as a Treaty right resulting from article 2. Those rights cannot be fossilised as at 1840 and limited to only the resources used back then. They are as current in 2006 as they were in 1999, and as they were in 1840.

So, in the ongoing development of the telecommunications and radiocommunications sectors, the Māori Party would like to remind the Government of the need to involve the Treaty partner fully if our nation is ever to realise its aspirations to be a world leader in information and communications technology. Government plans to encourage the use of information and communications technology must include Māori shares in the spectrum and Māori participation in the industry, as determined by the Waitangi Tribunal. The tribunal stated: “Maori must have hands-on ownership and management if they are to foot it in the ‘knowledge economy’ as we believe they must in the coming millennium.”

The Māori Party will support the third reading of the telecommunications and radiocommunications legislation, but we agree with the Radio Frequency Users Association that there needs to be a wider discussion about whether legislative change should be piecemeal, with small but frequent changes, or whether it should be less frequent and more substantial. We agree with the latter, because major issues impacting on the principles of partnership, rangatiratanga, fiduciary duty, mutual benefit, and development still need further discussion and resolution. The Māori Party, for one, is keen to be there when those discussions are held. Kia ora tātou.