Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee—please mind your crystals.

on behalf of the Minister for Communications: I move, That the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The bill amends the Telecommunications Act 2001. The amendments in this bill ultimately will make it easier for more New Zealanders to realise the benefits of next-generation communications networks such as ultra-fast broadband. The approach taken will reduce the frustrations and time delays experienced by many New Zealanders who are seeking fibre connections. As well, the companies that are installing the connections are also being alleviated of some of those frustrations. What I would say is that none of the granting of statutory rights of access to shared property for the purpose of installing ultra-fast broadband alleviates any of the need for the companies making the installation to behave in a reasonable fashion when dealing with property owners. The bill provides for regulatory requirements for ultra-fast broadband to be continued into the second phase of the programme and it makes improvements to the allocation of telecommunications development levy liability.

Recently the Hon Simon Bridges announced that an additional investment will provide 85 percent of New Zealanders with access to ultra-fast broadband by the end of 2024. This bill will contribute to achieving this target, which will put New Zealand among the leaders in the OECD for access to fibre.

The bill creates a new consenting process that telecommunications companies must follow when installing modern telecommunications networks like ultra-fast broadband in instances where multiple parties have legal interests in shared property, such as shared driveways and the common areas of multi-use complexes. These amendments are necessary to provide better outcomes for the estimated 71,000 households that are currently unable to connect to fibre due to problems with obtaining consents for it to be installed. These problems can range from uncontactable neighbours to instances where consent may be withheld because of an unrelated conflict. As Mr Bridges has said before, these provisions do not obfuscate the TELCOs from having to deal with property owners in a reasonable fashion, but it will speed up things and allow more households to connect, and the bill will also benefit homeowners in other ways. It incentivises telecommunications companies to use lower-impact methods for installation, where possible, resulting in less disruption to the property.

The amendments also grant statutory rights of access to use existing electricity lines for deployment of fibre-optic cable in rural areas. Utilising existing infrastructure for this purpose provides an opportunity to improve the rural productivity in a low-cost, effective way, while also making progress towards connecting as many New Zealanders as possible to better telecommunications networks.

The bill amends the requirement for the provision of financial information in the Commerce Commission’s telecommunications development levy liability allocation process. The bill also extends the regulatory requirements relating to the first phase of the ultra-fast broadband programme to the extension of this programme, which Mr Bridges announced at the end of January. This will ensure consistency with what Parliament has already enacted for the first phase of the programme. It means that the companies contracted to build and operate the ultra-fast broadband network in new areas will be subject to requirements of the Commerce Commission related to the cost and characterisation of their network services. What that all means is that it still pursues a fair pricing approach.

On behalf of the Minister, I want to thank the members of the Commerce Committee for their time and considerable effort in working through this bill. I would also, on behalf of the Minister, like to thank those who submitted on the bill for their useful and valued contributions.

Access to faster, more reliable internet is a vital part of our plan in developing a productive and competitive economy, improving health and educational outcomes, and creating more jobs for New Zealanders and their families. I commend this bill to the House.

It is a relief, actually, to be speaking in the third reading on this bill. It is not often that the Opposition gets up and is perhaps more effusive than the Government in speaking on a Government bill, and it is not often that the Opposition gets up and says that it is proud of a bill. Occasionally we get a member’s bill through, and that is definitely an occasion to be proud of, but it is rare that a Government-introduced bill has such strong support.

There are two reasons for this, with the first being that a large part of this bill was actually Labour’s policy in 2014. I will just read to you what our policy said—and remember, this is 2014—“Currently, between 20 and 40 percent of UFB installations require consent for right of ways and for multi-unit dwellings, and we understand that there are legal impediments for householders in right of ways to access fibre. We support finding solutions to these issues so they do not unnecessarily impede the ability to roll-out of fibre while respecting the property rights of owners. We believe that there have been unnecessary delays in resolving this issue and will work with the industry as a matter of urgency to do so.”

Well, guess what? It is 3 years later and we are only now getting through a piece of legislation to deal with that quite important issue—and the Government has only just got round to sorting it out. We know from the submissions before the select committee that for some providers at least 17 percent of connections, for people who wanted to get connected to ultra-fast broadband (UFB), were being held up by these impediments. One provider told us that 60 percent of their work was being held up as a result. We also know that the cost to industry of not doing those connections was at least—and has been at least—$40 million of business that could not be done because people were being held up by being unable to get consent processes through, and just giving up in many cases, and just sticking with the poorer connectivity that they had.

