Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Mr Chair. I apologise for being a little bit slow on my feet. I was trying to grapple with the new Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that I’ve just discovered, SOP 118, which was released today.

It’s a great pleasure to participate in the committee stage of this bill. I would like to note that I think, actually, all of the parties in this House agree on this bill, and if I remember back to the first reading stage, I think everybody was actually very keen to get this going. Throughout the select committee process, I think we worked very cordially and very well together. Having said that, I just noticed there are a couple of points that I actually wanted to raise in the committee stage on certain parts of the bill, but I notice that some parts of it have been changed in the SOP that has been produced by the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media, so I’ll obviously have to look at the impact that that has on what I was going to say.

This Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill basically establishes a framework in which fibre fixed-line access services are provided in New Zealand, and also the very idea that the old copper network can actually be removed when the time comes, and that, where fibre is provided to certain premises, we are in fact looking at removing the copper fixed-line access services. Also, it’s about streamlining the regulatory processes to enable rapid response to any competition problems, particularly in the mobile telecommunications market place. More and more, when we actually look at the work that the previous National Government has delivered for New Zealanders and which this particular Labour-led Government has carried on, if we look at the time frame of maybe 2022, I think we were looking at, 87 percent of New Zealand will have ultra-fast broadband or will be at least able to connect.

I’d like to, first of all, talk on Part 1 of the bill. I was going to talk particularly on clause 4, and I have some questions for the Minister. In relation to where the clause actually creates or amends changes, a number of definitions were used within the telecommunications regulatory environment. This has come about after the fact of the select committee process, where the definition in the legislation—and I will actually quote from Part 1, clause 4, where it says “Section 5 amended”. It’s the interpretation, in terms of the fibre network, where “fibre network” meant “a fibre-to-the-premises access network (as defined in section 156AB)” that connects the user’s interface, and I’ll just cut to the point where it talks about “access point”.

I’m guessing the SOP actually deals with the changes, and we probably have to talk about that, but the concern that was raised with me after the select committee process was actually by some of the concerned local fibre companies—LFCs—who felt that the consultation process in regard to using the terminology “access point” actually gives them an extra obligation under this bill, which they believe that they weren’t consulted on, in terms of using that terminology “access point”. By the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee adding those words “access point”, it made them—I guess what they’re saying is that their obligation to the Crown doesn’t necessarily change, in terms of the bill, for the contract that they have with the Crown but the regulatory regime as set up in 2011, relative to the contractual scope with the Crown, may have been changed as a result of putting “access point” into this bill. So I would like to ask the question of the Minister: why did the Minister decide to include the phrase “access point” within the definition of the fibre network?

Well, actually, it came about as a result of select committee, but I guess—[Bell rung]

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Are you going to answer the question?

Pardon me?

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Are you going to answer the question as well as ask it?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Is the member seeking a further call?

Yes. Thank you, Mr Chair. So we did take advice, but the thing is that the access point—I don’t remember it being a major part of the select committee process. I think the discussions that we had during the select committee process weren’t actually about the access point issue; they were more about the anchor products. Also, the line of business issue was probably more prominent than this particular issue, which was actually raised after the select committee process. So the question that I’d like to ask the Minister in the chair, Phil Twyford—and maybe this particular Minister in the chair may not be able to answer, but I would like to get an answer from the Minister as to why the Minister decided to keep on with the access point within the definition of fibre network in the legislation after the LFCs had raised their concern with the Minister after the fact.

The other issue is: what advice did the Minister receive from the submitters and stakeholders regarding whether the change in the definition of “fibre network” is actually fit for purpose for those local fibre contractors, the LFCs, who are feeling rather nervous about their contracts and their business because they feel that the very word—we, laypeople who don’t really know much about this, might think “What does it matter if you put ‘access point’ into the definition of what fibre network means?” What it literally means is that it actually changes the obligation, they feel. So it would be very good if the Minister could actually answer that. Perhaps he could get some advice from the officials who are here.

Does the Minister believe that the Government has satisfied the concerns of the local fibre contractors in relation to the change in the clause 4, section 5, definition of this particular bit, as I’ve raised? When they raised it with me, they were obviously very concerned that their business model might have to change as a result of this bill going through, and they were hoping that perhaps I could bring an SOP to the House. My reaction to them was that if the National Party does not have the support of other parties in the House, it is actually a futile exercise. I know for a fact that they have contacted the Minister and they’ve had meetings with the Minister in relation to this particular issue.

The other issue, I guess, is to allay their concern. It’s to actually reduce their concern that the consultation process, they feel, was a little bit flawed, in that when their business is impacted by a particular word or a particular clause in a piece of legislation that’s going to have a major impact on their business, obviously they have the right to feel concerned and they have the right to raise this issue.

There are many aspects of this bill which are very, very technical, and we have worked through them and, as I’ve said right from the beginning, the majority of the parties actually agree. But before we move on to the next clauses, I guess I’m raising the fact that this is a particular concern to those LFCs, and I think we probably owe them an explanation or at least allay their fear, to make sure that their concerns can be reduced and that there isn’t actually a major issue with this particular word being in this.

I guess the reason why I raise this concern with the Minister is because I have also asked this question through the parliamentary written question process—

I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but it has come time for me to report progress.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Commerce Amendment Bill with amendment, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill without amendment, progress on the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill, no progress on the Courts Matters Bill, and no progress on the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill.

Report adopted.