We will now adjourn for morning tea.

The House adjourned at 11.21 a.m.

The House resumed at 12.15 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON THE REVIEW OF TELECOM POLICY

HON. RATU J.Y. KUBUABOLA.‑ Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to contribute to the motion by the honourable Member for Labasa Open (P.W. Bune), calling for an urgent review of telecommunication's policy of granting exclusive rights provided in the 25‑year license, granted to Telecom Fiji, FINTEL and Vodafone.

Firstly, Mr. Speaker, Sir, in response to the motion, I wish to advise the House that Government, on its own initiative, is currently reviewing this situation and considering options that have been identified. The enabling instrument that will facilitate the final instrument that will facilitate the final implementation of the review is the draft new Telecommunications Bill, which is currently being reconstructed. Basically, this draft Bill is designed to meet Government's objective of achieving a competitive and dynamic telecommunications market in Fiji for the benefit of consumers, businesses and the telecommunications industry to establish a new regulatory body, appropriate to administer in a competitive environment.

Government has already initiated an open and active dialogue on the sector review and the draft Bill with all stakeholders in order to ensure that the decision it finally makes on this major development, in the end, is base on a well‑informed basis. The draft Bill will ensure that the regulatory regime to be instituted by provisions in it is transparent, effective and fair, and will support sustainable market competition. As competition will consequently reduce or end monopoly, a critical issue this development will generate is the issue of transitional arrangements to pave the way from the existing monopoly structure to a competitive environment. Government considers it prudent that this transition towards market liberalisation is agreed to with existing carriers and that efforts are directed at minimising negative impacts to consumers. It is also important that adequate time is given to allow for the development of a new regulatory framework and for appropriate adjustments to be made to the operator's commercial arrangements.

An aspect that is fundamental to the success in liberalisation and sustainable market competition is tariff. In view of the nature of the existing price distortions and the magnitude of cross subsidies, Government considers it critical that sufficient time is also provided to the gradual rebalancing between international and domestic tariffs. At the same time, higher priority would be given towards identifying and implementing specific, practical and pragmatic options to facilitate in the management of the provision and maintenance of basic telecommunications access to every community, especially our rural and remote communities. Todate, there are still over 700 communities that are not connected. All rural and remote communities must now be provided access. As when competition in this sector increases, generally competing players in the liberalised environment, target the lucrative and viable portions of the market. Government has set a target provision of telecommunication access to at least 400 more unconnected villages by 2005.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to differ on the substance of the motion that technological development and market penetration of Fiji's telecommunication sector is well below acceptable levels. Allow me at the outset to state that history and previous public policy choices we have inherited, have left us with a number of costly hurdles that Government is currently reconsidering. However, these choices have nevertheless contributed to the realisation of key development milestones in the industry over the last decade, at least, amongst which are the modern and fully digitalised national telecommunications infrastructure we are now using; state‑of‑the‑art GSM mobile telephone services that are now provided, access to internet that is now available and the progressive extension of basic access to our rural and remote communities that are currently being undertaken by Telecom Fiji.

I should also add that already strategic investments have been made towards making Fiji become part of a state‑of‑the‑art international telecommunications network. The Southern Cross Fibre Optic Cable Network and plans for fibre optic rim around Viti Levu and the satellite‑based network to facilitate telecommunications coverage into the rural and remote areas are currently being implemented in phases.

In terms of our market penetration, Mr. Speaker, Sir, our telephone density has increased from 9.8 per cent in 1998 to 12.7 per cent, or one telephone to every eight persons in 2002. For the same period, there has been 19,167 new fixed line connections (a 24 per cent growth) or an average six per cent increase annually. In the case of mobile telephone connections, there are 82,761 new connections over this period and just recently, 100.000 mobile connections have been achieved. When fixed and mobile connections are combined, our telephone penetration rate is over 20 per cent. That is one in every five of the population will have access to a telephone. There are currently over 660 hosts in our internet market and over 15,000 people use the internet. In fact, Sir, anyone visiting Fiji will realise that we also have our fair share of modern technology and communications. The developments we have made and achievements we have reached in this important industry, in themselves, place Fiji ahead most of our Pacific Island neighbours and these are in the aspects we are all proud of.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I understand that some time the quality of service that is being provided is not the best. Naturally, customers expect more and there is nothing wrong with that. I am assured that there has been considerable successes and improvements and the threat of competition has induced the licencees to continually improve their service levels. It has also become evident that when the service levels meet the customers' expectations, other related issues such as price become relatively insignificant.

Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, Sir, references have been made in the substance of the motion on the exorbitant call and other charges imposed by the current monopolies. Whilst much has been highlighted in relation to telecommunication prices lately (and we all know that this is an aspect that concerns all of us), much is also not understood as to why this is the case. The fact is that some degree of distortion exists in the existing pricing structure (and this is reflected in some prices charged that do not reflect the actual cost of providing that particular service). In other prices, the prices are far above the benchmarks. Generally, the local monthly line access charges are below the cost of provision and maintenance of the service and the international call charges are high. Consequently, due to this distortion, there is cross subsidy in this pricing structure and it is because of this cross subsidy that some degree of sustainability is contained in Telecom Fiji's operations and in their achieving commercial viability.

In real terms, Mr. Speaker, Sir, whilst consumers are paying on average a monthly line access rental of between $2.80 to $5, it actually costs Telecom Fiji about $45 to $50 per month to provide and maintain access. When compared to other countries, Sir, our current monthly line access prices are amongst the lowest in the world and this is happening in the small market, which is quite an achievement. In Telecom Fiji's case, the access deficit in this situation generates envy and equates to a total cost of between $40 million to $50 million. Offsetting this deficit has been made possible by means of the application of the subsidy from high international call charges, local long distance call revenues, mobile call revenues and the provision of other services. The quantum of the annual subsidy, that is generated from high international call charges alone amounts to about $20 million. Although since corporatisation in 1990, TFL was expected to operate on fundamental commercial principles. History shows that over the years, the circumstances in Fiji has been such that this is not being possible. As a consequence, there is a cross-subsidy in the existing pricing structure. This, Mr. Speaker, Sir, is the legacy the industry has inherited and which I must stress has enabled TFL the opportunity to develop and grow to what it is today.

It is this very legacy, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that is elemental to the realisation of the key development and milestones that have been achieved within the industry structure, that was instituted and passed over the last decade. In the principle components in the structure, are the exclusive rights granted by licenses to Telecom Fiji and FINTEL and the pricing regime which we have inherited since corporatisation in 1990. Investments have already been poured into the telecommunications industry, totals about $600 million to date and ATH is expected to invest another $400 million over the next 10 years. Amongst the major capital projects that Telecom Fiji will embark on, are Satellite Network costing $10 million to be rolled out in two years, Rural Telecommunications Development costing $16 million to be implemented over the next five years and Network Modernization costing $7 million to be carried out over the next three years.

Allow me now, Mr. Speaker, Sir to respond to some of the supplementary statements to the original motion made by the honourable Member. As I have yet to see it proven otherwise, I note Telecom Fiji to be the company that adheres to principles of good corporate governance and maintains the degree of legal and ethical standards that are keen to the integrity of any business.

On the matter about billing issue, Mr. Speaker, Sir, this has been over-sensationalised by Telepac and the media. For the information of this august House, in 1998 Board Papers referred to by Telpac did contain reports of adjustments made by Telecom Fiji's financial systems, specifically to correct misallocated revenue streams and improve the accuracy of billing. Such adjustments are common in all businesses. They however, have no bearing on TFL's current charging and billing systems and the overall accuracy of the Bill presented to customers.

TFL's charging and billing systems are quite independent and distinct from its financial systems. However, this is not to say, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that TFL's charging and billing systems are not without errors. Infact, there is not a single telecommunication operator in the world that can make this claim today. The situation is due to the nature of the changing process in telecommunications, for example, where charging is dependent upon the transmission of an answer signal by a third party operator or communications equipment owned by the customer. Charging signals can be erroneously sent by the third party or from such customer equipment.

Evidently, Mr. Speaker, Sir, TFL has no control or responsibility over this. Likewise, errors can also occur in billing whenever manual processes are also present, for example, operator assisted calls. When viewed in perspective, however, the scale of the issue is not severe enough to bring the integrity of the charging and billing systems into doubt. As this is a critical area in TFL's business, Mr. Speaker, Sir, the company therefore continually updates its billing systems in order to ensure that the most up to date versions of these are employed and they are available. The company invested $6.2 million in 1997 in the billing system upgrade, $486,000 on the Y2K compliance upgrade and recently, $7 million to upgrade the current version of their billing system.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, the separation of the telecommunications operations within Fiji Post and Telecommunications Limited was effected in 1996. This resulted in the establishment of Post Fiji Limited and Telecom Fiji Limited. The objective of that separation was to make this distance disciplines behave more efficiently and to allow them to concentrate on their respective core businesses.

For the information of this august House, Mr. Speaker, Sir, as a strategy, other subsidiaries have subsequently been established under TFL umbrella in order to allow the company to focus on its core business. This now include Vodafone, Connect, Directories Fiji Limited, Exceed Pasifica and Transtel. Whilst these subsidiaries now concentrate more on custom requirements for their products and services, TFL is left to focus on the provision of network services. At least one of these subsidiaries, Exceed Pasifica, deals with customer premises equipment operates in a competitive market and already, reductions in excess service charges are realised in the office given by Connect. Sir, 18 months has lapsed since its inception and the company has reduced internet excess charges by more than 50 per cent for all customers. Probably as a result of this, Mr. Speaker, Sir, one will notice that the number of customer complaints in this area that are highlighted in the area has waned.

Contrary to the honourable Member's motion, Mr. Speaker, Sir, the aim of the restructure in TFL is to bring about needed improvements in the delivery of customer services. In the establishment of the existing subsidiaries has consequently enabled the parent company to commit more towards its core services.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I now respond to statements made about the provision of services by TFL. I noted that the honourable Member has highlighted the negative impact that these connections bear on the overall net growth of the number of lines that are connected to the company in a year. I am certain that the honourable Member is aware that there are many reasons why these connections are made. Amongst these are relocation, migration and personal reasons like death, criminal convictions, redundancy, to name a few. These, Mr. Speaker, Sir, are situations that the company has no control over.

On the issue about the Geographical Information System (GIS), Mr. Speaker, Sir, the system was procured and installed for the purpose of asset management. GIS is operational and is functioning as intended.

Contrary to what has been stated, Mr. Speaker, Sir, significant progress has been made through the efforts of TFL in committing capital expenditure to the developments of this sector. The company has invested over $202 million in capital in the network infrastructure development from 1996 to 2002, an average of over $35 million per year over that period.