We also know of hundreds and thousands of frustrated and angry constituents who could not get access to this new infrastructure because of the impediments in law. That is one reason why getting this legislation through today is actually very important. The second reason is the part of the bill that was introduced at the select committee stage to allow fibre to be deployed across electricity poles and through private land in rural New Zealand. This is a revolutionary part of the bill. It opens up important economic opportunity to rural New Zealand and actually overtakes the existing Government policy. It came about because of the good work of the select committee as the result of the push from the industry—and here I want to acknowledge Northpower, the electricity lines company that has been a provider of UFB within part of its footprint. It was its vision and its tenacity that pushed this through the select committee.

I do want to acknowledge the work of the Commerce Committee chaired by Melissa Lee and the work of officials on this bill. The select committee worked extremely hard and productively and constructively to get this legislation through. As a result, rural New Zealand now has an opportunity to get fibre out into places that it would not have got into much sooner than with the Government’s existing policy, whether for ultra-fast broadband or for rural broadband. It is an unusual example of a select committee producing legislation that is substantially better than the policy of the existing Government. We not only support this bill; we were a key driver along with other Opposition parties in getting it through select committee, and we want it passed because there are too many obstacles in the way of many New Zealanders getting access to fibre.

The sticking point in getting this proposal to the select committee had been whether or not Federated Farmers supported it, and I think we should acknowledge that—that is why the Minister did not allow it to come in the original bill. Federated Farmers did acknowledge, when it came before the select committee, that there was a digital divide, that it was a major concern, and that Northpower’s proposal would help, but it wanted compensation for access to its land and for the poles and lines across its land. The Minister and the ministry had been frightened off by this—by its initial opposition—but they could have done this work behind the scenes before it came to select committee. Instead, it was left to the committee, which it did.

A good compromise was reached and it meant that the private landowners were able to get a connection as part of the deal of the fibre going across their land. It really came down to a matter of how many metres that free connection could be strung out. We came to the compromise position of 200 metres for a free connection, and for anything beyond that up to 500 metres, it would be a fifty-fifty charge. That was a good compromise. Ultimately, it was the result of hard work and good negotiations that came out of the select committee. As I said, I am acknowledging Northpower, because it did a lot of the work to push it through. I think it is really important that we acknowledge that.

The digital divide in New Zealand is real. It is significant and that is why this bill is so important. It is not just about the 100,000 schoolchildren who do not have access to the internet at home and the 300,000 New Zealanders who have never used the internet. It is about places that are more remote in New Zealand, outside the urban footprints, that simply are on dial-up speed or only just above that, yet having $300 million spent by the Government in its rural broadband initiative—which I consider to be a poor cousin to the UFB—their speeds have barely improved.

In Wairoa for instance, 49 percent of the population has no internet connection. In Huntly just 44 percent of households have internet access, 51 percent in Tuakau, 51 percent in Taumarunui. In Kawerau the main schools have complained that very few of their students have the internet at home due to cost and access issues. We have heard nightmare stories from people about their inability to even get their EFTPOS machines working in parts of New Zealand. These are not the most remote parts of New Zealand; these are parts of New Zealand that should be able to be doing better than this right now.

That is why this bill is so important: it provides an economic opportunity. With the Government’s two announcements, I heard the Minister say that the UFB will improve things. Well, for 130,000 people in New Zealand it will not improve things until as late as 2024. That is 7 years away; 130,000 people will not benefit from the ultra-fast broadband scheme until 2024. That is light years away in terms of internet access. Imagine what impact that will have on all of those children who are going to school during that time, and all of the people who are trying to develop business opportunities during that time.

What this bill does, despite the Government’s actual policy, is it provides an economic opportunity for lines companies, whether they choose to do it themselves or engage with a third party, to open up rural broadband, backhaul, and actual access to the rest of New Zealand who are the poor cousins, who are the second cousins, who have been disadvantaged and are likely to be disadvantaged for potentially up to another decade. We commend this bill. We supported this bill. In fact, we helped write part of this bill.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to take a brief call on the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Commerce Committee, as the honourable member across the House has actually done as well. I would especially like to thank my deputy, Mr Brett Hudson, whose knowledge has actually been tremendously helpful, and also the secretariat and officials for their due diligence in assisting us with our work.

The bill creates a new consenting process that telecommunications companies must follow when installing modern telecommunications networks, such as the ongoing ultra-fast broadband network roll-out around New Zealand. These changes will help New Zealanders get faster and more effective access to top-level internet speeds in their communities, cut through the red-tape and bureaucracy that comes in multi-owner dwellings, and overall assist with the best possible development of our online needs around the country. As the member opposite has actually said, the speeds at which we want our internet to be, and our taste and our desire, have actually grown as the technology has progressed.

The Commerce Committee made a number of recommendations on the telecommunications amendment bill. One of the biggest issues discussed at the committee was the deployment of fibre on electricity lines, which was traversed extensively during the Committee stage of this bill, and also by Ms Curran earlier.

