Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Telecommunications Act 2001. If I can give a little overview, the amendments in this bill will make it easier for people to connect to ultra-fast broadband (UFB), improve the liability allocation process for the telecommunications development levy, and extend regulatory requirements to the second phase of the ultra-fast broadband programme. An additional subpart was introduced during the Commerce Committee’s consideration, to provide statutory rights of access to use existing electricity works for deploying fibre-optic cable. A number of other minor changes were also made.

The bill creates a new consenting process that telecommunications companies must follow when installing modern telecommunications networks, such as ultra-fast broadband. I recently announced that additional investment will see 84 percent of New Zealanders with access to ultra-fast broadband by the end of 2024. Over 1 million households and businesses are already able to connect; however, not all of those with access can connect. An estimated 71,000 households may be prevented from connecting in instances where multiple parties need to provide consent for the installation, such as for shared driveways or common areas or multi-unit complexes. The current process also creates delays. As of December 2016, the UFB network operators across the country had almost 800 orders on their books where the consenting process had been running for 50 working days or longer without resolution.

The bill aims to reduce delays and cancelled orders for UFB in order to produce better outcomes for those who want connections. A tiered consenting regime will allow installation methods to be prescribed into two categories, depending on the impact on a shared property. Installation methods with the lowest impact, such as those that disturb only soft surfaces like grass, will no longer need consent from other parties. For methods with more lasting impacts, such as those that disturb hard surfaces like concrete, parties have the opportunity to object on limited grounds within 15 working days. This improves on the current situation, where parties must actively consent and do not have any time limit to do so.

For multi-unit complexes governed by a body corporate, the consenting process will vary slightly from this tiered regime to better fit with these existing governance structures. Bodies corporate will have the ability to request an extension to the time to object and the ability to object on additional grounds if they consider an installation could expose them to liability. Installation methods that do not fit into the new categories will be subject to existing consenting requirements.

As well as speeding things up and allowing more households to connect, the bill could also benefit homeowners in other ways. For example, it incentivises the use of lower-impact methods, where possible, to help roll out UFB more quickly to those who want it. A disputes resolution process will also be created to ensure that any disputes that arise as a result of the new consenting regime are dealt with fairly and efficiently.

The bill amends the requirements for the provision of financial information in the Commerce Commission’s telecommunications development levy liability allocation process. Since the levy was established in 2011, a number of possible improvements have been identified. These are minor, technical changes that will reduce compliance costs for the industry. The bill extends the regulatory requirements relating to the first phase of the UFB programme to the extension of this programme, which I announced at the end of January. These minor, technical changes will ensure consistency with what Parliament has already enacted for the first phase of the programme. This means that the companies contracted to build and operate the UFB network in new areas will be subject to requirements, including open access undertakings and information disclosure to the Commerce Commission relating to the costs and characteristics of their network and services. Two statutory authorisations are also provided in the Commerce Act 1986 for potential partnering arrangements between Chorus and the Crown.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: “Turn the page.”

Let me turn to the Commerce Committee’s recommended changes. Clayton Cosgrove will find there are some real doozies. The Commerce Committee supported the bill and recommended a number of changes, some of which were minor—

💬 Clare Curran: We actually worked really hard.

—and technical in nature. I will come to that. Changes to the property access part of the bill included narrowing the definition of property to shared property where at least one party with an interest in the property has requested a fibre to the premises service. This change will better target the powers of the bill to apply only where they are needed.

By far the most significant contribution or recommendation was the introduction of a new subpart of the bill, to further accelerate the roll-out of fibre to the premises in rural areas in order to enhance access to high-speed communications for businesses, schools, and individuals. Although this proposal was not originally part of the bill, its support for inclusion was noted in over half of the submissions the committee received on the bill, and it was subsequently drafted for inclusion during the committee’s consideration. Creating new policy during select committee consideration is an unprecedented occurrence and is a great example of the value that can be achieved through this process.

On 3 November 2016 the committee released an interim report, proposing the insertion of a new subpart in Part 4 of the bill that would grant statutory rights of access to use existing electricity infrastructure—for example, power poles—for deploying fibre-optic cable. The proposal was introduced in its entirety during the committee’s consideration of the bill in order to encourage the deployment of fibre as widely as possible, including in those areas of the country where it is generally more difficult to deploy fibre-optic cable than in urban areas. The statutory rights of access would provide owners of existing electricity infrastructure—for example, power poles and overhead lines—with a right to enter the land on which such infrastructure is located and to use such infrastructure to deploy, maintain, and upgrade fibre-optic cables for delivering telecommunication services.

Utilising existing infrastructure for this purpose provides an opportunity to improve rural connectivity in a cost-effective way while also making progress towards connecting as many New Zealanders as possible to better communications networks. To balance out the impact of the right of entry on to private landowners’ property rights, the landowner would be entitled to receive free access to a fibre connection. The proposal meets the bill’s objective of allowing more people to realise the benefits of next-generation telecommunications networks and was widely supported by submitters.