This year, Mr. Speaker, Sir, TFL has embarked on a $45 million satellite project that will not only provide basic telecommunication services to rural communities, but also have sufficient broad band capacity to provide internet services or even extend radio and television broadcast if required to inaccessible areas in Fiji. Since 1996, TFL has achieved over 99 per cent digitalisation from the analogue switching network, including 100 per cent digitalisation on its transmission network. In addition, TFL has brought to the market many new services including, but not limited to, international direct dialing, internet, ISDN, mobile communications through its venture with Vodafone, EasyTel, Wireless Local Loop opened numerous customer care centers nationwide to deal with customer concerns, contact center, voice message, value added services, prepaid card services.

As the condition of the existing copper cable has deteriorated over the years and as a result, causing typical problems such as been highlighted, TFL has committed $17.2 million this year into upgrading and extending its outside plant. This upgrading work includes the replacement of proper cables with plastic coated weather assisted cables. The company has also embarked on optic fibre project that includes the laying of fibre optic cables around Viti Levu and parts of Vanua Levu, from Savusavu to Labasa.

Reference has been made by the honourable Member, Mr. Speaker, Sir, on TFL's pricing structure of three charge bands comprising two long distance charge bands and a single untimed local charge as being unnecessarily complexed.

For the information of the House, there were six charge bands in 1970, twice the number that currently exists today. In 1996, the pricing structure was combined to the three charge bands that are now in place. The move therefore simplified the previous charge band arrangements.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, as I have stated earlier, the tariff structure that exists today is an inherited legacy. The structure allows the average consumers to excess telephone lines at very low monthly rentals at about 6.7 per cent of what it actually costs. In order to offset the excess deficit that enabled TFL to continue to develop, the sector and the industry engross the market cross-subsidy from high local and international calls has been feted into the tariff structure.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, the distortion in the existing tariff structure opens an opportunity for exploitation by non-value adding operators. This became evident in the Telpac case. It had in fact, taken advantage of the situation by renting lines at the existing low rates, while re-selling international telephone traffic below TFL's prices, without carrying out any of the costs of providing services.

This illegal operator has been given undue credit for free riding of investments made by other operators. As a consequence, TFL has proposed the concept of re-balancing, which will result in a more cost-aligned pricing that will bring TFL's prices in line with countries such as Australia, New Zealand and the USA.

In describing TFL's pricing structure, Mr. Speaker, Sir, the honourable Member wrongly cites statistical information to support his point. He states that the demand for national calls is three times higher than the demand for local and regional calls and for which the poor people of this country are paying 48 cents a minute. This information is incorrect, as TFL's call volume records reveal that for the year to date, 76 per cent of call volumes are local calls, of which 18 per cent are internet calls, regional and national calls make up 8.56 per cent and 8.07 per cent of total traffic volumes respectively. Therefore, the untimed local call case indeed, is almost ten times that of either the regional or national call cases and not three times less than the national call, as suggested.

The honourable Member is indeed correct, Mr. Speaker, Sir, when he states that Telecom's pricing structure does not reflect the economics of demand and supply. However, he incorrectly implies that this is due to Telecom's dominant position in the market. Arguments that Telecom adopts a monopolistic pricing regime to extract rents from the market seem to conveniently ignore the fact that Telecom's pricing structure stems directly from Government's policy objectives when telecommunication services was provided by the Departments of Post and Telecommunications, as explained earlier.

As highlighted earlier, the issue of high international rates rests on the need to re-balance the existing anomalies and tariffs, as evident in the low line rental charges being cross-subsidised by the high international call charges.

Whatever is being stated about Telpac, Mr. Speaker, Sir, facts that have, for some reason, not been given equal higher prominence in the media are that the unlicensed call-back schemes operated by Telpac is illegal and that the company has breached the conditions that were specified in the investment approvals given by the FTIB.

TFL recognises the need to liberalise the telecommunications industry and are currently working with the Ministry of Communications on the draft Telecommunications Bill. Yet, telecommunication's infrastructure development and growth requires significant investment and capital commitments.

Telecom has highlighted that it welcomes operators, provided they are willing to make the same type of financial commitment to the delivery of telecommunications throughout the nation, rather than exploit the free use of networks that have been established by companies that have invested significantly in building its infrastructure.

Telecom investment averaged $25 million to $35 million per year, to maintain, extend and upgrade services in Fiji, especially to the rural areas, where this year, we will spend some $19 million of Telecom's $47 million capital programme. This includes the initial capital expenditure of $45 million satellite network that will deliver voice and broad band services to the rural areas.

The honourable Member has highlighted that since 1990, Telecom has generated sinful profits to the tune of $238 million. What has not been highlighted however is that since that period, Telecom has invested back into the country, in terms of capital investments, of around $320 million.

In 2002, Telecom made an after-tax profit of $28 million, as stated by the honourable Member. This year, the company is re-investing $47 million in capital expenditures. This is more than their after-tax profit in 2002.

On the matter of the exclusive 25 year licences issued in 1990, Mr. Speaker, Sir, these licences will expire in December 2014. Since their issue, however, a $60 million investment in the development of Southern Cross Cable network has been committed - a modern mobile GSM has been launched, access to the internet (which was non-existent in 1990, but is now part of everyday life), Telecom Fiji will have laid fibre optic cables around Viti Levu and covered Fiji with a reset well before the expiry of their licences. The exclusive license was therefore not given in vain. A special arrangement has facilitated real investment to be made in the existing Telecommunications' infrastructure, but naturally, we want more.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, the modern Telecommunications' infrastructure that we have today is what the exclusive license got for Fiji. On our part, we, like many responsible governments, must honour our side of the deal. If the exclusive rights granted to Telecom, Fiji, FINTEL and Vodafone ought to be removed prematurely, as a matter of policy, Government has the option of paying out this exclusivity.

This scenario, Mr. Speaker, Sir, will need to be thought out carefully, as exclusivity is currently at its highest worth and it would not be in the public interest financially to buy this exclusivity. Then, as the advocates, like the honourable Member for Labasa Open (P.W. Bune), one can only hope that telecommunication prices will fall, following the buy-out, but because this all may not happen in the way he anticipates, the eventuality could be worse. There could be price increases in areas he least expects or prefers. However, if the buy-hour tour is within our capacity, then I will be the first to recommend that we do.

We have seen this in the deregulation of the domestic air services. Prices did not fall initially when competitors compete furiously for passengers. The market consolidated after a period and expected some players will exit. The most efficient and best players remain.

In the telecommunications market internationally, Mr. Speaker, Sir, we have witnessed fierce rivalry, they collapse and fall out. Even the huge MCI World Com succumbed. In Australia, the market is consolidating and in New Zealand, where the competition is open, there is still one main line company. Where the market is small and the terrain is difficult like here, the probability of a second line company-starting business, if we remove exclusivity, may not occur. In fact, the only people who will rejoice are the shareholders of ATH. We do not necessarily need to put more money into their coffers by buying out these exclusive rights.

As stated earlier, Mr. Speaker, Sir, TFL is working with Government and key stakeholders to bring about a reform in the telecommunications sector in Fiji. In their submissions on the proposed draft Telecommunication Bill, TFL has pointed out that they are not against deregulation and liberalisation, however, their view is that the key objectives of the Bill must be to promote investment in telecommunication's infrastructure in Fiji, to ensure that competition does not result in the neglect of infrastructure development, particularly in the rural, remote and high cost areas. Entrants must contribute to real development of infrastructure and be given a ticket to free ride on the investments made by existing operators.

On reflection, Mr. Speaker, Sir, the issues faced by other infrastructure sectors in this country have arisen largely, as a result of insufficient investment into expansion and maintenance of facilities.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I believe that we should be administering our affairs to a degree of sending out right signals to investors, to ensure that competition delivers real benefits to consumers. In this regard, we embarked on processes that will lead to the eventual establishment of an independent regulator, addressing tariff re-balancing, establishing a mechanism to address access deficit, instigating proper management of a provision of universal service and the implementation of appropriate inter-connect framework.

To this extent, the motion to debate the review of the exclusive licences issued by Telecom Fiji/FINTEL is redundant, as Government has already embarked on the process of reforming the sector through the work that has been done on the Telecommunications Bill, 2003.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, Sir, the motion by the honourable Member for Labasa Open (P.W. Bune), whilst well intended, is not yet founded. It would be a wiser option to weigh out the diminishing value of the exclusivity, whilst continuing to have the ability to regulating prices to the poor and place the obligations on the licensees to fund the lines at uneconomical rates. They will need to find ways to compensate, and so far they have found the solution in the provision of new innovative services that are growing in demand and acceptable to users. For that reason, Sir, my response to the honourable Member's motion is that I oppose the motion before the House.

HON. S. SINGH.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I wish to make a contribution to the motion moved by the honourable Member for Labasa Open (P.W. Bune). Sir, I agree with the honourable Member that it is time that the Government kills this monster which is more or less choking our countrymen.

Sir, let me just remind the House that ATH bought Telecom shares at a very inflated price. Once they did that, they gradually started building an empire over the Telecom Services in the country. If one looks closely at their operations, it is evident that there is an underlying conspiracy - the money-making laundering around us.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, ATH, which has Government shares, owns 100 per cent shares in Telecom, 51 per cent shares in FINTEL and 51 per cent shares in Vodafone and the Government gets 32 per cent company tax in return. Apart from this, Sir, the Government gets dividend through its share as I had earlier mentioned. This is double-dipping, Sir. Is this the reason why Government to date is silent over this pathetic telephone services in the country? Is this why the Government, until now, is so silent in revoking the exclusive license as enjoyed by Telecom?

Sir, in simple terms it is evident that the companies are sucking the common people, thus making profits. Both the Government and the companies are enjoying, whilst the people are suffering. It is just like an octopus, gripping its prey to ensure that it takes the whole bite.

The ATH operation is a classic example whereby it does not want any interference from others. Sir, as the honourable Minister has said, they have more subsidiary companies like Connect, Transtel, Exceed, et cetera. Let us not forget that each of these sub-companies have their own manager, staff, office, budget, vehicles and operation.

HON. K.V. ZINCK.- Stop lying!

HON. S. SINGH.- Sir, to say that the consumers of the country should pay more for phone services due to high expenses is nothing short of exploitation. The creation of so many companies has increased expenses in the Telecom sector. Why should the consumers pay for that? Why can we not just have Telecom Fiji Limited divided into departments like international, national and corporate services? This will ensure that expenses are minimised and will enable Telecom to charge a minimum rate.