Another key recommendation was about the narrow definition of property in regards to shared property, where at least one party with an interest in the property has requested fibre to the premises’ service. The recommendations also allow for more effective roll-out where installation methods with the lowest impact will no longer need consent from other parties and will overall ensure that installation with local impacts on other property or property rights holders will no longer need consent from all parties, speeding up installation rates and supporting the interest of the community.

Many communities have been waiting for a long time for this bill to happen, and I am not going to delay the process by talking about who was right and who was wrong. The Commerce Committee is a split committee, where members opposite and the Government have equal members. Without cooperation at the committee, we would not be bringing this bill back to the House. I appreciate the support of the Opposition, as well as the Government members, who work very cooperatively. As Miss Curran has actually said, in terms of the conversation of fibre on electricity power lines, it came as a result of the recommendation by one of the submitters, and we, in fact, extended the time at the committee, seeking extensions to discuss this further and to traverse the conversation with a wider audience. We wanted to get it correct and get it right, and I think the Commerce Committee has actually delivered. It is a good bill and I commend the work that the committee has actually done, and I commend the bill to the House.

Can I add to the comments of previous speakers. As my colleague from the Labour Party, Clare Curran, has already mentioned, the Labour Party is fully supportive of this bill—both legs of it. The first leg, in respect of enabling access along common property, is one that is easy to understand. If four people have an undivided interest in a driveway that is servicing four flats, then, at law, an interference with that driveway requires the consent of all four, unless we in this Parliament confer a right on one person, in concert with their technology provider, by law giving that person, if they want it, the right to carry out low-impact activities. Low-impact activities can include a trench up a right of way into which plastic pipe is put and the fibre is laid through that pipe. Eventually, one of the reasons why this is an appropriate thing to do—to, effectively, override, if you like, the property rights of the three that are not involved, in favour of the fourth—is that over time everyone will benefit, and that pipe will be able to be used to supply fibre for the four properties at the end of that driveway, even if at the start it is only servicing one. So there is a very low impact on the private property rights.

It is an interesting example, where the National Government is, effectively, agreeing that there is a limit to private property rights, that this is an appropriate limit to the private property right, and that there is a community interest in enabling the delivery of infrastructure, such as fibre, notwithstanding the fact that one of those property rights owners might object.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s not extensive, and they have still got to behave themselves. They don’t at the moment.

Yes. No, they do have to behave themselves. I agree, and they cannot go too far and they cannot damage fences and things, and there has been a bit of that at times.

It is interesting that this is occurring just a couple of weeks after the Productivity Commission reported on the Resource Management Act and other legislation affecting resource management in New Zealand. It has got a very good analysis in its report of the limits to private property rights, because although you hear from groups—including, I think, The New Zealand Initiative—at times over-describing the private property rights that the landowner has in New Zealand, it is interesting that, I think, the Government has got it right here to recognise that there is a proper limit to the private property right of the individual property owner and that the community right and the community interest in the delivery of this infrastructure is such that the rights of the individual property owner can, effectively, be overridden in this limited way to ensure that the infrastructure is put in in a cost-effective and timely manner.

The area that the Commerce Committee members—on all sides—pushed to improve was for rural areas. As my colleague Clare Curran said, it started with a submission from Northpower, which is a provider of lines services in the North, coming and saying: “Well, look, it would be useful if existing electricity infrastructure, including lamp posts”—which often cross private land, or the lines between the lamp posts, and the lamp posts themselves, are often sited on or over private land—“could be used also to deliver ultra-fast broadband.” Of course, that is the most cost-effective way of doing it. Just about every house in New Zealand has electric wires leading to it, and they are strung along lamp posts, and it is sensible that they be used to service these areas, particularly where the economics of delivering fibre is worse because of the low concentrations of population.

There is, of course, a historical precedent for this, and I suspect that Federated Farmers were mindful of that historical precedent when they came to the select committee and supported the proposal. When electricity was first distributed throughout New Zealand, that was done through power poles and wires being delivered throughout the country in the most cost-effective means possible, which generally meant taking a straight line across private property, which was done generally with the approval of the landowner—I suspect sometimes it was without the approval of the landowner—and, once put in, those electricity poles, power poles and the lines had a right to stay there prescribed or set out in the Electricity Act. It is the Electricity Act that, in that situation, effectively, overrides the private property right of the landowner. There was a quid pro quo in society where through that accommodation between the State, which was rolling out electricity across the country around the time of World War II and after—before and after World War II. There were some areas that were not connected, I think, until as late as about 1950. It was that arrangement between the State and private owners that saw the faster and more cost-effective distribution of electricity throughout the land.