In conclusion, I would like to thank my colleague Melissa Lee for her excellent work in chairing the Commerce Committee, and the rest of the committee members for their efforts in getting the bill to this stage. Not only—as Clare Curran has said in her interjections in the House—was it very hard-working, I understand it was a veritable love-in on the select committee.

Can I also just thank very much the submitters on the bill for their valued contributions. The process has strengthened the bill undoubtedly, thereby helping it achieve its purpose of allowing more New Zealanders to realise the benefits of next-generation telecommunications technology. I commend this bill to the House.

Well, that will be a hard act to follow. It is not very often that a member of the Opposition stands and says that they are actually proud of a bill that has come out of a select committee and is ostensibly a Government bill but, ultimately, was not. Labour supports this bill and considers it to be quite a revolutionary bill. In fact, we helped draft a substantial part of it, and it is, mostly, a bill that has come from this side of the House in terms of driving and supporting what lies behind it.

Labour has been supporting the telecommunications industry for a number of years to reduce all of those barriers that the Minister talked about—or started to talk about but really did not go into depth on. Barriers have been experienced by thousands and thousands of businesses and by people who either live down driveways or in apartment buildings or run businesses in buildings that have got more than one tenant.

People listening to this tonight—and I hope there are people listening on their radios and watching on their televisions—there are literally thousands of people who are so frustrated, angry, and upset, and who have been waiting months to try to connect to ultra-fast broadband (UFB). The UFB itself, once you get it, is great—there is no doubt about that—but the palaver that you have to go through to actually get connected is actually quite appalling for many New Zealanders.

For those who live down driveways and those who live in what they call multi-unit dwellings, apartment buildings, etc., this bill will remove impediments. It will do other things as well, which I will get on to, but that is so important. The industry and New Zealand have been waiting for this for years. Labour outlined, in its 2014 policy, how we would support a change of legislation—that was 3 years ago. It was 3 years ago, and we have only got the legislation now, because the previous Minister for Communications, Amy Adams, has been sitting on her hands on this piece of legislation. It was absolutely ready to go. The ideas were there, it had been largely worked through, and it has taken this long to get to the House. That is just shameful. It has taken far too long.

The Commerce Committee was told last year by the Telecommunications Carriers Forum, which is the peak body for the industry, that 17 percent of connections require a consent, and that a third of them were experiencing major delays. However, we also heard from Enable Networks, which is a lines company that is rolling out fibre—the UFB—to Christchurch, that 60 percent of its work was experiencing delays because of bureaucracy and barriers in the system. Thankfully, this bill will get rid of some of those barriers and some of that bureaucracy; it will not fix everything. That is another story, and hopefully we will have time to go into that during the Committee stage, as we will with some of the many, many stories of people who are having so much difficulty connecting.

This is a very unusual bill because half of it—and the Minister played this down, and he played it down because it actually shows that it was not Government policy—was introduced during the select committee process, as a result of a submission from Northpower, which is, again, a lines company. It is an electricity lines company rolling out fibre in Northland. Northpower asked the select committee to allow it to put fibre for telecommunications purposes on its existing network poles that were situated on private land without the need to acquire easements. Northpower is, as I said, already rolling out UFB around Whangarei. It is a poster child for good practice. Northpower wanted to extend its reach to the whole area that it covers, to be able to provide fibre to rural New Zealand, but the law did not allow it to do so. So it, effectively, submitted the framework for a Supplementary Order Paper at the select committee, which was not in the bill, and it begged the committee to consider it.

This idea had been around for a while—again, on this side of the House, we were supportive of that idea and were a bit horrified to find that it was not in the bill that was originally tabled in the House. But, no, it was not in the bill—and I will come to that in a minute. What Northpower was suggesting bypassed the ministerial process—it bypassed ministerial policy. It is a revolutionary provision because it bypasses the Government’s own rural broadband programme. Should the opportunity provided by this legislation be taken up by electricity lines companies, it will fast track the ability of rural New Zealand to get fast internet. I cannot emphasise that enough, and that is why it is revolutionary. It is an economic development opportunity. It is a regional development opportunity that is now going to be made available, and—guess what—it is not the Government’s own programme, and it was not even the Government’s own idea, and yet it is coming to the House in a bill. That is why it is so unusual, and that is why I am standing here today saying why we support it so much.

It is actually going to help close the digital divide. Now those electricity lines companies have got an opportunity right around the country—or, if they choose to do an arrangement with a third party, the legislation provides for that as well. Now there is an opportunity for any of you MPs in the House today who have got a rural constituency and people who have been banging on your doors, asking: “Why can’t we get fast internet? Why are we on dial-up speed still?”. There are so many of those communities—I read them out during question time in the House today—asking: “Why can’t we get it? Why are we the second-hand cousins? Why aren’t we considered as important—that we can’t get it?”.