Sir, in my deliberation on an adjournment motion of a similar nature, I mentioned that a company by the name of Telpac is prepared to provide services at half the rate we are paying to Telecom. The honourable Minister has just informed the House that this so-called company has been exploiting the lines from other companies. The consumers of this nation want reliable, sound and active services and above all, services at a very, very minimal rate.

Sir, I have some competitive figures and I will be failing in my duty if I do not present these figures to the House - Telecom Fiji Limited is charging rate per minute and Telpac's charging rate per minute. If we have to make a call from here to the United States, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Korea, Japan, India and Canada, we can do that at Telecom charging us $2.40 per minute in those areas I have just mentioned. With Telpac, Sir, the same calls can be made at 89 cents per minute. There is a big question mark here, Mr. Speaker, Sir, and we were receiving $1.51 per minute.

Similarly, Sir, to make a call to Australia in Telecom lines, it is $1.42 per minute. Telpac is offering the same call at 69 cent per minute. New Zealand, $1.42 per minute and Telpac, 69 cents per minute. It is a shame, Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is really a shame when we are stopping such companies from operations.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I also draw the attention of this House to Telecom services provided in Australia. In that country, Sir, we have two network operators, Teltra and Telstra. Out of these two parent companies, we have 15 subsidiary companies with their own competitive rates. Even their piggyback-style of operations is not being opposed. People are free to choose services from either of the companies they think is best for them. The companies are enjoying their own profits and the people are enjoying the reliable and efficient service.

If we make a call from here through Telecom, as I have said earlier, Sir, we are charged $1.42 per minute but Telstra in Australia charges only 0.79 cents per minute for a call to Fiji. Is it not money-making laundering?

Another subsidiary company, Sir, Go Talk charge only 0.39 cents per minute for a call to Fiji. If they can do it, why can we not do it? It is amazing to see that even in rich countries like Australia, telephone rates are minimal. There are so many companies in Australia that can work shoulder to shoulder to enhance better services in the Telecom sector. I do not see any reason, Sir, why Telecom Fiji is opposing moves by Telpac to be one of the telecom services providers in the country.

HON. T. YOUNG.- How much did they pay you?

HON. S. SINGH.- Why are they afraid, Sir? If they are true and honest in their dealings, what is it they fear? Are they afraid that Telpac will overpower their business? Are they afraid that the arrival of Telpac will kick them out of the telecom sector? What is the fear?

Sir, on Vodafone, a lot has been said on the lousy services, I would say, being provided by Vodafone Fiji. It is a fact, Sir, the charges imposed by the Vodafone Company Fiji Limited is one of the highest in the world. Sir, in the ATH Report of 2002, the total number of Vodafone subscribers as at December 2002 was 80,830. Of these 74,000 consumers, that is 92 per cent, have pre-paid fastfones or what we call card phones. Sir, these pre-paid fastfone users have to pay approximately $2 a minute to make a call. Here, overseas calls in normal phone cost approximately $2 a minute. It is just beyond my imagination, Mr. Speaker, Sir, why such high rates by a local phone company is being entertained?

HON. A. ALI.- Do something honourable Minister.

HON. S. SINGH.- Sir, another issue on this, I urge my honourable colleagues on both sides of the House to try and make a call especially during the evening, round about six or after six. Most of the time we find on the screen written "network busy". Even if one has to make an urgent call, the screen reads, most of the time, "network busy". People are getting fed up. Sir, I think the Vodafone should be retitled as Network Busy Phone Limited. It is just a rip off, Sir. Vodafone keeps on harping, Mr. Speaker, Sir, on its achievements that it has acquired some 100,000 customers. Now, can the same company boast to the people on its efficiency? Can the same people boast to the people on its network coverage? I am reliably informed that the network coverage for Vodafone is only 70,000 people.

HON. K.V. ZINCK.- Where is your mobile?

HON. S. SINGH.- If they cannot provide reliable and cheaper services, they should stop harping on the achievement of selling so many phones.

Sir, I was about to give honourable Members on the other side of the House a piece of my mind for the amount of interjections they are saying, especially the honourable Minister for Labour. As one said and I quote: "There is one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving and that is your ownself." I hope you take heed of this quote.

Sir, on internet penetration. Now, the issue on internet services in Fiji is also becoming a major concern. As the last recording shows, the internet penetration in the country was only 1.82 per cent. Sir, during the reign of the Interim Government, two companies were awarded Internet Service Provider (ISP) licences. Can the honourable Minister now tell the nation what kind of investment these two companies made to enhance internet services? It is a shame to know that our country lies far behind, Sir. Our internet penetration fair badly against other countries like Mauritius for example. I quote, Sir, the population of Mauritius is double that of Fiji, the landmark is approximately one-tenth of what we are having here.

HON. GOVT. MEMBER.- Bullshit.

HON. S. SINGH.- Facts and figures do not bullshit, Mr. Speaker, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Member, that word that was used by one of the honourable Members on the Government side, I do not know who it was, it is not to be used in this House. I do not know who used it. You can be rest assured if I got a hint of who it was, you will leave the House immediately.

HON. DR. G. CHAND.- Be a man and apologise.

HON. S. SINGH.- I am not surprised, Sir.

As I was saying, Sir, they have about three times more people using mobile phones than others. The annual growth rate is twice as that of our annual growth, Sir, and the internet penetration is 13.67 per cent against our 1.82 per cent. At least, this should be an eye-opener, Sir.

Sir, our countrymen now know that they are being ripped off but I am sorry to say, our honourable Minister sitting on the other side, does not understand what I am trying to say. It looks like it is beyond his ambit of comprehension, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, even the Great Council of Chiefs' (GCC) Chairman, had expressed in one of the dailies on the high charges imposed by Telecom and I quote:

"Another twist to the Telecom saga between the estranged US Info Tech Company, Telpac, and the partly Government-owned Amalgamated Telecom Holdings is expected soon if the former managers to secure buy or deal with a major Fijian investment company."

It is understood, Sir, that Telpac Chief Executive, Tim Gibbons, has approached at least three such entities to sell 51 per cent of Telpac as part of his attempt to break the monopolistic telecommunication market.

Furthermore, Sir, the GCC has commented here and I quote:

"We support anyone who will bring in cheaper telephone calls and we are not in favour of the monopoly situation because of the high charges that people have to pay."

Sir, even on the international scene, foreigners are mocking at the type of telecom services being provided here. The question I pose now, does the current Government know what is happening in the telecom sector? The honourable Minister has just informed the House that they have started looking into this reviewed positions but where were they until now? They have started acting when they saw that the telecom sector status in this country is now a threat, when they noticed that a motion of that nature is being tabled in the House.

Sir, our honourable Members on the other side of the House have been constantly saying that the Government is by the people and for the people. It is time for the Government to prove that they really are for the people. Even yesterday, Mr. Speaker, Sir, the honourable Minister for Women said that they are in need of some very good and constructive ideas. I quote from yesterday's Daily Hansard, Wednesday, 3rd December, 2003:

"We would prefer, Sir, for our benefit and for the benefit of those who are listening, to be more constructive in whatever we say, and come up with ideas that will help move this nation forward."

Even the honourable Prime Minister, Sir, has been very vocal over the news media that parliamentarians from the Opposition side have been very negative in their contributions. They have not made constructive deliberations and have not come up with constructive ideas. He has been telling the House that the contributions from this side of the House has been negative. We, on this side, have not been innovative. To me, Sir, it looks like the current Government is void of ideas now. They do not know how to work. They are asking us to show them how to work. No problem, Sir. We will show them the path for the benefit of this nation. Sir, they have challenged us to give constructive ideas, we are challenging them to accept this motion of ours if they are men enough, Sir, then if they cannot, they should stop being cry-babies behind skirts as someone said the other day.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, once again, I challenge them to accept our idea and our idea is very simple - open up competition in the telecom sector. Sir, take away the exclusive rights from Telecom Fiji Limited, even though we have to pay a substantial sum, and above all, support the motion before this House.

With those few words, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I strongly support the motion before the House and before I take my seat, I would like to wish you, the secretariat and all honourable Members of this House and their families, a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

HON. DR. G. GOUNDER.‑ Mr. Speaker, Sir, I also wish to join my colleague in supporting the motion before the House. In that, there is a need for a review of the telecommunication policy, granting exclusive rights, which is for 25 years.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, just because of this monopolistic situation, obviously, the quality of service has suffered. We have all heard about the exorbitant services, the quality of the services, the problems that the community faces with internet services, the billing problems and the like over the years. It is all because of the monopoly and exclusive license that has been given to Telecom Fiji.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, when you consider the rates, my colleague has already mentioned that the rates are very high when compared to other countries. There may be a few countries in the Pacific Islands where the charges could be higher than ours. If you look at the Government sector itself, the charges are so high, but there have been a lot of disruptions in the telephone services in the various ministries. There have been ministries without telephone services and there have been disconnections because of non‑payment of bills. That reveals that the charges are very high, let alone the ordinary people of this country.

There is another feature of this exclusive license, Mr. Speaker, Sir, in our 2004 Budget. There is an allocation of $5.7 million, which is a provision made by the Government as management fee. I believe that this has been going on for some years. I cannot see the rationale behind this, especially when the company is making money. It made about $42 million in the year 2002. Why should the taxpayers pay a management fee of $5.7 million?

According to the media reports, Mr. Speaker, Sir, as late as October 2003 (on 25 years monopoly), the Minister of Finance has indicated that there is nothing the Government could do regarding the monopoly of our telecommunications sector because that is when the licence is going to last up to and the nation has no other choice but to suffer the consequences. Today, the honourable Minister comes around and tells us that out of its own initiative, Government has brought in this new Telecom Bill to be tabled next year to review the situation and allow competition. It is a contradiction. This is the first time we are hearing this. Obviously, this motion that has prompted the Government to look into this seriously and then bring in that new review Bill sometime next year.

To confirm this, Sir, the Chairman of the Board, Mr. Lionel Yee, came in to the controversy regarding charges and monopoly, et cetera. He had said that the Prices and Incomes Board (PIB) regulates the charges of Telecom. He says that it is not quite a monopoly, so we really do not know whether we are going to lose this monopoly or whether we are going to bring in competitors to the market or how the Government intends to bring in competition in the field. Whether it is going to be an in‑house competition, we do not know. Then comes Telpac onto the scene and that exposes the further weaknesses in a monopolistic situation. We highlighted a lot of issues regarding cost, internet access, et cetera. What are the possibilities in modern technology? That situation was exposed to the whole nation. Had it not been for Telpac (I do not carry a brief for anyone, Sir, I am just analysing the situation and giving the House what I think), the whole nation had to suffer laissez‑faire as it is. Let us go and leave everything as it is. The monopoly situation would have continued, the charges will continue and the poor services will continue indefinitely.

