ajw: So another exercise in social engineering with governments dictating how people should think.
What is the use of the Commerce Commission if the government changes the law every time they come out with a decision the government doesn't like to protect a monopoly.If government is free to overturn the ruling of "independent" bodies if and when it choses then it makes a mockery of the claim that they are indeed independent. They effectively become a sock-puppet to the whims of their political masters and therefore utterly ineffective -- a giant waste of taxpayers' money.
The Commission is not independent, it simply administers the law that parliament creates,
Parliament is ultimately sovereign in NZ, and can change anything it chooses, NZ has no overriding constitution......
Whether it should is a matter for another discussion, but this is the situation now
ajw: So another exercise in social engineering with governments dictating how people should think.
What is the use of the Commerce Commission if the government changes the law every time they come out with a decision the government doesn't like to protect a monopoly.If government is free to overturn the ruling of "independent" bodies if and when it choses then it makes a mockery of the claim that they are indeed independent. They effectively become a sock-puppet to the whims of their political masters and therefore utterly ineffective -- a giant waste of taxpayers' money.
The Commission is not independent, it simply administers the law that parliament creates,
Parliament is ultimately sovereign in NZ, and can change anything it chooses, NZ has no overriding constitution......
Whether it should is a matter for another discussion, but this is the situation now
So therefore we should not have a regulatory body to look after the interests of end users this is what you are saying and let the government make all the decisions to protect monopolies.
ajw: So therefore we should not have a regulatory body to look after the interests of end users this is what you are saying and let the government make all the decisions to protect monopolies.
The commerce commission doesn't act in the "interests of end users" it operates under legislation from parliament
In this case it is administering the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband, and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2011. The Act was written by parliament, and the Commission implement it,
Are you saying that the commission should not be implementing the Act, but should just roam around and decide itself the prices that companies charge customers.......
ajw: So therefore we should not have a regulatory body to look after the interests of end users this is what you are saying and let the government make all the decisions to protect monopolies.
The commerce commission doesn't act in the "interests of end users" it operates under legislation from parliament
In this case it is administering the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband, and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2011. The Act was written by parliament, and the Commission implement it,
Are you saying that the commission should not be implementing the Act, but should just roam around and decide itself the prices that companies charge customers.......
My understanding is that the Commerce Commission will not be making a final decision on this matter until June 2013 and after extensive consultation with all stakeholders and no I do not agree that governments should legislate to protect the ongoing revenue streams of monopolies. After all it was the so called experts employed by the Commerce Commission that came up with the financial analysis of the final pricing and not the whims of the prime minister as a ex currency spectacular.
The Government's response, however, is unprecedented. The Telecommunications Minister "signalled immediate disquiet" on release of the draft determination. The Prime Minister said he would not rule out a law change if the final decision was seen as unfavourable. He stated that the decision could prove problematic for the ultrafast broadband network, because consumers could be discouraged from switching from copper to fibre, and it would substantially reduce Chorus's income, "and its capacity around broadband".
The Government's statement was picked up by rating agency Standard &Poor's, which said it expected the draft decision would be "subject to significant political deliberation" as it could affect the take up of fibre services over the Government's ultrafast broadband scheme, and "accordingly, in our view, it is likely the draft UBA decision will be subject to amendment before it becomes final".
It is a fundamental principle of our telecommunications regulatory regime that the regulator is independent, and is left to carry out its statutory role without interference or undue influence from the Government. The Government, by entering into the media debate, and criticising the draft determination in such clear terms that a rating agency has concluded the issue will be resolved politically, has crossed that line. Its position is not helped by its clear conflict of interest as financier of Chorus's UFB roll out, and an investor in the other UFB local fibre companies.
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