Today Simon Bridges crows about the Government’s second version of UFB. Rural New Zealand is going to have to wait for 7 years to get connected to UFB under the Government programme. Well, this legislation is an opportunity now for the lines companies to make a business case in their areas and offer fast internet—not Government-sponsored—to the rural constituencies. That is a fantastic thing.

I cannot wait for this legislation to be passed, because we know that the digital divide is real. So far, the Government has spent $300 million on the rural broadband programme. Many New Zealanders outside the main centres are held back because of poor connectivity. In Southland, 24 percent of rural businesses lack connectivity. It affects their ability to attract staff and people to move to the regions—41 percent say the internet service does not meet their needs. In Huntly, just 44 percent of households have internet access, 51 percent in Tuakau, and 51 percent in Taumarunui. In Clutha, it costs $100,000 to connect to fibre, through a transition cable that goes through the Clutha area, because there is no break-off point. This is quite revolutionary.

To finish, I want to commend the committee—I do want to commend the committee. We worked really hard. There was a lot of goodwill, and this was an example to me of how a select committee can improve, build on, and make real legislation that makes real changes for communities. I really do commend the work that the committee members did and how seriously they took it, because we were not receiving guidance or policy input on this major part of the legislation. The sticking point for the proposal, originally, was whether or not Federated Farmers would support it. They realised how important it was and a negotiated arrangement was come to, and that shows just how a select committee can drive a really powerful process that will deliver for people. This is not really a Government bill—just saying. This is a bill that has come out of the select committee. It is going to be revolutionary, and it really is going to deliver good connections and close that digital divide in New Zealand.

Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I would like to thank the member who just took her seat, Clare Curran. She has been a very active member. Before I go on with the bill, I just want to thank her for the clarification she gave. When she first began her speech, I was thinking that she was claiming that the Opposition had come up with the bill and given all the answers and that none of us had actually done any work. The Supplementary Order Paper, she explained, came from Northpower, which was one of the submitters that seeded the idea into the select committee. I would like to thank them for that, and for the hard work that the select committee did. I agree with Clare Curran that the Commerce Committee worked really well together. This is one that we need to be very proud of. It is us doing the job that we are supposed to do. When a bill is introduced into the House, it is sent to a select committee, we hear submissions from the public, and it is our job to hear them and improve the bill if we can. I wish we could do that with other bills that the Opposition just simply ignores and opposes on the principle of its politics.

The telecommunications legislation is designed to help the community in situations when there are shared driveways, multiple occupancies, or other factors where multiple consents may be required before the installation of ultra-fast broadband (UFB) can be achieved to a building or an area. There are a number of reasons why difficulties may come up, whether it is an absentee owner who lives overseas or out of town who becomes unreachable or whether it is internal disputes between adjoining properties where owners or neighbours cannot come to an agreement and give permission for them to have ultra-fast broadband down the back of the driveway, for example.

The committee discussed this matter significantly during the past year, with around 30 submissions having been received, and 12 oral submissions were heard across the committee. We heard from a number of providers and stakeholders, including the Electricity Networks Association, Northpower, which I mentioned before, and Federated Farmers.

We were put in a unique position, as Ms Curran said. We were following hearing processes as one part of the bill as reported back was redrafted to incorporate means to support a deployment of fibre or broadband to rural areas where there is existing electricity infrastructure in place, where currently it is not able to do so. This will allow providers using existing poles and pylons, where it is appropriate, to run UFB and supply people who are living in rural areas who currently do not have ultra-fast broadband.

This also meant clarifying the relationship between the owner of existing works, the landowner, and the telecommunications provider that was required. A lot of conversations were had in the committee. This is to ensure that the issue would not limit the uptake of access to broadband, and allow third parties to provide services where the existing owner of the infrastructure was unable to do so.

One of the key discussions during the committee process was on the issue of lead-in requirements—for lines, for example. The majority of the discussion was about a maximum distance of between 200 metres and 500 metres. I remember to-ing and fro-ing between the committee members to decide what, in fact, was the best option for the bill. We have to say that, in the end, the committee determined that where a connection is non-standard beyond 200 metres, the owners of the existing work are to contribute 50 percent of the cost of aerially installing the fibre-optics cable up to a distance of 500 metres. I think that was actually a good compromise. I thank members for the discussions that we had in the committee.

At the moment, there are around 800 orders on the books of network providers that have been waiting for consents for up to 50 working days or more. In effect, this is 2 or 3 months that a household or business has been waiting for their applications to go forth but has not been able to get what they want. It is important to balance the rights of landowners and rights holders with the needs of our nation’s future. As someone who remembers what the internet and telecommunications were like in New Zealand 30 years ago, where, with mobile technology, you could save only about five numbers, I welcome the more than 320,000 households, businesses, schools, and hospitals that are now connected to UFB.