Apparently, Mr. Speaker, Sir, according to our reports, it has come through the Fiji Trade and Investment Board (FTIB) that this particular company has come and exposed the weaknesses in the system, and has also shown us the possibilities of how we could grow and advance and keep pace with the rest of the world in modern technology, especially in the field of telecommunication. But the Government has not done much about it. It has been backing the Telecom monopoly situation, as I have said it is already defending, and today we hear that there is going to be further changes coming into play next year.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, Telpac also exposed the billing system whereby we are told that on an annual basis, about $10 million in excess was billed to the customers. The Telecom company was getting $10 million more than what they were entitled to from the customers. This weakness, Sir, had been in existence from 1997.

There is a case, I believe, according to the reports, for a particular service where instead of $40,000, a figure of $400,000 had been indicated. All these irregularities have been kept in the dark from the public and nothing was done. Only when this was exposed with Telpac, ATH decided to hire an independent auditor to look into this, I believe it is Ernst & Young. I do not know why it was given to an auditing firm, especially when you consider a huge sum of money like that being ripped off from the taxpayers. I think it becomes a fraud on the society and customers. If anything, it should have gone to the police. If anything, it should have gone to the police. Later on, the officials of Telecom admitted that there has been a billing error, they were forced to do that, and they spent $6 million fixing the system. How can we be sure that the problem has been fixed from that $6 million? Even now, we continue to hear from customers that there are irregularities. They see numbers that appear for which they never make the call, they do not even know whose numbers they are. So, we cannot imagine how many more millions are going into the coffers of Telecom Fiji because of these wrongs.

HON. OPP. MEMBER.- Robbery!

HON. K. ZINCK.- Is there any positive?

HON. DR. G. GOUNDER.- We will give you positive, there has to be positive too, just as your colleague, the honourable Minister for Women and Social Welfare said that there is very small positive.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, because of the monopoly, the nation expected expansion of telecom services throughout the country, but very little has happened, though the honourable Minister had said that one in five has some form of communication system, be it mobile or telephone. But we all know about the mobile services, it has been in fashion now to own a mobile phone. There has also been so much promotion in the media by the various companies, people get tempted to buy a mobile phone. They get it and they pay it through their nose, $2 or so and Vodafone is not able to cater for the increased number of lines and that jams up the system early in the morning and in the evening, whole day the phone is off, switched on after 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. when special rates apply. That is what rural people do, it clogs up the system and there is no network available.

HON. D.U. MANUFOLAU.- Siro mai ra!

HON. DR. G. GOUNDER.- But at what cost to the customer, is the question that arises. Now, we are told that the Government is going to spend about $45 million to make telephones available for homes in remote areas. In the recent past, we also saw EasyTel being installed in some of the villages, but EasyTel itself is quite expensive, it is not that cheap and the people are paying through their nose. It has also been reported by the media that 87 sites covering inaccessible areas like Kadavu, Yasawa, Central Viti Levu, Southern Lau Group and Rotuma. What the cost is going to be to the people, we really do not know, but they all need communication lines, but when they have to consider their other needs, the poverty, getting food, clothing and housing, whether these luxuries they can afford is an issue that is debatable.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I told you that ATH has already made $42 million in 2002, likewise Telecom has made $28 million and Vodafone has also made huge profit, the net profit we are talking about, and without competition, they get the Quality Award as well.

(Laughter)

Sir, in the ATH Annual Report, it says and I quote:

"Once we are sure that we can continue to do business without over-regulation, we will continue to invest in the future of this country's telecommunication infrastructure".

So, until then, whatever money they have, I believe they have $61.6 million (Consolidated Fund), plus $53.4 million elsewhere, these funds will be held on unless and until they are sure there will be no over-regulation. I do not know when the Government is going to review the Telecommunication Bill, that is coming next year, whether it is going to be over-regulation, under-regulation or deregulation, we really do not know, until then they want to withhold the funds. In other words, it also reveals that there is money, but they are expecting and preparing because they know their customers are forcing, the system is forcing itself for deregulation in the industry.

Sir, may I say a little bit more about this Telpac Company. Yesterday, when I decided to speak on this particular motion, I tried to get in touch with the Telpac Company, so I could get some facts. There was a list of about 30 numbers in the Directory and I kept trying each numbers, five or six times, but I was told that all those lines were disconnected. Later I tried to see if the Company has mobile phones, so I went to Vodafone, but they also said that there were no listings by those names. Sir, with the advent of this man, he has exposed a lot of things, but what has come into place is what is known as "Crimes of corporate culture".

Mr. Speaker, Sir, in the ordinary business world, I can cite examples, suppose there is a huge or a big handicraft firm and there are a few other handicraft shops on the same street.

MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Member, can I ask you to take your seat. Honourable Members, I interrupt you on this occasion and I apologise to the visitors to the House for not acknowledging them earlier. I refer of course to the teachers and the pupils of the Fiji Vocational Center for People with Disability who are here to visit the House today. They can only be here for a short length of time and I am very sorry that I did not acknowledge your presence earlier.

I welcome you most warmly on behalf of House. I trust that your short visit to the House will be fruitful, enjoyable and educational and I want to assure you that you are most welcome. Thank you very much for coming.

HON. DR. G. GOUNDER.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I do not mind the interruption at all because it is a very special group needing our attention and help at all times. I do give whenever they send their circulars in our mailbox.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, when it comes to competition, I was just referring to the business world, if there is a huge handicraft shop in one of the streets and there are a few more handicraft shops in the same street or neighboring street or same town, these bigger shops try to engulf the smaller shops. They try to even influence and undercut the businesses of these small shops. Sir, what they are doing is that they want to kill competition, that is how the business world functions. The same culture is being practiced in this particular situation by Government, although ATH, Telecom, Vodaphone and other big corporate organisations, they want to kill competition. They do not want anyone to compete with them.

Sir, I believe that Mr. Tim Gibbons is stuck in Australia as he is not given a visa to come into the country. There are disputes in court, so what sort of country are we trying to run? We cannot allow this sort of thing. He should be allowed to come in, be given the visa, he should fight for his right, he has been given a license by the FTIB, legitimate way, unless there is something going wrong at the FTIB. He should be allowed to come, justify himself and clear his name. I ask that Government should take action in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I will briefly touch on some of the problems which I think could very well be addressed and improved upon. Sir, we know there is a huge problem with the staffing in the Telecom services. There is need for more efficiency in the work they perform. Nowadays, Sir, when one looks at the phone bills, the quality of bills have improved, all probably because of the corporate culture, they spend a fair bit of money on the high quality paper. It is quite expensive and it is also printed in colour. I do not see the need for that. It makes no difference to me as a consumer ...

HON. DR. G. CHAND.- They pay for it.

HON. M.M. BEDDOES.- They want to waste money.

HON. DR. G. GOUNDER.- ... whether it is in colour, on good quality paper, bond or ordinary paper, as long as I pay my bill, it does not make any difference to me. It comes on an A4 size paper as well, Sir. There is no need for such a huge bill. A small piece of paper with the figures on it is fine. Where is the need for that A4 size paper?

Recently, I had installed my telephone and there was a problem. They came back and changed the whole system, because the actual gadget for current telephones is quite different from the previous ones. The socket that needs to be connected is quite different from the one that was in existence. I do not know what is the reason for changing that, because that is going to be an additional cost for wiring and all that by changing the gadgets.

HON. T. YOUNG.- You must have changed it yourself.

HON. DR. G. GOUNDER.- Sir, we also see a lot of expatriates (you have read all these reports and you all know that), while there are plenty qualified locals to fill these positions, yet expatriates are being hired. One report stated something like $2,000 a day salary for some expert advice or service.

The vehicles used by this body are, of course, very good and expensive ones. They are the top of the range on the market. I do not see any reason for that. It is not going to benefit the consumer in any way, by providing them with very expensive executive cars.

HON. J. NABUKA.- They were using dinghies one time.

HON. DR. G. GOUNDER.- I don't mind dinghies, as long as I get the service. They can do it. It is all electronic services now.

There should also be strict control on overtime. There is a lot of dragging-on effect with the workers, their efficiency is very low and they can go on to extra and overtime.

We see that Telecom, of course, is diversifying into other areas. It has got a lot of subsidiary companies. My friend has amply elaborated on the consequences of having many subsidiaries.

There is an increased number of staff, the Board members and executives. It all adds up eventually - office staff, equipment and space. This all adds up and ultimately it comes down to the consumer, because he foots the bill.

It also leads, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, Sir, to corruption. Recently, I found out (this is all first-hand information), I believe the wiring part to your house connection is contracted to an outside firm. Sometimes you apply for a telephone and you have to wait until that particular company comes and does the wiring to your house and then they will connect the phone. Where is the need for that? I think there is an element of corruption there.

There is one positive side, though. There are incentives for the domestic consumers, which is good, for instance, weekend specials for calls, whether it be national, international or regional. That is a good incentive, but sometimes there again, consumers get cheated, for example, of late, I believe that they have special rates for calls to the USA, where you pay the normal rate for the first five minutes, which of course, is pretty high. Thereafter, you have to pay only 60 per cent and it is applicable for only half an hour.

Likewise, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I think the business world also needs these specials as well. They have been crying over the years about the costs involved with communication purposes. They also need to be given special rates.

Now, some of the comparative figures given by my colleague, with some of the countries, you can save $1.51, $2.23, $1.49 and so on. Some of the countries involved, to name a few - Canada, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, UK, USA, et cetera. These are countries where you can save more than $1.51 you can see. This has been proven by this Telpac company.

Imagine what the business world would gain out of this, because they are the people who do business with overseas countries. The amount of savings they will have and the amount of trade they can bring into the country. It has got to be matched. The Government wants to help the business community, but at the same time, it is not looking into these facts and thereby assisting that particular group.

I believe from Australia, you can make calls for 2.9 cents per minute, to Scotland - 3.9 cents, to Argentina - 3.5 cents, USA - 4 cents, France - 2.9 cents, England - 29 cents and so on, but our rates has already been stated by my colleague and I do not want to go through that.

Between Australia and New Zealand, for $4 you can speak for hours. Why can we not include all this in our system?

So, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I feel that competition is healthy, monopoly is dirty, competition increases the efficiency and quality of service at reduced cost. Government will not lose, because it will still be collecting the various taxes and will probably save on its phone bills, at the same time, save them the embarrassment of continuous disconnection, as I have already mentioned about the various ministries. I am sure if you deregulate, then Fiji can become the e-hub of the South Pacific.

Telecom should also have a long-term, 20 year strategic plan in place. If a competitor comes in with all the modern equipment, Telecom could run into problems upgrading its outfit to match the newcomer. That is what I think is happening right now. That is why they do not want competition.