I know that in retrospect some of the farming groups have said “Hey, this is not fair. We now want to be paid for the existence of those power poles.”, but actually, in truth, most farmers either agreed to it at the time or bought subject to that impediment. So I do not think they suffer any unfairness in having to put up with that continuing presence of the power lines for no recompense, because that was the state of their property rights when they purchased it in the first place. Against that precedent, you can see when the select committee started to look at the Northpower recommendation that it thought that it was actually the same in principle as the roll-out of electricity all those decades ago. Even better than that, there is even less inconvenience to the landowner on this occasion, because the power poles and power lines are already there. This is just stringing an extra wire from them, which is unlikely even to be noticed. So the select committee, I think, got to a very sensible point.

I congratulate Federated Farmers, and also the regional lines companies. It is interesting that a lot of those lines companies are still community-owned. I think that is a good thing for New Zealand. I know that there are some people around who think that we should be forcing the consolidation of these various lines companies so that we have got fewer of them. I disagree. I do not mind them being owned by their local communities. If there are inefficiencies in the way in which they maintain that infrastructure, they can always group together, a bit like councils group together and deliver shared services these days. You do not actually have to push the ownership together. I like the fact that we actually, effectively, have co-ops for the delivery of our rural lines. I really like the fact that those community organisations do not have a purely commercial motive. They have a service motive when it comes to servicing the needs of their people. They actually, I think, will step up to the mark and say: “Hey, this is something that we can do for the benefit of our community. We expect a reasonable rate of return for it, but it will be cheaper than any other way of delivering fibre to those rural networks.”

So it seems to me that everyone wins. The dispersed communities in rural areas are more likely to receive fibre earlier than they would otherwise have received it; whether it is earlier or otherwise, it is likely to be cheaper than it would have been otherwise, because it is utilising that expensive infrastructure; and it is avoiding the legal costs of seeking easements and those negotiations that are, to be honest, a bit of a pain for everyone on all sides, including, often, the landowner. So it will be cheaper and more convenient, and it will mean that we have got better broadband services. Why is that important? In my view, broadband services to rural areas are important for maximising the economy of those local areas, for bringing new economic opportunities to rural areas through new industries, and also—and I think this is, perhaps, underemphasised at times—for ensuring that we can use technology to achieve better levels of environmental performance on farm.

The automation through sensor technology, mobile devices, and feeding back through broadband—or through mobile, for that matter; both are appropriate channels—to the regulator and to the farm manager information about moisture levels, nitrate levels, and run-off levels to rivers will be enabled by this modern technology. It is one of the routes to get back to cleaner rivers in New Zealand. As we know, in many parts of the country they are now so polluted you cannot swim in them. So technology is an important part of that answer. This amendment agreed to at select committee and now being passed by this House will aid us in doing better on that front, too.

It is a pleasure to rise in support of this Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. There are just two parts I want to briefly canvass on, the first, of course, being what has taken some time to achieve: balancing property rights with both the desire of the recipient to receive fibre in their home across shared infrastructure, and, of course, also the Government’s desire to expand our broadband capability across greater parts of New Zealand into more of the population.

It is important to know that we are not actually suspending property rights. We are not really constraining them or removing them. All we are doing is limiting, under very specific circumstances, rights of objection. It is notable that it is where the works are going to be temporary, both in their nature and in terms of their impact, in the sense that there is no great lasting impact. I think it is a very pragmatic way of getting past areas where people have been able to object and forestall the installation and receipt of broadband of some of their neighbours, simply for their own reasons of not particularly, perhaps, liking a bit of digging works outside their house along the driveway. I think it is a very pragmatic approach.

The main part I will just finish with is this idea of extending fibre access across rural properties, one where the Commerce Committee worked very solidly together to protect private property rights, particularly of our rural landholders, while also seeking to extend the Government’s objective of extending not only high-speed broadband but fibre access across more of our rural communities. It is a fantastic example of members of Parliament working across the House for a common objective. It was an absolute pleasure to sit on the committee as we worked through that, and I think we have returned a very, very solid bill, one that I commend to the House.

I rise to speak on the third reading of the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The Green Party supports this bill. Of course, the Green Party has been very supportive of investment in infrastructure that can benefit all New Zealanders and help us transition to a lower-carbon economy. Ultra-fast broadband is one of those investments, and although we probably have had concerns about the particular approach the Government took to ultra-fast broadband investment—it seemed to favour some providers more than others, and we have questions about that—the reality is that it is an example of investment in something that is in the public interest. There are many areas like that, particularly as we are looking to reduce our carbon emissions, looking to reduce inequality, and looking to get an economy that is working for New Zealanders—a fairer, greener economy. It will require more leadership from Government, not less—more leadership on those investments that have wide public benefits, like ultra-fast broadband.

