labour.org.nz | Facebook | Twitter | Red Alert Radio

Red Alert

Archive for the ‘regulation’ Category

Broadcast/Internet Convergence Fragmentation

Posted by on July 11th, 2009

It is great that 7 is on Sky (ch 97) because of the much higher potential audience, including Back Benches,  but it has highlighted a set of issues which the Nact Maori government have chosen to dodge.

Sky has effectively got it for free rather than doing the expected Prime to Freeview deal.

It does hightlight the problem that is emerging. I’m not at all technical. I hate having more than one remote or even learning how to drive one of the complicated ones .

What I do know is that at some stage the screen on my wall will be driven by a convergence of internet and broadcast systems . Quality will be fantastic. It will have thousands of choices. Most will be free but some will be on a pay system.

We are getting more and more systems and at some stage there has to be a winner.  The shut down of the analogue system will be an opportunity to implement policy decisions. But before that happens we need a solid policy development process. Thats what the digital review was all about. Nact scrapped it.

Sky will take advantage of the policy vacuum. Their direction might be where we want  to go in the end. But lets make a deliberate decision rather than being led by the nose by people whose long term obligations are to their overseas owners rather than New Zealand’s future.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Filed under: comms & IT, consultation, regulation, Uncategorized
9 Comments

Save Auckland’s community assets

Posted by on July 2nd, 2009

My private member’s bill to protect Auckland’s assets from privatisation was drawn from the ballot today.

No one trusts Rodney Hide and his cronies to keep Auckland community assets in public hands so my member’s bill will put any decision to sell community assets firmly into the hands of Aucklanders. The bill requires the sale or privatisation of any assets to be first put to a public referendum.

I’m hoping ACT will support the bill. They are big on referenda in local government. In fact Rodney Hide’s recent cabinet paper proposes that councils be required to put any ‘significant or irreversible’ decisions to referendum. If flogging off the assets Aucklanders have paid off with their rates over generations is not ‘significant or irreversible’ I don’t know what is.

I think one of the big anxieties underlying the super city debate is the fear that the super city is just the prelude to corporatisation of local government, and privatisation of our assets: the ports, the water, and our transport infrastructure, not to mention libraries, parks, halls and other assets. These fears have been fueled by Local Government Minister Rodney Hide’s proposed reforms of the Local Government Act which seek to reduce council activities to core services. And by ACT’s stated policy to force Councils to sell off their commercial enterprises. Bear in mind also that it is only a decade or so since the right wing were trying to hock off the ports.

My bill, the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill, would require the Auckland Council to hold a referendum if significant asset sales are being considered. An appropriate threshold for the value of an asset that would trigger a referendum will be developed through the select committee process in consultation with Aucklanders. But the Bill would outlaw the sale of a range of assets including parks, swimming pools, libraries and public housing – other than when a sale might be part of the normal day-to-day portfolio management and has been subject to the normal consultation.

Getting the luck of the draw today was perfect timing. Aucklanders will be following the super city select committee hearings over the next four weeks as the committee considers a couple of thousand submissions. My bill will likely get its first reading on June 29 so we have four weeks to get some good debate going on this issue. I would like to hear any thoughts or suggestions people have about how we can best do that.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Filed under: Auckland, consultation, democracy, local government, public services, regulation, select committee
42 Comments

Draft mall survey form

Posted by on June 25th, 2009

Tags: ,
Filed under: consultation, labour, regulation
16 Comments

Keep an eye on the Commerce Commission

Posted by on June 24th, 2009

Rodney Hide’s appointment as Associate Minister of Commerce  (responsible for the Commerce Commission) was announced very quietly. Mark Berry’s appointment as Commission Chair received more attention because of his background.

In the telecommunications area of the Commission’s work (which I am spokesperson for) I’ve been paying attention because of the important regulatory reforms driven by the previous Labour Government (and former Minister David Cunliffe). The role of Telecommunications Commissioner has been vacant for more than nine months (because the commissioner Dr Ross Patterson has been on medical leave) and there has been concern consistently expressed to me within the industry about the vacancy given the number of telecommunications issues that require attention. Dr Patterson commands widespread respect and many have been speculating why the position has remained vacant so long. I understand he has fulfilled the terms of his medical leave (and has done for some time) and the question needs to be asked what would be holding up his reappointment? A political reason maybe?