With those few words, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I support the motion and I hope the other side of the House considers whatever we have said in the right spirit.

MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Members, I intend to adjourn the House now for lunch. We will resume at 3 o'clock. The House is now adjourned.

The House adjourned at 1.35 p.m.

The House resumed at 3.25 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Members, before we continue with the debate this afternoon, I would like to acknowledge the presence of visitors in the House. In particular, I would like to welcome the students, parents and teachers of classes 1 to 8 from the Nailuva District School in Saivou, Ra. On behalf of the Members of the House of Representatives, I bid you a most warm welcome to the House. I trust that your short visit with us will be enjoyable, fruitful as well as educational, particularly to the students. We enjoy having visitors to the House.

Ni mata vinaka mai. E ka ni marau vei au me'u vakaraitaka vei kemuni na neimami marautaka sara vakalevu na Lewe ni Bose, o ira na noqu i tokani vata kei au, na nomuni yaco mai vakalewe levu mo ni mai sikovi keimami ena yakavi ni siga e daidai. Keimami nuitaka talega ni na yaga vakalevu vei kemuni na nomuni mai veisiko, vakabibi ni na yaga vakalevu vei ira na gone.

Vinaka vakalevu na yaco mai vakalewe levu. Au nuitaka ni na sega walega ni yaga vei kemuni na veisiko oqo, ko ni na mai gade talega vakavinaka e Suva. Au nuitaka talega ni na sega ni na tau na uca ena yakavi ni kua ena gauna ni sa vakarau la'ki vodo tale kina ena nomuni basi. Au kila ni so era veisiko mai ena noa era mai suasua koso, ni vosota ke na mani vakaoya vei kemuni. Ke a dabe tiko oqo o koya na i taukei ni waluvu, ena laurai mada kevaka ena yaga o koya ena yakavi ni kua se sega. Vinaka vakalevu na yaco mai.

Honourable Members, first of all, I want to apologise for keeping honourable Members in the House until about 2 o'clock. I did not anticipate that there were going to be many speakers. When I looked around, I thought I had an indication of only two speakers, and as it progressed, I was told that there were more speakers and by then, I had already committed you well into your lunch hour, so I apologise for that.

We will now continue with the debate. There are four speakers, including the Right of Reply, so I have the pleasure of giving the floor to the first speaker for this afternoon, the honourable Member for Vuda Open (V. Singh).

HON. V. SINGH.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this very important motion before the House. Before I delve further into the subject, while the honourable Member for Ba East Communal (S. Singh) was on the floor, there was an interjection which was unparliamentary from the other side. He could not catch the honourable Member who came up with it but after a couple of minutes, Sir, I saw the honourable Minister for Labour walking out smiling.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, to start off, I would like to take up some projects that Telecom Fiji Limited is currently wanting to proceed with and this is the satellite project. I believe that Telecom like other business ventures should always be market-based when it does a project. It is morally wrong to be spending taxpayers' money in investments where there are no returns. It is sad to say but this is what is happening now at Telecom.

Sir, I would like to know how the public of Fiji can benefit from a satellite project that Telecom is starting in Yaqara this coming Monday? I am very concerned that in reviewing Telecom's activities in the past years, I note that about 50 per cent of Telecom's projects have been a failure, and I would like to give another example.

Sir, about two years ago, there was a project called Central Business District which involved setting up cables around Suva City to provide high speed data, for example, for internet users. Sir, half way into the project, an evaluation was done and it was found that the project would be expensive so they pulled out and for that, about one million dollars would have been spent. This is what I mean, Sir, a total waste of taxpayers' money just thrown into the drain.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have been reliably informed that the same project is going to be set up again in January 2004 where another $3 million will be spent without doing any market research. Whenever we have bigger projects coming around, I know we do a feasibility study before starting the project? But to my knowledge, nothing as such has come up to date. This is just taking another chance which might not bring about a profitable project.

Sir, it is no wonder that Telecom as a body itself (without its subsidiaries) has made no profit in the last three years. I would like to know what is the Board of Telecom and the Government doing about it?

There is indeed, a lot of wastage with Telecom as it has continued to invest in outdated technology, spending over $100,000 a year with different consultants to assist the General Manager. Why then, do they have General Managers who cannot do the job?

Furthermore, Sir, the increase in number of overseas trips by the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Operating Officer, who are hardly in the country, on Telecom expenses should be a cause for concern.

4RF Equipment: Mr. Speaker, Sir, this was a $4 million equipment that was bought from New Zealand and no tender was called for. This is another area where we always yell out from this side of the House about the Government's transparency and quite successfully they are failing in their duties as the highest office holders on the land. Sir, this equipment has been installed in all hotels located in remote sites mostly in the West. Sadly, Sir, most of these hotels are already complaining about the equipment to be non-functioning.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would also like to talk about a critical area of concern which I have termed as `corporate fraud' and let me explain. Sir, the subsidiaries of Amalgamated Telecom Holdings (ATH) are Telecom, FINTEL and Fiji Directory. Telecom subsidiaries are Vodafone, Exceed Pasifika and Transtel Card Services.

Sir, Vodafone's current rate per unit with tax is 61 cents. There is a product that Telecom has introduced called CDMA which is the Easytel phone system with the unit charge of 9 cents or 10 cents. The question I ask is; why is Telecom not promoting it to the public if it is so much cheaper than Vodafone charges? We can see why, because it means more money for Telecom. It will not be committed to providing alternative cheaper phone services for the general public.

Sir, I have another observation regarding Telecom properties which I note in last Saturday's Fiji Times that their Tamavua and Walu Bay properties are up for sale. I am aware that Walu Bay itself houses about 700 staff and that is my question, where does Telecom intend to house its 700 employees?

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have only highlighted a limited number of Telecom investments so as to inform this House of their failure and a total waste of money. I am sure that without this unnecessary expenditure and if costs were minimised, the public could benefit from further reduction of telephone charges. Sir, because of continuous unsuccess in projects and capital projects with Telecom, they are being forced to keep their charges high in order to pay back for the losses. We have to seriously look into this matter and rectify it. I think it is a very important device as far as telecommunications is concerned and especially for the business houses and the private users. Therefore, it should be set up properly to benefit the nation as a whole but not with the current staff.

Sir, the Telecom Board members and the Government have social and moral obligations for the people of Fiji to do the right thing in being vigilant and prudent in the financial management of Telecom. Sir, that is my brief contribution.

There is one other point I would like to highlight, that is when applications are made in the Telecom for telecommunication services. Those applications sit in the office for days, weeks, months and sometimes years. Sir, when an applicant makes an application, it is the duty of Telecom to inform the applicant of its status, what is the reason and how long it will take because when one applies, they have all his or her details. There should be a system where they should write back to the applicant and inform them. There are people, as I said, who can only communicate from a distance through the telephone and due to not replying, the applicant may have to keep running back to Telecom and this can be annoying. When you get there, sometimes your application is lost. Sometimes you are told, "there is no circuit" and sometimes you are forced to use the vodafone which is very, very expensive. We should seriously look into this and Telecom should really gear up their staff to improve the service. The people must be told, if they cannot provide the service, "Sorry, due to (such and such reasons) we are unable to give you a definite answer now" but do not leave the applicant in a limbo and keep him or her waiting. The Telecom service is very, very poor compared to other services such as the Fiji Electricity Authority, they are providing a much better service than Telecom.

With those words, Sir, I support the motion before the House.

HON. M.M. BEDDOES.- Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a brief contribution to the motion before the House. Sir, I have been on record both in this House and outside of this House raising complaints with respect to Telecom in particular and its services or rather lack of it. I have with me here, Sir, just a few samples of complaints that come from citizens all over the country about the problems that they encounter with Telecom. This comes about, Sir, because they are a monopoly and with the monopolies come inefficiencies. They have no competition to speak of, then their attitude towards the key people that they are supposed to be looking after which are the consumers, the citizens of this country alters.

I have received numerous examples where the consumers' complaints are totally ignored. For example, Sir, if your phone is out of order, these are the things that a monopoly can get away with - but if there was a competitor, I can assure you, no way would this attitude prevail, absolutely no way. But if your phone is out of order and I am sure everyone in this House who has a phone has experienced that at one time or another and regardless of the length of time where you do not have the service, where they are unable to provide you with the service, there is absolutely not one single cent adjusted to the rental charge. You pay the charge regardless of whether they provide the service or not. If there was a competitor to which the consumers could unhook their phones and reconnect to, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that an entire credit would be applied to everyone's phone bill every time the service was unable to be provided.

If you have the gumption go along to Telecom and produce to them your bill, which shows a whole range of irregularities, my own telephone was disconnected some months ago, Sir. I found it rather strange because I recall I had paid but I thought maybe I had not so I went along to Telecom to say, "Did I not pay my bill?" We looked up the system and of course, I had. But they had decided to charge me for some charges that belonged to a period six months earlier and I had not received the bill yet but because it had not been paid and it was showing six months overdue, my phone was disconnected. Of course, I will not repeat in this House the words I used to express my dissatisfaction because it would be unparliamentary to do so. However, I made sufficient amount of noise that my phone was promptly reconnected. But, Sir, maybe that was done to me because I am a Member of Parliament (MP), what about the ordinary citizen? They are totally ignored.

The other thing is in terms of the problems that are created by monopolies and I will give you one example. People have complaints here, Sir, that relate to particular numbers that are continually called and charged on their bill but they have not called that number. In one case, a lady went to Telecom to complain and said, "Look, what are all these reverse charge calls doing on my phone bill?" She could not afford to pay the total bill because it was in excess of what she normally used to pay. The Telecom people had checked it and said, "Oh, this is your daughter calling collect call from school on this particular day", the lady then showed her the calendar of the date and promptly advised the Telecom rep that in fact the date in question was a Sunday and there was no one at school on Sunday. To that, the Telecom personnel advised them, "You pay the bill and then we will deal with your complaint later". I have numerous other examples here, but this will all be part of the action that I have publicly advised that I will take against Telecom on behalf of all these citizens, who have lodged their complaints because their complaints have been ignored.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, the problem with monopolies is the fact that they wield their power very, very extensively. In actual fact, Sir, that comes right up to this House including Parliament itself. Now, all of us who are trying to use the in-house network system in Parliament itself will no doubt be encountering the same kind of experiences we are encountering. When you want to log on to the system, as I was told by someone and I know it myself, you can walk away, go and have a cup of coffee, come back, in fact go down and have a bowl of yaqona, get back to your office and you are still waiting to log on. That is in Parliament. I was making my own inquiries about this and what is going on here? In fact, it is not entirely concluded, but it is a simple matter, Sir.