The other really phenomenal thing about this bill, which is dealing with very particular problems that came up in the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband around, initially, dwellings that included multiple owners—we had to find a solution to that. What was interesting about this process—I did not sit on the Commerce Committee, which went through this, but my colleague Gareth Hughes did, and my understanding is that because the numbers on this particular select committee are perfectly balanced, there was a need to find consensus and work together, which we do not often see here in this House. I think there is a really great lesson that comes out of that, which is that we are better when we work together. We are better when we hear from all of the different people who are affected, and we find better solutions when everyone, with their different perspectives, is able to bring something to the table and we can work through it on a consensus basis.

That does not usually happen in this Parliament because the reality is the Government has the numbers on most things right now. It has one vote, thanks to the support of two very small parties that have only one member each, and so it does not have to find consensus. But I think the story of this bill is that when you do have to find consensus and work together, we can produce legislation that is going to come up with better solutions for all New Zealanders. I think that the people of New Zealand would like to see more of this type of collaboration from their politicians. I think there is a real hunger out there as we face the different challenges we are facing, particularly our long-term challenges around climate change and inequality, and we do need a more democratic approach and a more collaborative approach.

So the Green Party is very happy to support this bill. We were very happy to participate in the process of making the bill better with other parties from across the House, and we would like to see a New Zealand where we have more of that collaborative approach more often, because we know that that is going to help more people. Kia ora.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and take this third reading call on the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First, in the first reading, supported this bill to the select committee stage, and that was because of the concerns we had, primarily, with things like property access—access to multiple properties, driveways, and shared dwellings—and the issues that members of our community were actually facing when trying to get connectivity to ultra-fast broadband or fibre. What this bill actually tried to do in that initial process was to address those matters, which is why we did say we would support it to the select committee. We could definitely, on merit, see that this bill would do that, and we wanted to tease it out through the select committee process to ensure that these concerns were not only brought to us from submitters but also discussed in an open forum through that process.

I have to say that in previous calls in the first reading, second reading, and Committee stage the time this bill took in the background in order to get here in the House had been touched on by various members. It has been said that it took some 4 years, and, due to the fact that internet connectivity and IT provisions within this country are growing so rapidly, I also wanted to point out that it did take its time to get here, but we are pleased that it is finally here.

I do want to say that we had 54 submissions come through the Commerce Committee, and we heard 14 submitters. In that process—and I have said this before—we had mums and dads, we had farmers, we had New Zealand councils from right round the country, and we had Federated Farmers. We also had a submitter, whom Clare Curran spoke to in the Committee stage, Ewan, who spoke about the fact that he wanted the committee to insert a new section that would allow the fibre-optic cabling to be sitting alongside the power lines. With that kind of communication and dialogue that was quite open with the committee, we found that it made common sense to look at that and to discuss it in more depth.

What we also received in one of those submissions was actually a submission from Northpower, which shared with us that it had been working with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for over 12 months and trying to look at the option of having legislation changes to allow the fibre cable to sit within pre-existing infrastructure that was currently owned by them. The fish-hook in there came in the areas of private land ownership—so, like, the rural areas and farmland. It became apparent that Federated Farmers and Northpower needed to sit down around a table and consult each other about those issues that Federated Farmers had brought through to Northpower and the concerns of those farmers. We were quite happy that the information and the support and communications that came back from Northpower was that they had indeed reached an amicable decision about this.

One of the submitters who rang in further supported this by saying that he was OK with Northpower to provide 200 metres to the breakout point. He was quite happy, and some other fellow farmers were actually quite happy too, to personally pay for the other 300 metres from the breakout point to their dwellings. So what was seen as potentially quite a big issue became quite small in comparison when we looked at the economic improvements that our rural area could actually have.

I also spoke about the digital divide between our urban and rural areas, and I spoke about the fact that this bill, particularly with the amendments and also the Supplementary Order Paper 280 that the Minister for Communications introduced, was actually going to be quite good for the urban and rural areas.

I want to touch on some of the issues that some people in my area in Southland have had. I relayed back to the Dennis brothers, who are identities within the racing industry—when I visited their farm and looked through their issues, one of the things that one of the brothers said to me was: “How crazy is it that we can’t even bet on our own horses when we’re not at the track—on our property.” That property is 7½ minutes from Invercargill’s city centre. So I know that the Dennis brothers—if you are watching this today, you will be quite happy with the fact that this bill is going through.

I also want to talk about the fact that I met with Rural Women New Zealand, and some of the concerns there were about the fact that a lot of the women were actually doing a lot of the paperwork on behalf of the farm, and they had issues with connectivity or being unable to upload their data on to their software systems. It was a huge problem for them. I want to say that this bill will now address that problem too. But also, actually, another area in the rural area with women was the fact that a lot of them had start-up businesses from home. These were entrepreneurial women who found it absolutely not OK that they could not get connectivity, so they were unable to provide a foolproof service to their customers. I know that I am quite happy—with all the amendments and the changes that the select committee has worked really hard on, along with our policy advisers—that this bill is now actually going to be fit for purpose.