This is a good bill. I thank the members for the hard work that we put in together, and for the compromises that we have achieved. I commend the bill.

It really is a pleasure to be able to take the floor and echo the comments that the chair of the Commerce Committee, Melissa Lee, has made and to acknowledge her for the good stewardship she gave the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge a Minister who was prepared to listen to submissions and work in a very open way with the select committee. I acknowledge all members of the committee, noting Mr Hudson’s contribution, which was rich in its information, and particularly Clare Curran MP, my Labour colleague, who played a leading role in bringing together some of the various submitters.

In these brief remarks, I will note the background to the innovative part of the bill, the process that we went through in outlining the compromise that was reached, and then background a little further the needs of the ultra-fast broadband (UFB) rollout and where to from here on multi-unit dwellings and access, which are other parts contained in the bill.

The bill as it was originally sent to Cabinet contained a provision that would allow UFB to be strung up along power lines owned by electricity companies across farmland with no need for an additional easement, provided that a sensible arrangement could be reached with the farmers concerned. We understand that Federated Farmers opposed that provision at the time, and it was withdrawn from the bill at Cabinet. The bill was sent to the select committee without those provisions that would have enabled the fast and far deployment of UFB cable through to our rural and remote areas, to the benefit of farming communities.

Northpower and others submitted to the select committee that they really did think that there was potential to make this happen. Federated Farmers, which had the opportunity, with our encouragement, to have offline discussions with Northpower and others, were able to find a zone of agreement. As the chair has pointed out, there was a bit of debate about whether it was going to be rolling something 200 metres inside a farming property before a connection was established or 500 metres, the latter being more generous to the farmer but more costly to the lines company. In the end, a compromise was reached. It was a win-win. It allows the rollout. It does not penalise the farmers—they get better access to broadband—and it makes the economics of the lines company better because it has more connections for all those long rural lines.

It did need an open and innovative approach by the Minister, because the select committee was in the position, on a bipartisan basis, where, in partnership with submitters, it was actually crafting policy. That is normally done over the road in the Government departments and presented to Cabinet. So this was an unusual but extremely useful and very productive process. The product of that—the fruit of that, if you like—will be that a lot of farmers get a lot of broadband a lot faster and cheaper than they were going to get it before we were able to bring the lines companies and Federated Farmers together around a compromise deal.

So for those many people around New Zealand and around the world who are looking at political goings-on, whether it is here or overseas, and thinking “Oh, my God! How are we going to make any sense out of this mess?”, this is an example—just one little example—of where good sense prevailed and people put the politics aside and went for the solution, and a good, win-win outcome was found. I just say congratulations to all concerned—I did not play much of a role—and I acknowledge those who played a much more important role than I did in reaching those good outcomes.

Some more background on the bill: the bill does a few other really important things. It tackles the issue of UFB roll-out into the—wait for it—30 percent, nearly one in three connections, that are in multi-unit premises: apartment blocks, condos, businesses where you have got multiple dwellings, or business units in the one building or off the one main supply line. So this allows, long story short, a UFB installer to get deemed consent and to be able to proceed if they have not heard objections from the body corporate within 15 days of notice. For homes down a right of way, no consent will be required, although 5 days’ notice must be given if a fibre installation is non-invasive—that is, if it is shallow-trenched under grass and it does not require ripping up their driveways or going through fences. If an installation is categorised as invasive—for example, if it requires cutting concrete, work will proceed if no neighbours on the shared right of way object.

So, if you like, the bill is shifting the presumption in favour of roll-out unless there is a serious objection because of serious damage. It is yet another measure that has bipartisan support in this House, to get faster, cheaper broadband to a majority of New Zealanders, and to as many, many as possible. That is certainly something I championed when I was Minister of Communications and Information Technology, and I must say I am very gratified at the bipartisan support and the progress that New Zealand has made during the time of this Government to carry that forward, and New Zealand has risen up the broadband rankings in the OECD as a result. It is something that both sides of this House have supported, both sides of this House have worked on in turn, and New Zealand as a whole is benefiting. I think Kiwis can be rightly proud of not only the progress that has been made but the way our system has worked together to get a good outcome.

Having said that, it is not all fixed yet. The digital divide is still real. Despite spending $300 million on a rural broadband programme, many New Zealand communities outside the main centres are still held back because of poor connectivity. I want to note, in particular, our whānau up in Northland, because—I see Mr Henare is here. He has spent a bit of time up there. Kelvin Davis would say the same if he were here, and the Rt Hon Winston Peters would be saying the same: you cannot drive from here to Kaitāia without your mobile phone falling out multiple times. That is not a First World country, so that requires fibre backhaul and more cell towers, and it is not rocket science. That is one example. We cannot expect First World regional development in a region as important and far-flung as Northland if we do not have broadband connectivity from one end to the other. That is just one example where it has not yet penetrated.