Currently, Mr. Speaker, Sir, in terms of the internet network, Telecom is using a 6 meg line supplied by FINTEL and have recently, apparently, asked to increase to a 20 meg line. The question I have, Sir, I think a couple of years ago, the Southern Cross Cable was concluded and we have, on our doorsteps here, the Southern Cross Cable. But I understand that there is in‑house fighting going on between Telecom and FINTEL and Telecom is not, in fact, getting out of FINTEL the maximum that it can get to improve the speed and services to the consumers. It is dictating the pace of our advancement in this technology even though right here, on our doorstep, we have the facilities which are state‑of‑the‑art, fibre optic, Southern Cross Cable but we cannot use it because we have in place a monopoly that is dictating the pace of our advancement. That is what a monopoly does. They are not providing the service, but they are also dictating to us the pace of our advancement, including Members of Parliament and the Parliament of Fiji, which is supposed to be, as I understand, the supreme authority in this land. I can assure you that we are not.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, there can be no substitute for competition. Previous speakers here have spoken about a particular company, and of course, some of the Members on this side have taken their shots at the individual. For those who are suggesting that the person involved is a con artist, I suggest why do you not apply the law correctly? Sue the man, take him to court and let the due process of law determine whether, in fact, he is what you are suggesting he is, or that he is, in fact, a genuine investor who is able to provide the consumers in this country, a cost full of service that is more than half of what they are apparently being subjected to, without the backup of the service.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, there were also a lot of media exchanges with regard to the same individual, but like everyone else, we also get supplied information. This is the 1998 Telecom Internal Management Report where one manager is advising the executives that there is a problem with the system. They acknowledge it, they know there is and it is signed by the officers. They are saying that there is no point of reference for them to determine the accuracy of what is going on and part of the exchanges that took place with the media, Sir, were about the incorrect billings, which is why I took the advertisements in the papers. I must, at least, for my own self, find out if in fact these reports or claims are accurate. I have them here now. The people have sent them in. They are receiving bills that are identical to days/months ‑ identical numbers, identical time, identical bill, but sent three months later. There is a problem with their billing. There can be no dispute about that.

They have stated categorically that the problem is fixed and that they have spent $7 million and bought a new computer. Well, we have just all been hooked up to the internet and we have all these fancy computers. We did not pay $7 million, it was donated, but we still cannot get on to the net so it does not matter whether you have spent $700 million. If the system is not working, then it is not working, regardless of what you spent on it. Those who are familiar with and who use computers on a regular basis understand this. The point is that when all of this outcry was made public, Telecom decided to have an audit of their system. We have not heard the results of that audit, but I have no doubt whatsoever that they will come out squeaky clean in that audit. The reason is because all the dirt will be hidden and everything will be tidied up. The fact is that the Government has a moral obligation to the consumers to question and go back to 1998, so I suspect that when this Report was written, it indicated that this problem had been occurring for four months.

Sir, between 1998 and today, all the subscribers of Telecom have possibly (I am not suggesting that they all do) been billed for calls or charges that are not there and because there is a monopolistic situation, they are being told to pay up or lose their service. And what can the poor consumer do? Nothing! They must pay up, otherwise they will lose the ability to communicate. That is what a monopoly does and the ordinary citizens of this country have no recourse to lodge their complaints because the answer is exactly what I have just told you.

So they have written to me, and no doubt many other Members of Parliament, on both sides. Honourable Members on that side have received the same kind of complaints that we have received here. Unfortunately, they are part of the Government so they cannot say much. So it is my responsibility, along with the Government, in waiting to air these discrepancies so that some action might be taken.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I accept that the honourable Minister of Finance and Minister for Communication was actually highlighting very important points with respect to the telecommunications industry and the fact that things were being reviewed. But I believe, Sir, that we have far more to gain by opening up our communications and other exclusive domains so that at the end of they day the people of this country receive what they deserve to receive, which is the best price cost for their communication.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, monopolies are inefficient machines. Yes, they make profits. They should all be sacked if they do not because they have no competitor to speak of. Someone made the comment that Vodafone won an award. Well, who else is providing vodafones in Fiji. That was the only award they had to make. There was only one award to win and we only have one vodafone company and they have won it. Similarly, if you had an award for telecommunications, the Telecom would have to win it. There is no‑one else to win. There is no competition. The problem is, there is no competition. If there was competition, Sir, it will improve the efficiency of Telecom out of site. It would probably improve their bottom line to levels that they only dreamed of, but the most important thing, Sir, is that the consumers in this country will get a very low cost for their phones and if they are not satisfied with one provider, they can switch and go to the next one.

Sir, like every other business, they either survive or they sink. That is the life of commerce. The only thing that prompts the monopolies up is the Government and the protection under the legislation. They cannot possibly survive in a competitive environment, they are inefficient. They do not have the ability or the skills to survive in an environment other than one that is totally protected by the Government. At the end of the day, inspite of the fact that they may have made huge investments in infrastructure, that is the same that every other business has to do, they have to invest in their own businesses so that they can maintain an operation and they can get profits, that is the way it works and Telecom, ATH and Vodafone should be no exception to the rule. If they are as big and as efficient and as strong, and as powerful as they try to make out to be, then they should have absolutely no problem surviving and expanding in a deregulated environment.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I think the time has come because we also are part of the world at large and the world at large is deregulating, that is what we are part of and we need to be in that light. I think we have a perfect example of what happens when you maintain inefficiencies. We have the sugar industry that is collapsing before our very eyes. We have been sitting on our laurels all this time thinking that, this is great, we will carry on this way. All of a sudden, someone decides to pull the plug and reality sets in. Now, we are racing against time trying to restructure an entire industry that we could have modernised, made it more efficient and opened up a little to become more competitive so that it could survive.

In the long term, Sir, I think everyone in this House knows only too well how efficient these monopolies are because I have no doubt that each of us have experienced it in one way or another and rather than scoff at or knock the motion before the House, simply because it was proposed by your de-facto Government partner in-waiting. I would suggest, Sir, that we should give it some serious consideration, not because of who tabled the motion, but because of the impact it will have on our people and the relief that it can bring to the citizens of this country who we all represent in this House. That is what I believe we should be looking at, not who presents the motion, but whether the motion itself or whether the objective of the motion itself is beneficial to the people, and if it is, then we should say yes. If it is an hindrance to the people, if it will create more cost and will make it more expensive for them to use, then we should oppose it, but we should not just oppose it simply because it comes from one side of the House or the other. The prime consideration is how it improves the service to our people and that should be the only consideration. I think that is the way we should approach some of these things and then we can do what some of the Government Members have been saying, we can all work together and find the right answer and do it. Let us not worry which side of the House presents the paper, let us support it, if it has got merit and deserves support.

With those few words, Sir, I support the motion before the House.

HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I wish to make a very brief contribution to the debate on this motion because although I was not present when the honourable Minister of Finance delivered the main response from this side of the House, I learnt later on that he had given all the details that need to be borne in mind when the House votes on this motion. There is an aspect, Sir, that has been referred to by subsequent speakers, that is speakers subsequent to the honourable Minster of Finance's reference to the role played by Telpac and I think the last speaker, the honourable Leader of the Opposition also referred to the same operation without naming it or naming him.

Sir, I wish to make it clear for honourable members who have some misconception about this whole operation and why Government was trying to correct him so that one does not champion an operation like that unless they follow the law. The whole idea about Telpac, Sir, was that it was operating without a license. He argued for a while that he did not need a license and for clarity, we made a set of regulations, made by the honourable Minister responsible for Communications and it required him again to apply. Now, there have been some comments including the reasoning given by the honourable mover of the motion in support of the motion, to the effect that this Government was influenced by the monopolies, FINTEL and Telecom, to make those regulations in order to shut out Telpac. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those regulations are not about Telpac, it is about licensing of Telecom Service Providers.

Now, the idea behind that, Mr. Speaker, Sir, is that those who provide telecom service need to use telecom systems. Unless you are a telephone or a telecom system provider as well which Telpac was not, then you have to set up your own Telecom system which is licensed under the Act, otherwise, you cannot set up a telecom system, you then become a telecom system provider if you do set up one under licensed. But, Sir, if one is not a telecom system provider, then you cannot come in like Telpac and parasitically just operate on the services provided by telecom system provider, which was FINTEL for international and Telecom for locals.

Sir, for those who are championing the operation of Telpac, let me just ask this question. If he was providing so much cheaper services as he claimed he did and perhaps he did, then why did he not just obtain a license and continue to provide the same cheap service from which he obviously made a lot of money. I will tell you, honourable Members, the reason why he did not want to do that because he knew that if he got licensed, the license would require him to liaise with the telecom system provider in which case, there will be conditions that will require him to pay for the services. Of course, he does not want to do that because if he did that, then he would have to raise his rates and he has already committed himself to his clients that he would continue to provide cheap. Of course, it is cheap because he does not have to worry about the other services provided by those who have invested a great deal of capital in order to set up the telecom system services that he is parasitically draining out, without spending any money. That is why he is being able to do that and we offered him and we told him that we are not against him. We are for him and he can continue to charge his rates at the same cheap services he says he can provide, if and only if he obtains a license under the law because every telecom service provider like him, will have to follow the law. They have to obtain a license duly granted and if he wants to use the telecom system services provided by the providers, then of course, obtain a license and he can use their services at a cost. Sir, this is why the Telpac saga or the Telpac story is about that and for those who are championing this cause obviously have a serious misconception about that story. That is all I wish to say.

HON. DR. G. CHAND.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, by the look of the things and by the statements made by the honourable Minister for Telecommunications and the honourable and learned Attorney-General, they do not support this motion, but for completeness I do wish to place on record my views on the motion. I think the motion is very timely and the honourable Member for Labasa Open (P.W. Bune) has to be commended for filing this motion.

Sir, I have with me a very glossy book called the ATH Annual Report 2002. Most of the data which I am going to use will be from this Report, for the benefit of honourable Members who have been constantly heckling when I speak or when I am quoting datas. Sir, it is from this report, it is available in the library and it is also tabled every year in this House.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, the honourable Minister for Communications had mentioned the huge profits which the ATH is making. They are very important matters.

Sir, when I asked the office staff for all the latest Annual Reports on Telecom, they gave me the Annual Report for ATH. Of course, ATH is the holding company. There is no Annual Report for Telecom which is made public, there is no Annual Report for Vodafone which is made public and there is no Annual Report for Fiji Directories Limited which is made public. The public does not know the facts and figures in detail as they used to have during the Posts and Telecommunication days when Telecom was operating as a company on its own.