I would like to talk about that Supplementary Order Paper 208 just a little bit more. When it came to me at half past 10 on Tuesday morning last week I took the time to go through it and look at all the recommendations that actually were further amending what the Commerce Committee had actually provided. I did say at the time that this was quite small—that it looked at little glitches and technical drafting issues. Although it was quite a big Supplementary Order Paper it also made sense to actually further improve the bill so that members on both sides of the House could put through legislation so that it was actually fit for purpose, it was actually going to meet the intent of what the bill was necessary for, and it was going to fix the issues that we have had all around New Zealand and that we have heard from our submitters when we went through the select committee process.

On that note, I would like to say that New Zealand First does support this bill. We support the fact that it is a sound bill, and we look forward to its passage through the House.

I will take a short call on this Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill for no other reason, really, than that there is quite a lot of concord in the House and support around this bill today. As other members have noted, the Commerce Committee worked quite hard and collegially on this. There were a number of issues that did strike us. One of them was around the whole balance between, of course, private property rights—particularly important to this side of the House—but also an acceptance that if one person on a shared driveway or within a body corporate setup, for example, wants access, they should be able to have the right to do that. This bill rebalances things, in many ways with a presumption that the fibre should come to the home.

Importantly, we did understand as a select committee that there could be some tensions around that, and we do not want to completely ride roughshod over that, so the bill has provisions for, effectively, appeals, or the chance to actually go to a dispute dynamic. That is quite important.

Look, a lot of the other elements have been well surveyed already by other members of the House. As I said in my first speech many months ago, as we introduced this, there is the difference between the old dial-up speed, which is like a 10-minute speech, and an ultra-fast broadband speech, which is over in just less than 1 minute and 30 seconds.

I am very happy to rise to speak to the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I was not here as a member of the House in the earlier stages of this bill, but it is one that I actually talk about quite a bit. As a new member, people ask me what it is like to be a member of Parliament: “What’s it like in the House? What is it like in Parliament?”.

💬 Richard Prosser: I hope you don’t tell them.

Ha, ha! Of course, what people are interested in is the niggle. But, actually, I draw reference to this bill to explain to people that on some occasions this House and the processes we have in this House actually work well, and that when we sit down with common objectives to improve the lot of people in our country and when we work through legislation in a sensible way, with an eye on the benefits that we want to see for people, we can actually get really, really good outcomes. That is certainly the case with this bill. It is not the case with every bill, but when we have a bill like this I think it is important that we do acknowledge it and, in fact, celebrate it.

In this case it is particularly important, because, to me, this bill is about equity. It is not just a technical bill—it could very easily be seen as something that is just about technology. It is sort of in that realm that is maybe very technical and does not impact on people’s real lives that much, but it is fundamentally about equity. It is about moving towards a situation in which all people in New Zealand have access to an incredibly important piece of infrastructure.

What we do know is that there is a very real digital divide in New Zealand. This bill does help advance the closing of that digital divide. InternetNZ acknowledges this. It says that the internet has become an important part of participating in society, and the digital divide between those who have internet access and those who do not is widening. This is backed up by research from Statistics New Zealand, which has really looked into the impact that it has on different communities that do and do not have access to modern, high-quality internet.

Ten years ago we were probably just talking about whether people had access to the internet or not. Five years ago it was probably about whether people had access to dial-up, ADSL, or VDSL. Now the debate is about whether people have access to fibre that is fit for purpose. This goes to every part of our lives. It goes to the opportunities that small businesses have—to be flexible, to be responsive to their customers, and to get access to the services that they need to drive their businesses forward. It goes to education and the right of every single child, no matter what community they live in, no matter how rich or poor that community is, whether it is in a city, whether it is in a town or whether it is in the countryside, to have access to the information and connection that the internet gives us.

I have seen this first hand in my own child’s school—a decile 2 school in Mount Roskill South. They are part of a programme called the Ako Hiko programme, which gives every single child in the senior school access to the internet through Chromebooks. The opportunity it gives for inquiry, learning, and connection with other kids all around the world is simply enormous. It should be—and I am sure it is—the objective of every member of this House that all of our children share in that opportunity.

More broadly, it goes to the right of citizens to participate in our society. I will warrant that across the 121 members of this House, every one of us enjoys that opportunity. Every single one of us runs most of our communications through the internet. Every single one of us keeps in contact with friends and family through the internet. We should want to ensure that every member of our society has that same opportunity.