Southland is another—part of the fabulous Te Tai Tonga electorate—and Rino Tirikatene is the champion for it here. Twenty-four percent of local businesses in Southland say lack of connectivity has affected their ability to attract staff. The other 76 mentioned the weather, and 41 percent said that their internet service did not meet their needs. That is, nearly half of them said they did not have enough internet—sounds like my kids.

According to council surveys in Huntly, in the Waikato, only 44 percent of households have internet access, only 51 percent in Taumarunui. I agree with my colleague Clare Curran that internet access is now pretty much a civil right. That is because the Crown requires citizens to interact with the Government online. It has got easier to do that for most people who have got connectivity, but it has similarly got harder to do it face to face. You can do your IRD filings online, but the local IRD office has been withdrawn out of the country towns.

The post office is no longer the massive one-stop shop for Government services that it once was, because you are expected to go online. That is fine if you have got connectivity, but if you are one of the half of the people in Taumarunui or the 40 percent in Huntly who do not even have an internet connection, then you are penalised.

I want to put in a word for all the school kids out there. I see my kids come home, they are 15 and 11—12 later this week, Cameron—and they do so much of their homework online. The nature of homework has changed from rote learning to primary research using all the resources of the internet, and it is fantastic to watch, and they are learning much faster than our generation did when we were at school. But it works only if you have got internet connectivity, if it is affordable, and if it is fast enough to be fit for purpose.

There is such a downstream economic and social spin-off from getting broadband roll-out right, for which this bill makes a very helpful further step or two. We need to get those three Cs right: the three Cs of connectivity, which this bill is about; of user capability and confidence; and, of course, of content creation. That is probably five Cs, but three categories. Those are the magic three categories that must be done well to have a rich online environment.

So we have still got more to do as a country. I know we will not rest on our laurels. I know that the incoming Labour Government later this year is going to pick up rural broadband, give it a shot in the arm, and roll it out faster than it is being rolled out at the moment. It is going to build on the progress represented by bipartisan consensus on this bill and get fast, cheap broadband all around New Zealand. Thank you.

I rise, as appears to be the case across the House, in support of this, the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, in its second reading. I would just like to begin by acknowledging and commending Mr Cunliffe for his comments about the work that was done in the Commerce Committee, by individual contributors and by the committee as a whole, on the provisions around helping to extend fibre to our rural areas. I note that the committee worked—in fact, it was an absolute joy to work in this committee on this particular bill for these very provisions and reasons—and Mr Cunliffe himself, I will note, worked very hard to ensure that we maintained consensus across all of the parties and individuals on the committee, and that work of his contribution and the other members has absolutely made this a bill that I think we can all be quite proud of as members of the committee and, also, as members of this Parliament.

Before I move to talk a little bit more about the rural connectivity side, I will just note, as other members have said, that the heart of the bill, as it was introduced to the committee, was about making it easier for people in multi-unit dwellings, and for people who share common infrastructure and facilities with other people, to connect to our faster broadband. If you look at some of the problems that have been articulated in the current consenting process, it is understood, or estimated, that approximately 71,000 households may currently be prevented from connecting to ultra-fast broadband due to consenting requirements, the processes, and potential objections under the current provisions. In fact, in December 2016, there were 800 orders sitting waiting for connection where consenting had been running for 50 or more days. All that is doing is preventing people from making use of the services that faster broadband can provide to help them, whether it is in their own lifestyles, in study, or, in some cases, for businesses to use in support of conducting their business more effectively and more efficiently. So the heart of those measures will help those people to connect much faster and will ensure that more and more people can take advantage of our high-speed broadband.

But in the area of rural connectivity, and particularly extending fibre to the rural areas, I have to say I would like to commend Northpower for its wonderful submission. In some respects, it could have been termed as non-compliant, but it introduced an idea that it was willing to use infrastructure it already had to help New Zealand and New Zealanders in rural areas to get even better internet connectivity. I commend the then Minister for Communications for agreeing to allow the committee to consider that as an amendment to the bill as it stood. In fact, the committee was afforded an opportunity to undertake policy work during our consideration of the bill.

It was an extremely good process to be a part of. It was robust. The conversations in the committee were clearly articulated by members coming from different perspectives, and ultimately we reached a point where we were all very comfortable that what we are doing will give the opportunity for more New Zealanders across the country, particularly in rural areas, to connect to broadband—and it does so while protecting individual property rights and also protecting the business interests of those electricity companies that may offer their existing infrastructure as facilities for fibre to be strung across. So this was a wonderful process to have been a part of. I commend the committee for the work it did, and I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I too would like to echo and share the love. This has been a phenomenal bill to work on. It has been a great group of people to work on it with, and along with the unanimous support of the House, I would also like to commend it.