Sir, honourable Members have not been given a copy of the Report. Sir, when you consolidate reports, you hide a lot of very pertinent information and that is deplorable. It is the responsibility of the Government to inform this House of all the details of operations of Telecom Fiji Limited, a subsidiary of ATH. Government has been preventing that under the Companies Act and all these laws from the public access to the information which is relevant.

Sir, be that as it may, on page 30 of the Report, there is a statement by the Auditor under the heading "Emphasis of Matter". For those who are accountants or who have business experience, they will know that when auditors give reports, they give an unqualified report or they give a report which is qualified or a report like under the heading "Emphasis of Matter". Now the term "Emphasis of Matter" means one step below qualification. That is what it means in the accounting language.

Sir, what it says is that this Report does not have all the facts and figures, particularly those concerning the transfer of assets when Post Fiji was split from Telecom but there are two units made, the Telecom and the Post Fiji. There were assets, particularly buildings and land which were divided between Post Fiji and Telecom and they are not accounted for in this Report. We do not know, even the accountants says he does not know what the actual true financial position of Telecom and ATH would be. It is a very serious matter and no one has picked it up. It is a very serious for the accountant to say that it is an emphasis of matter, it is serious.

Sir, I do not know what the Ministry is doing about it. Why is it not directing Telecom and the ATH to do what is right and regularise the Report?

Sir, for the information of the honourable Member for Rewa/Nasinu Open (P. Silatolu), this Report costs $80 to produce one copy.

HON. DR. G. GOUNDER.- You are paying it!

HON. DR. G. CHAND.- We all paying for it through higher charges, so do justice and read it some time.

MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Members, the Speaker is sitting up here and no conversation between you too.

HON. DR. G. CHAND.- As a matter of emphasis, my question is, what is the Government doing about it? Why has not the Government, the Minister for Public Enterprises, the Minister for Telecommunications or the Minister of Finance questioned the Chairman of the respective company as to what is this "Emphasis of Matter"; what are you doing about it; and why are you not regularising it?

But no, they are sleeping over it. They are dozing off?

HON. DR. G. GOUNDER.- As usual!

HON. DR. G. CHAND.- So long after the transfer actually took place.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I do know that under the SVT reign, there was a programme of selling assets which belonged to the people. When we had the Posts and Telecommunications, I could proudly say that it is our company and our company with the mandate to provide an essential service to the nation. Sir, can we say the same now? Unfortunately, no, Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Government has eventually privatised the company to an extent that we as taxpayers have lost an extremely profitable business to private sector.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, in that context, I would like to suggest that what the Telecom Board or the Board of ATH is doing is perfectly within line of how a private business would operate.

Sir, the Report says the goals of the company are to enhance shareholder value. That is the goal. There are no questions about it, Mr. Speaker, Sir. That is the objective. Sir, their objective is to increase profits and to make as much profits as they could. Sir, any competition as stated on page 14 would erode the ATH Groups Market Share and Profitability. They do not want competition because it would erode their profitability and market share.

HON. DR. G. GOUNDER.- Government also does not know!

HON. DR. G. CHAND.- Sir, the private companies are there to make as much money as they possibly can. Now in this particular case, this company was ours, it was the taxpayer's company. This was sold off to the private sector. The point here is that now it becomes the role of Government to ensure that the organisation continues to provide good service, efficient service at reasonable prices because it is a monopoly as many Members have mentioned. It is a private company, if it makes profit through illegitimate means, through exploiting consumers, it is within its rights to do it but we have a Government, that is where the blame is. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the service quality is good, the prices are reasonable and affordable. Sir, what if there is double billing? Why do you blame Telecom for double billing? I have received double billings, I do not blame Telecom, I blame the Government for very weak supervision.

Sir, what if there are errors on the bills? Why do you blame Telecom? They are there to make a quick buck, that is what they are to do. It is the Government who should ensure that it does not happen and if it does happen, they should be penalised for doing that. It is the Government, that is their responsibility. That is why we have a government, Mr. Speaker, Sir. The whole point about a government is not only to drive a pajero and give big speeches. That is not the point about it.

HON. M. DOBUI.- You're jealous.

HON. DR. G. CHAND.- The point about government, Sir, is to govern.

HON. T. VUETILOVONI.- Don't talk nonsense.

HON. DR. G. CHAND.- When there is double billing, ...

MR. SPEAKER.- Order, order!

HON. DR. G. CHAND.- ... when there are errors on bills, when there are monopolies which are exploiting consumers, I do not blame the Chairman and the Chief Executive of this company, I blame the Government, because they are not doing their job.

HON. T. YOUNG.- You're talking nonsense.

HON. DR. G. CHAND.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, what if there is corruption, nepotism and bad governance within the company? It is a private company.

HON. T. VUETILOVONI.- That's not your problem.

HON. DR. G. CHAND.- Let me give an example, Mr. Speaker, Sir, and I know the honourable Member for Vuda Open (V. Singh) was going to talk about it too, but he let me, in light of the time constraint.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, Telecom Fiji has many millions of dollars of computer equipment. According to the latest Annual Report, the value of computers and systems is about $30 million, rounded off. It is actually $27,000,946 (2002). That is a lot of equipment - $28 million in 2002.

Sometime back, Mr. Speaker, what Telecom did was to pay $50,000 to an unknown company with no staff, registration or FNPF records. A company by the name of Clarity, owned by a fisherman and of course, an accountant. They set up a company called Clarity and registered it. Telecom Fiji paid $50,000 to it, gave it office space and gave the contract the normal computer operation services. They told them to manage their normal computer operation services. Where in the world would any reasonable government allow that kind of thing to happen?

I raised this, Mr. Speaker, Sir, during my corruption motion that there was no award from the Government, Telecom or ATH. It is an outright corruption, no tender was called. I spoke to the staff at Telecom and they thought that Clarity was owned by Telecom. Little did they know that it was owned by a person with fishing interests and an accountant with a very dubious record. He is now, of course, handling the Rewa Rice Liquidation Scheme.

HON. DR. G. GOUNDER.- Fiji Fish.

HON. V. SINGH.- Shame, shame.

HON. M. TUGIA.- Come on, man.

HON. DR. G. CHAND.- Sir, a paper company that was set up by two people was given $50,000, office space, desks and tables, computers and staff and operate as part of the IT operations of Telecom. Now, Telecom wants to buy off Clarity and I am sure for a few million dollars. Is that not a scam? The honourable Minister for Communications talked about good governance. He said that Telecom and ATH is practicing good governance. In this report, there is also mention of good governance. There is a huge section on good governance. Is this the kind of corporate governance that is being encouraged?

I notice, Sir, that the Chief Executive Officer of the company is none other than a person who was on the NBF Board at the crucial time when the bank began to go under. Now, he is handling Telecom Fiji for us. Under his nose, these kinds of scams are going on. Of course, he was also the Chairman or a very key member of a group called Transparency International sometime back. That is laughable, Mr. Speaker, Sir, no one is doing anything about it.

HON. T. YOUNG.- Stop misleading the House.

HON. M.V. RAGIGIA.- You say that outside.

MR. SPEAKER.- Order!

HON. DR. G. CHAND.- What if that is happening? Who is responsible to clear that rot? Not theirs, it is a private company. It is the Government's and that is where they are failing. They have continued to fail, because ultimately, all those millions of dollars which are involved in these kinds of scams and some scams which the honourable Member for Vuda Open mentioned (V. Singh), will be passed on to the consumers, the House of Representatives, because we also pay phone bills, to businesses and it raises business costs, the cost of doing commerce in the country, because the Government is not doing what it is supposed to be doing.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, what if Telecom is exploiting consumers through a service which is called the Call Minders. With this service, you do not have to subscribe for it. They automatically hook it on to your phone, for example, for the benefit of those Members who may not understand what it is, this is how it operates. If the honourable Member for Labasa Open (P.W. Bune) and myself are talking and the honourable Member for Nadi Rural Communal (Dr. G. Gounder), calls and the line is busy, he will immediately be put on to a message service. Neither of us had asked for the message service. What it means is that he will then be billed 12 cents, if it is a local call or $1 plus, if it is a regional call.

HON. V. SINGH.- That's what they call service.

HON. DR. G. CHAND.- That is corporate fraud. Of course, what if they are doing it? It is a private company, but whose responsibility is it? It is the Government's responsibility to make sure that consumers are not exploited in that particular fashion.

What if, Mr. Speaker, Sir, they have a very good deal with two radio stations. What if the two radio stations are given huge discounts (I do not know what the extent of the discounts are), but they are given discounts to run talk-back shows. Now, talk-back shows are becoming very popular in Fiji. Who pays for that; not the radio stations, but the consumers. Of course, Sir, there are one or two lines only and if one person is on the line and another person calls, he will not get a busy signal. He will be billed the charge, he will not be able to speak to the announcer or go on air, but he will be billed.

Imagine, Sir, there is a hot issue, like the issue today on Radio Navtarang, on the tender where the honourable Member for Nasinu Communal (P. Chand) was interviewed. I was sitting with some people and I remember them trying to call the radio station. They could not get through to the announcer, but they were billed. What if 500 people called that line?

HON. T. YOUNG.- That's a what if.

HON. L.T. SALABULA.- Too much what ifs.

HON. DR. G. CHAND.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, all of them would be billed 12 cents if they were local calls.

HON. T. VUETILOVONI.- What ifs, what ifs, what ifs.

HON. DR. G. CHAND.- If there were calls from Lautoka or Labasa, they will be billed more. The point is that this is explanation, this is corporate fraud. What is the Government doing - nothing. It is doing nothing.

HON. DR. G. GOUNDER.- It's sleeping.

HON. P. SILATOLU.- Too many questions to the Speaker.

HON. DR. G. CHAND.- What is the Ministry of Commerce doing under which the Consumers Affairs comes? As far as I know, nothing. They cannot hang up. The moment they call there, this Call Minder goes into action.

HON. T. YOUNG.- Call again.

HON. DR. G. CHAND.- You call again, you pay again.

(Laughter)

You call again, keep on calling, you call 10 times and if you cannot talk to the announcer, you continue to pay.

HON. DR. G. GOUNDER.- If it's engaged, you will not talk to the announcer.

HON. T. VUETILOVONI.- Your choice.

HON. T. YOUNG.- The choice is yours.

MR. SPEAKER.- Order!

HON. DR. G. CHAND.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, this is the nonsense that is going on under the combined supervision of the honourable Minister for Consumer Affairs and the honourable Minister for Communications.

HON. S. NAIVALU.- What ifs, what ifs.

MR. SPEAKER.- Order.