This bill does some very practical things to bridge that digital divide. As we have heard, it provides a sensible regime in terms of allowing access for fibre to be rolled out for people in shared property types—down those shared driveways, and into apartment buildings. This is important now because we know that there are something like 71,000 people, not just in those situations, but 71,000 people who are on the books, ready and waiting for access to fibre who are having problems of one kind or another because of those difficulties that you can get when shared access issues arise.

This bill very pragmatically looks to address those issues. It says that when you need to get through someone else’s property in a shared property kind of situation, let us actually have a look at the impacts. If the impacts are relatively minor—if it is simply digging up a bit of soft surface that you can very easily fix up afterwards, it is something you should notify the person of—you should not have to go through an elaborate consent process. If it is a bit more complicated, let us give the other property owner 15 days to raise any issues that they might have so that they can be worked through, but let us not allow any of those objections to really hold things up unreasonably, as sometimes does happen. It means, increasingly, for the New Zealanders who live in apartment buildings where there are common areas of access that technicians need to get into to install fibre, we have simplified provisions in terms of how that might work.

Some other important aspects of the bill include the dispute resolution service, because, of course, when we do start getting into this area of property rights, moving across properties where people have multiple interests, it is important that there is some recourse for people who may have concerns.

My colleague Clare Curran spoke earlier about Part 4 of the bill, which is actually the revolutionary part of this bill. It is the bit that was not there when the bill was first tabled in the House. It is the bit of the bill that Clare Curran has been campaigning on for years and years and years with a real passion, and it is about looking at some sensible mechanisms to get fibre out into our communities in the provinces and in regional New Zealand, because that is one of those places in which the digital divide I spoke about before is most keenly felt. There are tens of thousands of New Zealanders who, actually, even under the provisions of this bill, are still unlikely to get access to fibre by 2024, but the provisions of this bill will improve that situation somewhat.

What I really liked about this bill was that elegant solution that we have arrived at. As David Parker said before, we are talking about private property rights here and some impingement on those private property rights. We are looking at stringing infrastructure across people’s private property without necessarily seeking their permission in the first instance. That is pragmatic and reasonable but it is an impingement on those private property rights.

The elegant solution that we have arrived at here is that for those people, most likely on a farm, who are having a bit of fibre strung up on the power poles across their property, that property will get access to that fibre with 200 metres of that fibre rolled out to their property and then a 50 percent subsidy if it needs to be above 200 metres. I just think that it was a sensible, smart, and pragmatic process that the select committee went through to get to that outcome. It came about because of a submission from Northpower, it came about because of the tenacity of Clare Curran, and it came about because of the pragmatism and reasonableness across that split committee to try to get to a sensible outcome. I think that everyone involved in getting there deserves some commendation in this debate, and I offer that forward.

Where do we go to from here? Probably the lesson of this bill is that we cannot take our foot off the accelerator. This bill has come about as a result of deficiencies in the roll-out of fibre across New Zealand because we knew that we were not doing well enough. We still have 15 percent of New Zealanders who, under the Government’s current track of progress and under the provisions of this bill, which are improved, still will not have access to fibre by 2024. That is tens of thousands of households. There are parts of Auckland, not too far from where I live, which still will not have access to fibre for 2 years from now. That is actually a very, very long time to wait in the modern world.

As I move towards a conclusion in this debate, this is clearly a bill that, as we have heard, the Labour Party commends to the House and will be supporting, but it cannot be the end of the matter. We need to keep moving on this. We need to roll out that fibre so that every kid in every school has access to it, so that every small business has got access to it, and so that every person in their home can connect with the world around them. If we can do that, I think this house should be very pleased with that outcome, but it will require real work. As we have seen over the course of this bill, what can help us to get there is cooperation between parties and a real focus on getting outcomes for people. That is my plea to the House as I roll up my remarks. Let us pick up the spirit that came through in this bill and recommit to getting fibre access to all New Zealanders to enhance every aspect of their lives. I commend this bill to the House.

It is very encouraging to hear the intelligent and constructive comments that have come from members across the House. Clearly, the Commerce Committee has done a very good job, and I too support this bill.

I recall that in the 1960s when we landed in Ōtāhuhu, the outhouse of the house we lived in was outside. In order to use the bathroom, you had to go outside. Things have changed since then, of course. I recall, also, that for a number of years Manukau City Council talked about the underground infrastructure—being able to take your household wastage to be cleaned somewhere else, and you would get fresh drinking water. In this day and age—I think, from 2000—internet connections are now an essential for households and an essential for the workplace. It is an essential. It is an essential thing. Whether it is for business or personal usage or for our education, for our young people, internet connection—high ultra-fast broadband connection—is an essential for our communities.