This bill started off as a pretty practical bill to deal with some of those cases where a household wants to get ultra-fast broadband access and has to cope with shared access. We know from officials’ advice that around 13 percent of properties fell into this category. About 25 percent of them had a problem. The output of that was tens of thousands of people had difficulty or a much slower, more prolonged, more legalistic, in a sense, process to finally get the ultra-fast broadband turned on.

That is where the bill started, with some small rats and mice around the telecommunications development levy and disputes resolution. But what the Commerce Committee was able to do based on submissions that we had heard, particularly from Northpower, was to include an entirely new subpart—Subpart 4—which gave it a drastically new power, or provision, in the legislation that allows for electricity lines companies to string fibre up or contract third parties to string fibre up.

What it means is we spent more than $1 billion rolling out fibre and hundreds of millions of dollars on the rural broadband initiative to put up towers to reach people, and all along there have been power lines strung up to almost every single property, including rural properties in the country, which we could have been stringing fibre up on. So we have grasped the opportunity, based on the submissions, to allow this. I think most people are going to be pretty happy with the provisions. We have seen previous arguments and debates in the past between landowners’ rights and the right to be able to access: who is going to communicate with whom, and who has liability issues. I think we have come to a very pragmatic and reasonable set of decisions there. There was an argument as to whether lines companies should be forced, in effect, to open up their infrastructure so that a third party could string fibre up. Again, I think we have reached a pretty good compromise where the powers have been delegated to the Minister, through Order in Council, to provide those.

But these are the practicalities and the common sense amendments we have introduced, which people can see; what people probably did not see was the work behind the scenes. I think there is a salutary lesson, perhaps, for this House. What we saw in the committee was an entirely split committee, so all decisions had to be reached by consensus, unlike in the debating Chamber in our Parliament, where the Government has quite considerable executive power in terms of the agenda and decision making. Such a close committee meant that we had to work together as a team, in a constructive atmosphere, trying to find consensus. On many issues we were not able to reach agreement, but we worked through it.

I would like to acknowledge the members. It was an incredible group of people to work with. First of all, I would like to thank the officials and the select committee staff, who gave us excellent advice. The chair, Melissa Lee, did a fantastic job bringing the parties together. I would like to acknowledge former communications Minister David Cunliffe, who, obviously, had a huge amount of expertise in this area, through to Clare Curran, his colleague, who has worked on these issues for many years and has a great deal of knowledge, through to Brett Hudson from the National Government, who came in with some very valuable contributions based on his background with IT in business. So it was a good committee, which was able to reach agreement on the big issues that were facing it.

We managed to write a whole new subpart to a bill, which I have never seen in my 7 years in this Chamber. Hopefully, it can be a bit of an exemplar for other select committees: that we are stronger when we work together. Other parties have differences, but actually that is our strength. We can bring different opinions, different viewpoints, different backgrounds, and different expertise to craft something stronger than what it originally was. So it was a great process and a great outcome for New Zealanders. It is going to see more fibre strung. It is, hopefully, a great example for this Parliament going forward, that the parties can work together in a true, collaborative select committee environment. Thank you.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and speak to the second reading of the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Before I get into the nitty-gritty of this bill, I would like to congratulate Gareth Hughes’ kids on sitting through this bill. Although they are jittery, and actually quite clearly over it, I just want to tell them that it is OK, kids, because you are going to need this bill in your future.

I do want to say that Tracey Martin, my colleague, took the New Zealand First call in the first reading of this bill. Tracey is the spokesperson on broadcasting and communications, and I kind of sat there and thought “God, I’m glad I’m not getting that bill.”, because the gobbly-gob technology to do with ultra-fast broadband and rolling it out was actually not something that I was all too familiar with at the time. But I have since learnt that I have to be careful what I wish for, because I find myself today in the House taking a call in the second reading.

I want to ask you, Mr Assistant Speaker, just to bear with me for a wee moment. Prior to being a member in this House, I, as a customer, used to get absolutely frustrated with online services—the talk about megabytes, gigabytes, giggle town, funky town—and many Kiwis who are watching this second reading tonight will also be nodding their heads in agreement. We in this country have faced a rapid growth in internet services. Even in my generation, when I was at high school and I was taking computer studies, I used to sit in front of a big, clunky monitor with a wired-up keyboard, and I had yellow font to work with. You know, in those days we did not even have a mouse. Actually, in those days a mouse was a mouse—four legs and a furry thing. These days, a mouse is something we can navigate round our computers, and we can have them wireless, as well.

Cellphones, as well—I remember that you used to be able to identify who the rich people were from seeing the big, clunky cellphones they held to their ears while they were walking down the street. Those cellphones had a massive big aerial. I am sure that those members who remember that will know that they noticed those people with those new technologies, with those new devices, and I think, even in my generation, “My, how times have changed in terms of technology.”

