Between the lines:</i > Lines of inquiry show way

By RICHARD BRADDELL

It seemed like great things were in store when Labour helped to stymie the price controls regulation for lines companies announced by former Energy Minister Max Bradford.

But when it came down to it, the policy of Labour's then energy spokesman, Pete Hodgson, was, well, to have a review and then get a policy.

Now the minister in charge, Mr Hodgson has had that review. But we are yet to see the policy, despite his hope when the recommendations came in June that it could be finalised by mid-August.

In part that reflects the processes of government which can be slow - particularly if it means getting everyone whose approval is needed in the same place at the same time.

But the delays also reflect serious differences between the Coalition partners and within Labour itself about the nature of reform, particularly of the lines companies and Transpower, which are the monopoly parts of the business.

Broadly, there are two approaches.

The first is to impose price control at the outset, giving the lines companies a taste of jail, which they can escape from if they are good. The other, which is what the electricity inquiry recommended, is to set up a single industry governing body, while a revamped Commerce Commission and Commerce Act would provide powers to impose price controls on offending parties.

Despite concerns within the Alliance and Labour itself about the inquiry's approach, it seems that its recommendations will win the day.

That should not come as a complete surprise. After all, it was the inquiry's job to make recommendations to a Government whose energy policy was predicated on having a review and seeing what it came up with.

Nobody can deny that the inquiry's review of the industry was as thorough as anything in recent years, thus providing a good platform on which to build a theoretical framework.

But this inquiry, and an equivalent one in telecommunications, illustrates another point: that the personal philosophies of the inquiry members are likely to strongly influence the outcomes.

In the case of electricity, two of the panel members had extensive regulatory experience. Stephen Kelly is a regulator in Australia and Susan Wakefield, who as Susan Lojkine will be remembered as a reasonably activist chairwoman of the Commerce Commission.

For all that, the last word undoubtedly went to David Caygill, whose dry credentials date back to the 1984 Labour Government. The outcome is said to have been fierce debate between Caygill and Kelly, with Wakefield in the role of moderator.

The makeup of the telecommunications inquiry panel is almost certainly having a similar influence on its recommendations, which have so far been a good deal more interventionist than those for electricity.

In both cases, the recommendations are providing fertile ground for argument.

The great benefit is that they stem from comprehensive reviews that should have happened years ago.

And whether their findings lean to the dry or the wet, they have to be a vast improvement on aimless, ad hoc attempts at policymaking.