We proudly cheer ourselves for New Zealand being one of the more developed countries in this particular part of the region. Yet, when I look at the information that is available as to who has connection in this country—which communities have connection and which communities do not—it is disturbing because, in this day and age, one would expect that we would invest sufficiently in this infrastructure, because it is vital. It is critical for our business, for our social interaction, and for our children’s education.

If you look to Auckland, only 17 percent of premises are connected; Waiheke Island, 0.2 percent; Northland, 20 percent; Pukekohe, 5 percent; Waiuku, 8 percent; Hamilton, 14 percent; Cambridge, 12 percent; Te Awamutu, 12 percent; Tauranga, 17 percent; Rotorua, 14 percent; Tokoroa, 9 percent; Taupō, only 6 percent; Whakatāne, 8 percent; Gisborne, 6 percent, New Plymouth, 11 percent; Napier-Hastings, 15 percent; Hāwera, 8 percent; Whanganui, 9 percent, Palmerston North, 17 percent; Feilding, 6 percent; Masterton, 11 percent; Kāpiti, 3 percent; Levin, 5 percent; Wellington surprised me, 14 percent; Nelson, 11 percent; Blenheim, 19 percent; Greymouth, 5 percent; Christchurch, 16 percent; Ashburton, 14 percent; Timaru, 16 percent; Ōāmaru, 11 percent; Dunedin, 16 percent; Queenstown, 9 percent; and Invercargill, 12 percent.

I thank the House for its patience, but those numbers are critical. Actually, if those numbers are now out there and shared by our communities, this Government should hold its head down in shame.

💬 Rino Tirikatene: Run through them again?

Yes, I should run through them again.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

I am highlighting here in this House that in stage one, stage two, and the Committee of the whole House, there has been no opposing party—am I right—or maybe just one, but these guys are not going to matter in that boat. Every other party in this House has voted in support of this legislation, and yet this Government has dragged its feet in getting us here. My colleague Clare Curran even helped write some of the legislation—facilitate it—so that the Commerce Committee would not hold it up.

We are here in 2017. The list I read out—the percentage of people who have access to ultra-fast broadband—is a disgrace. Here is another disgrace. If I look to Māngere, only 57 percent of people in Māngere have access to internet—57 percent. For the rest of New Zealand, it is 72 percent. There is something not quite right here. In this day and age, every community, every school, every church hall, every factory, and every household should have access to this infrastructure. It is essential and vital infrastructure if we are going to be able to compete with the rest of the world.

The Government knows all that. We have supported that, but it has dragged its feet on it. Why? Because it costs money to invest in this, and, instead of investing money, it decided to do the tax cuts when it came into power. That is why we are in the hole at the moment. That is why. That just also reveals the type of Government that we have. Instead of prioritising things that would last long term, and things that would benefit a whole bunch of people—in fact, the whole country—it prioritises things that only a small, select group would benefit from. That tax switch, when it first came into power in 2009, has skewered the whole finances and the whole situation for this country and the gap of inequality has continued to grow, and that is reflected in the numbers that I have just outlined for the information of this House. It is not just Māngere, where only 50 percent of its population has access to internet; there are other working-class communities, as reflected in the numbers and percentage of people who have premises connected.

It is the third reading. This Government just needs to get on with the priority things. This is also an issue of leadership. Instead of following the polls, it should be leading, but that is not what it does. I want to commend my colleague Clare Curran for her leadership, for her wanting to work collaboratively with the members of the Government on the Commerce Committee, and I understand, for all intents and purposes, she was pushing, along with other Opposition members, to make sure that we get to this stage quickly. But we have not got to this stage quickly, and it is worse now, because even though we are at this point in facilitating access to many of the households, as Clare read out earlier, we still have significant numbers—in the hundreds of thousands—of people who do not have access to internet and do not have access to ultra-fast broadband. That is a shame.

If I was this Government I would not be—this is a shame and a bad mark on it. But this is only one of the key fundamental pieces of infrastructure that this country needs. I am not going to talk about housing, not going to talk about the situation with our health, but they are all in the same vein—critical infrastructure that benefits the whole population. This Government does not make that a priority, as reflected in the figures—and I would happily read these figures out again, but I will not. I will not. I will save your ears, Mr Assistant Speaker. But those figures are a blight on what has happened in the last 8 years.

The ultra-fast broadband is important. It was raised that in many of the rural areas they are not getting any connection. In today’s economic world, you need ultra-fast broadband to be able to conduct your business, not just in New Zealand but on an international level. I believe that many of our rural businesses, including farmers, should be outraged that this Government, which has the means and the powers and the resources to have got this infrastructure out, dragged its feet on it. So my contribution is that whilst we are supporting the bill, shame on this Government for taking its time about it.

I support the comments made by members on this side of the House, I support the principles of this bill, and I therefore commend the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.