I am sure that members in this House right now know that the advancement in technology has seen an absolutely phenomenal boom globally. Today, I hold here in my hand everything that exists, and I use it in my day-to-day structure and my life. In here is a TV, a computer, a stereo, a camera, a video—everything that we used to buy individually through shops is actually on this one device right here. In my life cycle—to go from that big ugly television to this cellphone—that in itself is making huge leaps into the future with what we are going to need to access in terms of our online services.

I also would like to point out that for us here in the House today, I can see members are already using their devices. Predominantly with this bill, as members who have spoken before me have said, we want to be able to open up access for ultra-fast broadband and faster services for other people in New Zealand. We want to be able to give schools access to better connectivity. We want to be able to provide farmers with internet connections so they can pay staff on their farms online. We want to be able to ensure that children at home can actually do their homework and do it at a rate so that, unlike in my day, they do not have to wait for a dial-up connection, because it is rather annoying for the people in the rural areas who still face those issues today. So it is about being able to provide dwellings in our rural areas with the speed and the coverage that people actually need and require to do their business.

I just want to touch on some of the comments that colleagues have actually spoken about previously. I know that in our farming area in Southland, because of the issue of not having connectivity in some of our areas, labourers on farms actually tick the box, thinking that this is going to be a fantastic job, but then they turn the job down because of the lack of internet. I hear it all the time. The lack of internet is absolutely not desirable to these young ones, or even people in their 20s and 30s. They live so much of their lives on cellphones—like this one I am holding here—and on social media that they are actually turning down employment opportunities because of a lack of internet.

Essentially, when this bill came to the House for its first reading, it was quite evident that it needed to go forward into the select committee process. I am really proud—as other members on all sides of the House have already said this evening, we had some hard work to do on the Commerce Committee. There were some moments when, literally, you had to bite your tongue because we had differences of opinion. But, as everyone has already said, we had to find the common ground, and the outcome of that common ground was to ensure that New Zealanders had ready connectivity to ultra-fast broadband and also the fibre roll-out.

I can certainly say that the submissions we had from submitters—we actually had 33 who submitted to the Commerce Committee and, from memory, around about 13 or 14 who spoke to their submission. We were fortunate to get feedback from our submitters—particularly from Northpower, which helped the committee by providing us with an amendment so that we could ultimately strengthen this bill—and, by developing policy and taking the expertise from our officials and our advisers, we could ensure that this bill was going to be fit for what we wanted and needed it to be for New Zealand, now and into the future.

I think that I was technically challenged by some of the gobbly-goo speak that went on throughout the select committee process—

💬 Chris Bishop: Gobbly-what?

Gobbly-gook.

💬 Chris Bishop: Oh, gobbledegook—oh, OK.

Gobbledegook. I have to say—

💬 Chris Bishop: That’s in Hansard now.

Ha, ha—thank you. I have to say that although we, as members, do not profoundly know everything there is about certain legislation-building, it was certainly quite helpful for members of that committee that explanations were given so that you were able to identify that, yes, actually this amendment is a really good amendment, and one that, ultimately, in the end, is going to strengthen this bill and make a bill that we all, as members, can be quite proud of.

There were a few situations where we were lucky enough to get submitters to come back and talk further to the evidence before us, so that we could get better clarification as well. I felt that having access to that, and having the submitters being really open-minded and trying to share their knowledge with us, and being quite up front and honest too—I think that is a credit to the submitters.

Some of the submitters were not big business. They were not councils. They were actually mums and dads and grandmothers who were at home and had to work with their children and help them with their homework. They wanted to be able to do a night’s homework without the barriers that they currently have.

So we had a wide range of submitters who submitted, and I absolutely thank each one of them for taking the time to submit to the Commerce Committee. It certainly helped us to come to the position we have come to with this bill today.

I am quite aware that there has already been a lot of technical jargon from both sides of the House, and I do not want to add to that and bore you to tears this evening. I am looking forward to this bill taking its passage through the House. I am sure that in the Committee of the whole House each of us will stand up and talk to each one of these clauses and amendments and say why these amendments have been fantastic for this bill.

I want to say that New Zealand First is supporting this bill. Once again, I would like to thank all sides of the House for the fantastic work that we managed to collaborate on.

I am pleased to take what will be quite a short call on the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

Members should have realised this was coming. In my first speech, I noted this was an ultra-fast broadband approach. It was over before it had even started. So I do not need to go on for too long.

💬 Peeni Henare: Give us the dial-up version.

The dial-up version is what we heard from the Labour Party members earlier on. It went on and on and on, and off, and did not connect.