Last week I asked Commerce Minister Simon Power a series of questions in the Commerce Select Committee to try to clear things up. The story only seemed to become more opaque. And today’s NBR takes it further. I think the government has to tell us what’s going on.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: comms & IT, regulation, select committee
3 Comments

Joyce overkill

Posted by on June 11th, 2009

I’ve been musing overnight on how quickly Communications Minister Steven Joyce moved yesterday to quell any prospect of axing free local calls or a possible takeover of Telecom by overseas interests and scrapping of the Kiwi Share. The possibility of those things were raised by me in a release yesterday. But they didn’t come out of my imagination, despite what Mr Joyce might say. They came from a Cabinet paper, prepared by none other than National Deputy Leader Bill English, and posted in an obscure place on the Treasury website. The paper outlined a wide ranging  review across New Zealand’s regulatory framework. The review is beginning to create alarm.

The paper says (among many other things) that Treasury will lead a review of the Kiwi Share and the Telecommunications Service Obligation (TSO).

The Kiwi Share requires government approval for any shareholder to acquire more than a 10% stake in our major Telco. The TSO limits rises in phone line rentals to the rate of inflation and guarantees “free” local calls.

Now I realise that a Cabinet paper does not constitute government policy. But let me quote two paragraphs from it:

TSO: The TSO framework makes available telecommunications services for which subsidy costs are recovered through levies on the telecommunications industry. Potential improvements to the TSO framework which address contentious issues for the industry were identified in the TSO review by the previous government. Further benefits could be identified by a wider review that considers abolishing the TSO framework to eliminate costs for the telecommunications industry and increase competition.

Kiwi Share: The historical Kiwi Share requirements for ownership written into Telecom’s company constitution makes acquiring a major Telecom shareholding more difficult than acquiring a shareholding in a New Zealand public company generally. Scrapping the Kiwi Share requirements would potentially open up opportunities for capital injection into Telecom from foreign shareholders.

A couple of points. Firstly, if the government is ruling out changes to free local calls and foreign ownership caps then what else is the review about? Is it about  encouraging more competition in the market so that the consumer (no matter where they live) has access to a cheaper service that is of a guaranteed quality (ie includes an emergency service and single telephone directory listing etc)? And more efficiency, transparency and contestibility. How would the TSO levy be calculated? and how would it contribute to a rural strategy?

Now there’s a question! A rural strategy. It appears this government doesn’t have one. For delivering broadband services anyway.

And if this is a fair dinkum review then wasn’t Mr Joyce pre-empting the outcome of his own government’s review by saying unequivocally yesterday that free local calls and foreign ownership restrictions will remain? Because if you read the two extracts above (from the cabinet paper) then surely those things were up for discussion.

I reckon they got spooked.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: comms & IT, regulation
14 Comments

Back to the 90s?

Posted by on June 8th, 2009

The end of free local phone calls. Foreign ownership of  Telecom. Scrapping the Kiwi Share, which currently requires government approval for any shareholder to acquire more than a 10% stake in our major telco. No it’s not the Labour opposition scaremongering. It’s proposals contained in a Cabinet paper, prepared by Bill English, posted on the MED website, which says Treasury will lead a review of the Kiwi Share. It’s creating some consternation out there. And when you look across the Tasman and ponder what happened when the Howard Government sold it’s majority in Telstra offshore, you have to wonder  why you would want to create a monster on our shores.

I raise this because it is becoming pretty clear that the National Government is intent on a creeping dilution of our regulatory framework and our regulatory body the Commerce Commission and it’s time we started talking about it.

The previous Labour Government put a lot of effort into strengthening our regulatory framework after the devastation of  the 1990s. In 2008, reforms to strengthen our legislation were supported by the National opposition.

Now it seems, in 2009 we are seeing some worrying signs of a weakening of that position and a shift towards the right wing approach to regulation.

In an opinion piece in the NZ Herald on 18 March, Fran O’Sullivan raised questions around the resignation of Paula Rebstock as the chair of the Commerce Commission and what the new approach to regulation would be.

She said “The Rebstock resignation does provide an opportunity for reform. But it is important to make sure it is soundly based. Not simply to suit the commercial objectives of individual companies.”

The concern I’m hearing is that we could be moving into a policy vacuum in regulation. One very worrying sign is the government’s silence on the reinstatement of the Telecommunications Commissioner. This is an extraordinarily important position at a time when stability and knowledge is required in a fast changing sector with huge reforms underway.

The telecommunications industry makes up just 3% of our GDP but this is growing and is one of the fastest growing industries in this country, as well as across the world. This is a time for strong leadership and for a transparent and robust regulatory approach. Labour understood this. It seems National doesn’t.

And I challenge this government to tell the New Zealand people why they’ve waited nearly six months to tell us what they’re going to do about the Telecommunications Commissioner position?

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: comms & IT, regulation
3 Comments

Regulation in NZ

Posted by on May 26th, 2009

Cactus Kate is generally not my cup of tea. This is however worth a read.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: mt albert, national, regulation
10 Comments

Newer Entries »