HON. DR. G. CHAND.- But, Sir, it is a private company, it has a right under the Companies Act to make money. It is making money, but in the process, exploiting its consumers. Consumers have no recourse, Mr. Speaker. There is no consumer organisation in the country, no lobby group which protects consumers' interests. The Ministry of Commerce, which is supposed to look after consumer affairs is quiet on this issue. This is the extent of the problem which this particular monopoly is imposing on the people.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, what if there is insider trading? What if there is insider rip-off? I again refer to this.

Sir, ATH is the holding company which has a Board of Governors comprising seven people. Their very good pictures are given in the Report as well. The Board of Governors Mr. Tappoo, Mr. Lionel Yee, Mr. Narube, et cetera. Each of them are given a Director's fee.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, there is Vodafone Fiji Limited and the Chairman is Mr. Lionel Yee and one of the Directors is Mr. Winston Thompson.

There is Telecom Fiji Limited and the Chairman is Mr. Lionel Yee and the Directors are Mr. Savenaca Narube, Mr. Felix Anthony, et cetera.

Sir, Vodafone Fiji and Fiji Directories, the same person is the Chairman to three different companies and the Chief Executive Officer of Telecom being a Board Member. Now, there are three more subsidiary companies opened up; Exceed, Transtel and Connect.

Sir, that is corporate rip-off because you see common people sitting on these Boards, picking Director's fee in this company and that company. That is a substantial amount of money. What if they are doing it? It is a private company and whose responsibility is it? It is the Government's responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, there are numerous other rackets. Let me explain one of the facts and that is the retained earnings of Telecom which is about $40 million. What do they do with the $40 million? They invest at an average rate of 6.2 per cent per annum. Yet, Sir, they have borrowed $22 million from ANZ at 6.1 per cent interest, $4 million or so from Westpac and that has been paid off and $10 million from FNPF at an interest rate of 5 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, FNPF money lent to this organisation at 5 per cent interest rate, what are the FNPF people (Mr. Lionel Yee and Mr. Felix Anthony) doing? Why are they allowing this nonsense to happen?

Mr. Speaker, Sir, there are numerous other matters concerning internet and ATH Management Fee. Sir, the matter of internet - Connect - the drop off rate is extensive, you connect, you are downloading a file. When you get disconnected, you pay. You pay for the line and you pay for the time but you have not received the service.

When you call the internet line and it is busy, you are charged 12 cents. When you complain, Connect says; "That is not my business, that call comes through Telecom. I provide you the internet service". Of course, it is the same organisation, ATH. Everyday, it happens to me about three or four times, I have to pay 12 cents each, that is about 50 cents or 60 cents everyday for this kind of nonsense. No one does anything, Sir, because of course it is a private company. Whose responsibility is it? The Government's.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I thank you for your patience. I support the motion wholeheartedly and I urge the Government of the day to wake up. Get rid of this monopoly and do something for the consumers because they are also your voters.

HON. T. YOUNG.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to mention that I strongly oppose this motion. I label this motion as a stupid motion (I hope the honourable mover of the motion forgives me for that), wreckless, useless as well as an ill-conceived motion. I will explain to you, Sir, as to why I have come to this conclusion.

Sir, before I go on to the motion proper, I would like to respond to the so-called boasting coming from the third spokesman for Finance on the other side of the House, the honourable Member for Lautoka Communal (Dr. G. Chand). Sir, he has been demoted from number one to number two, and today has gone down to number three. His grasp of economic and accounting principles is minimal after hearing from him today, I think I will demote him to number four.

(Laughter)

Sir, the honourable Member was boasting about quoting from the latest report of the ATH 2002 Annual Report. That is not the latest Report. I have the latest Report which is the 2003 Annual Report. In actual fact, all that broken record was just obsolete, it is out of date. It is immaterial because he is not quoting the latest figures. He is quoting from the 2002 Annual Report.

Sir, insofar as the Audit opinion is concerned, it is perfectly unqualified. It is in the 2003 Annual Report and stated on page 32. I would like to quote from the Audit opinion which is stated on page 29 of the Report. It says, and I quote:

"(a) proper books of account have been kept by all the companies in the group, so far as it appears from our examination of those books; and

(b) the accompanying financial statement which have been prepared in accordance with Fiji Accounting Standards:

(i) are in agreement with the books of account;..."

I do not know whether he understands that or not because he is an economist not an accountant.

Furthermore, it says:

"(ii) to the best of our information and according to the explanations given to us:

(a) give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the company and of the group as at 31 March 2002 ..."

Honourable Member, please being an academic, you should know that you must always update yourself on the latest information.

I feel sorry for your students at USP, you must have taught them all the wrong outdated information.

HON. P. SILATOLU.- That's why you are asking a lot of questions.

HON. T. YOUNG.- Sir, if I may continue, it says and I quote:

"... and of the results and cash flows of the company and of the group for the year ended on that date; and

(b) give the information required by the Companies Act, 1983 in the manner so required.

We have obtained all the information and explanations which, to the best of our knowledge and belief, were necessary for the purposes of our audit."

This was signed on 2nd July, 2003 by Delloite, Touche & Tomatsu, one of the renown chartered accountant firm. Mr. Speaker, Sir, my advice to the honourable Member remains; "please make sure that your information is up-to-date and not obsolete because from what you did, starting from today onwards, we will never believe any information you say in this House. You always mislead, you do not tell the true information here".

Now, going back to the motion, Mr. Speaker, ....

MR. SPEAKER.- Honourable Member, you are the only one who has the mike. It is not there for your neighbour as well.

(Laughter)

I can hear everything that he is saying and even when he is snoring, I can hear him.

HON. T. YOUNG.- Mr. Speaker, now you are experiencing what I have been enduring for the past two years.

(Laughter)

MR. SPEAKER.- Well, in that case, I am glad.

(Laughter)

HON. T. YOUNG.- Mr. Speaker, in a way, I feel sorry for the mover of this motion. I really do, Mr. Speaker, and do you know why? The rest of his party colleagues do not support him on this motion. If they really supported him and his motion, they would have been here en masse. To prove that they do not support his motion, there are only seven of them, seven out of 26. I feel sorry for the honourable Member for Labasa Open (P.W. Bune), he has been betrayed by his own party Members, they do not support his motion. You know as well as I do, to quote you, Sir, there are different ways of showing that you do not support it. One, is to vote against it, two, is to be absent.

HON. P. SILATOLU.- Just throw it out.

HON. T. YOUNG.- The rest of his fellow colleagues have chosen the second option, they are not here because they do not support it. To them, it is more important to be campaigning in Labasa than to come and support the honourable Member for Labasa Open's (P.W. Bune) motion in this House. If their Members do not support this motion, why should we be asked to support the motion?

HON. E. QOVU.- We will defeat it.

HON. T. YOUNG.- Mr. Speaker, the essence of the motion is like this, basically to take away the 25 year exclusive license given to Telecom Fiji, FINTEL and Vodafone. That is the essence and the purpose of this motion.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, this 25 year exclusive license was given in 1989 under the Company Act. In 1999 when the Labour Coalition came into power, did they ever bring up this type of thinking, policy or motion during their term in Parliament? Were they really concerned about this exclusive license as they have been mentioning in this House that they would want to renege on that contractual arrangement of 25 year exclusive license? They never did it because they were in government. They knew of the folly of breaking this Agreement, the taking away of this exclusive license. But now, it just takes one of the so-called fly-by-night operators or investors from abroad to come and convince them and turn them right around. How gullible are they, Mr. Speaker, Sir?

HON. P. SILATOLU.- Paradigm shift.

HON. T. YOUNG.- It is very easy to change their policies. It just takes one fly-by-night operator, parasitic operator from abroad and they change. When they were in power for one year, they did not want to change or renege on this exclusive license because they knew the importance of this 25 year exclusive license to this country and to its people. I am going to expand on that a bit.

HON. P. SILATOLU.- Tell them! Tell them!

HON. T. YOUNG.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, Telecom Fiji has already been mentioned a subsidiary company of Amalgamated Telecom Holdings (ATH). Now, ATH and the restructure in the telecommunication industry especially with Post Fiji, Vodafone and FINTEL was done after they had secured this 25 year exclusive rights. Then the re-organisation was made and they have this parent holding company, ATH. Sir, Government is a minority shareholder here. If one looks at the latest Annual Report of ATH's (honourable Member for Lautoka City Communal (Dr. G. Chand) you can have my latest report after this), shareholding in ATH, other institutions and individual investors own 7.2 per cent of the shares. The Government of Fiji owns 34.8 per cent. Who is the majority shareholder? The Fiji National Provident Fund (FNPF) owns 58.2 per cent. That was made possible when the shares of ATH were floated and the investors because they saw that the 25 year exclusive rights will protect their investment, FNPF decided to buy 58.2 per cent of the shares of ATH. That is to the value of $295,468,000. That is the value of the shares of FNPF. Now, who owns FNPF? Members do.

HON. OPP. MEMBER.- How many?

HON. T. YOUNG.- 281,570 members. This is honourable Opposition Members the latest on FNPF. What I am talking about here is the recklessness of moving this motion. How will the funds of the owners of FNPF to the tune of $295 million be protected or reimbursed if we do take away these exclusive rights, you tell me honourable Member for Labasa Open (P.W. Bune)?

HON. P.W. BUNE.- (Inaudible).

HON. T. YOUNG.- Exactly. They voted me in here to protect their interest and their interest is the money in FNPF.

HON. P. SILATOLU.- Just listen!

MR. SPEAKER.- Order!

HON. T. YOUNG.- You will have your chance when you reply.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that Telecom is operating on a regulated environment. It is not a free for all type of environment that you are espousing, it is a regulated environment and as a result, the Government through the Prices and Incomes Board controls the prices.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, the prices have been the same since 1994, while some have been reduced in that time. For example, Mr. Speaker, Sir, internet prices were lowered by about 53 per cent last year. Our prices for telephone line rentals and all that are amongst the lowest in the South Pacific and possibly in the world. However, Sir, one way of looking at whether we are really being over‑priced by Telecom on the charges is to compare it with the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Mr. Speaker, Sir, between January 1994 and July 2003, the CPI had increased by 29.6 per cent in total.

HON. V. SINGH.‑ Where did you get that from?

HON. T. YOUNG.‑ Honourable Member, if you do your own research, then you will know where I got information like this from. Stop relying on other people to do your research. You never know where they get their information from.

HON. S. SINGH.‑ That's a pack of lies!

HON. T. YOUNG.‑ Mr. Speaker, Sir, the GDP per capita, based on current prices, have increased by 42.9 per cent. In simplicity, Sir, Telecom service prices have been the same since 1994 while prices in general have risen by 29.6 per cent CPI. The honourable Member for Lautoka City Communal (Dr. G. Chand) will know this very well.