If members and those in the public are going through the bill, it looks like a fairly substantial bill—and it is, materially—but what it is trying to do is relatively simple. It is reducing costs and trying to get rid of some of the bureaucracy imposed around installation. The catalyst for this bill is, ultimately, those with shared driveways or in bodies corporate, or where there are shared arrangements. If one person or two out of, let us say, a group of five want to get their broadband installed, there can be objections, which slow the process down unreasonably. I think it is really important to stress that word “unreasonably” because, of course, there are going to be times and instances where objection is quite right. This bill deals with that as well, including having a disputes mechanism in place, particularly around bodies corporate. It allows for more time for objection if required.

But, overall, this is about speeding up the process so that those vexatious, if you will, and litigious approaches that, ultimately, stop people, for whatever motivation, from getting ultra-fast broadband are stopped. As others have mentioned in previous contributions, access to the internet these days, particularly ultra-fast broadband, is becoming akin to that of electricity and water. We would find it quite odd if someone was not allowed to receive electricity to their apartment because the neighbour objected, and, in a similar way, why should someone not get access to ultra-fast broadband?

So it sounds as though, with the agreement across the House at the moment, the Commerce Committee has landed this bill in the right space—weighing up everybody’s property rights, but realising that there is a good here, with ultra-fast broadband.

As I said, I am not going to speak for much longer on this. I think the technical elements are going to come out in the Committee of the whole House. We can get into the minutiae then. But I do look forward to the passage of this second reading.

The Labour Party supports this bill. It is really difficult for us to understand why it is taking this Government so long to implement it and just pass it. As they have stated time and time again, this bill is good for the country. It enables everybody who needs fibre-optics to access that information. This is supposedly the 21st century that we are living in, and yet we still have a digital divide in this country of ours.

We have said all along, all the way through, that we support this bill—we support this bill. Get a move on. But that, again, is another sign of what my colleagues have been saying earlier, of this Government, in its third term, just running out of ideas. It is not sure what to do. We simply ask this Government to please pass this bill and pass it quickly so that we can get on with it, so that we can bridge that internet divide—that digital divide. It is just not fair that in this day and age of the so-called 21st century we have people who are able to access information on the internet and another group of people in New Zealand who just cannot. They cannot, as a result of the failure of this Government to address that inequality of service.

It is similar to what my colleagues said earlier. The Government is not doing what it should be doing as a Government in its third term. It has run out of ideas. It just does not have the leadership to be able to lead this country in the years ahead and be able to realise the full potential of this country of ours.

I have to say, it is embarrassing, because in Māngere we have got people who come through other phone companies, like Bluesky, an American company that services the Pacific region, including Samoa and Tonga. They are in Māngere on Saturdays, selling internet connections—selling internet connections. They are showing that they are doing a far better job than so-called developed New Zealand. During the last 9 years, we have not moved forward; we seem to be moving backwards or standing still. If we are standing still when it comes to trying to bridge the digital divide, it is solely the fault of this Government—its refusal to advance, its refusal to ensure that there is equality amongst all our population.

Here are some notes that I have seen in terms of what is not happening in the regions: “spending $300 million on a rural broadband programme, many New Zealand communities outside the main centres are held back because of poor connectivity.” In Southland, 24 percent of rural businesses said lack of connectivity affected their ability to attract staff, and 41 percent said that their internet service does not meet their needs. According to council surveys in Huntly, 44 percent of households have internet access, 51 percent in Tuakau, and 51 percent in Taumarunui. In Clutha, it cost $100,000 to connect the fibre, because a transmission cable, not a connecting cable, was run through the region. In Southland, although 50 percent had heard of the Government’s broadband programme, only 4 percent had noticed any improvement.

Do you see why this is such an urgent matter? We do not understand the reason for the slow pace of movement by this Government, other than that it has just simply run out of ideas. I would simply say to the Government that if it has run out of ideas, if it cannot look to Bill English as a leader, then the only other choice is to vote for a Labour Government, vote for Andrew Little, vote for the Labour Party come election day, on 23 September. It seems like this side of the House is ready, able, and willing to take over the controls of power so that we can implement some of the ideas, so that we can better provide housing, better provide education, better provide healthcare, and better provide internet connections. I would say: “Get rid of these buggers.”

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Members, the House is resumed. Before the dinner break, we were debating the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Does a member wish to seek the call?

I was just waiting for the instruction from my whip. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in the second reading.

As you know, ultra-fast broadband is the name of the game now. We need to connect to the internet. The faster it is the more we enjoy it. That is why UFB is the game-changer in New Zealand. We have been providing these connections, and uptake is also increasing day by day. We know that a lot of people live in shared-driveway properties and they live in apartments, and to have access to connect them was a challenge. This bill will help to give that opportunity so that they can connect to the internet in a much faster way.

We want the maximum number of people reached. We know that 90 percent of the population will be connected through the internet in days to come. We want to ensure that they do not have any hassles while getting connected to ultra-fast broadband. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.