Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Mr Chair. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to take the call on Part 2 in the committee stage of the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill. Just before I get into the issues I wanted to talk about, it occurs to me that if we were a more populated country with much more friendly terrain, we wouldn’t need this kind of complicated legislation to ensure that those of us who live off the line can, in fact, access some of the modern conveniences of the world.

I’m one of those people who’s in the privileged position—and the Minister in the chair, Kris Faafoi, just a minute ago was talking about it. I’m sure it was in Part 1, but he was talking about people just like me who can’t access 111, and I hope people never have to access 111. But for a while I couldn’t, because I actually lived in one of those places that had no communication like that. It is a challenge for us in New Zealand, and so, consequently, we need these pieces of—and, I guess, deregulation of the industry in the early days caused the need for this type of activity to be undertaken and this type of legislation to be passed, to protect those people who do have challenges accessing services. The copper network’s another thing, of course, but we won’t go into that here.

One of the things that interests me about this type of legislation—and it is quite complicated—is that it was put in place as a result of a whole lot of understanding of the costs of the industry and how those services are then provided as a result of that cost. It puts in place a whole lot, using all sorts of things like input methodologies, basically, to give us a better understanding of where the costs lie and how those services can then be accessed by those people who provide us with services from phone lines to all the modern telecommunications—you can even run the television set off those services, nowadays—and that, of course, to large parts of New Zealand, is very important.

The other really interesting thing about this type of legislation is that it enables people in a country like New Zealand to operate from all sorts of parts of New Zealand that historically you never would’ve considered running a business from, and that’s because technology has taken such huge advances, I suppose, and it has taken over a lot of what we historically either wouldn’t have been able to do in parts of New Zealand, or wouldn’t have thought of being able to do in parts of New Zealand. So I think that legislation like this becomes really important in diversifying our economy and enabling us to do things in parts of New Zealand that we otherwise wouldn’t have been able to do. The farming community, of course, it’s very important to that community because nowadays you can run some sorts of modern industries—in fact, you could run one sitting right here, Mr Chair. We could sit right here and run a business from here, using technology—everything from turning on irrigators to heaters to whatever.

So it’s really important that we have these Acts of Parliament that then manage those networks, and the electricity network is exactly the same—or not exactly the same, but it’s equally as important that it’s regulated and legislated for too, because otherwise we would never get services provided to some parts of New Zealand that are very important to us. It’s really interesting, when you look at the diversity of New Zealand’s population and the places that we now live in and do business in, where 15 or 20 years ago, it wouldn’t have been considered, and that’s because of these enabling bits of legislation that then encourage the provision of services into those areas that are very important.

So these sorts of things, whilst they are quite complicated, I think they are necessary, and I think that across the Parliament, we all recognise the necessity of these pieces of legislation like the Telecommunications Act. I certainly think it’s worth supporting. I think that Ministers from both of the last two Governments have done a pretty good job of getting this to the post, and I hope that it successfully moves its way through Parliament in the next day or two. That’s my lot, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair—just trying to get my notes in order. Talking of Part 2, particularly of clause 23—I have actually spoken about this in Part 1, in the definition, but in clause 23 it actually talks about the access point, so if the Minister in the chair, Kris Faafoi, could possibly address the issue that I’ve raised in terms of the access point.

For those people who are wondering what that actually means, I guess the local fibre companies are rather worried that in terms of—you know, when a local fibre company connects, for example, a community of 50 houses, they are responsible for connecting fibre to those 50 houses, and their concern is that if the definition of access point is actually included in the bill, they are literally having to connect the cell towers, which then, possibly, make it possible for, instead of the local fibre company, another competitor to connect those 50 houses wirelessly, for example. That is their concern and if that means that they can only do it in a fixed cost and at a regulated price, it would actually mean that instead of connecting 50 houses—and they could potentially have a business case and actually make a profit on that, for example—they’re literally only connecting one cell tower, possibly a competitor in terms of providing internet connection to those 50 houses, and it would mean that the competitor potentially could take over the business of those 50 houses. That is one concern that was raised to me, and I’ve actually mentioned that in the definitions section of Part 1.

In Part 2, one of the most, I guess, highly debated parts of this section is the issue of anchor services, anchor product. I guess, when—

💬 Mark Patterson: Butter.

Sorry?

💬 Mark Patterson: Butter—“anchor” products. Butter. Sorry—don’t worry. Carry on.

Oh, sorry. I’m guessing you’re a farmer and you wanted to actually—but you might need to speak up a little bit, because maybe I’m like Mr Speaker—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: New Zealand First word association games.

Perhaps—I didn’t quite hear what he actually said. Sorry, I digress. One of the things that was actually hotly debated was—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but it’s come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

Before the dinner break, I was talking about Part 2, clause 23, and I was hoping that the Minister of communications would be in the chair to actually explain some of the questions that were actually asked during the debate process, but I will actually put it on record.

So in terms of this Part 2, one of the concerns that we’ve actually had is: why did the Minister decide not to support the requests of the local fibre contractors (LFCs) to have the phrase “access point” deleted from proposed sections 197 and 199 contained within new Part 6, in clause 23—maybe that’s not quite right. But I guess—and the wordings were actually changed in the Supplementary Order Paper that was actually tabled last week as well, which actually adds the words “building, or other access point”. Do those subtle changes in fact change the definition in the bill? That is something I’d like to ask the Minister.

And the other is: what is the added value to the bill by retaining the phrase “access point” in these sections? And also, what are the justifications for the Government’s policy that “point-to-point fibre services to access point cell towers which are provided to wireless competitors should be regulated or subject to the threat of regulation”? That particular quotation comes from a written question that I had in fact asked of the Minister, and that was part of the reply that he had in fact given. His answer was “point-to-point fibre services to access point cell towers which are provided to wireless competitors should be regulated or subject to the threat of regulation”. And does that actually raise any kind of concern to the Minister that, in fact, that is one of the reasons why the LFCs are rather concerned when they actually look at the definition in terms of the point that they make regarding the access point?

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak this evening on the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill. I was on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee that considered this bill. We did so over quite a number of weeks, under the able chairmanship of Jonathan Young, and with a number of subject matter experts, I’d say, including the likes of Gareth Hughes from the Green Party, who was able to impart a lot of wisdom into our discussions, and I appreciate his input into that.

I was fully intending to stand up tonight and talk about how I guess peace had broken out on this bill, because it is a very good bill—the telecommunications bill. Most of the work on the bill was done by the previous National Government under Ministers like Amy Adams, and so at its heart it is a very good piece of legislation. But I, unfortunately, can’t, and the reason for that is—I wouldn’t say it was quite the eleventh hour, but near the eleventh hour, we received Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 118. The Supplementary Order Paper—and for the people watching at home, I’m not sure if you can see—is actually larger than the bill. The bill itself is 77 pages. The SOP is 95 pages, so it’s a very substantial SOP that’s been put forward by the Government.

The concern I have around that is process, because we received 257 submissions on the bill. All were very well considered. We received submissions from a range of organisations like the telecommunications industry, a number of law firms, and also interested individuals, and at no point have they been able to provide feedback on this 95-page Supplementary Order Paper that’s been put forward. Now, it’s fair to say that some of the issues that those submitters raised have been brought up in this SOP, but nowhere is there now the opportunity for them to provide feedback on this SOP at all. So it’s my contention that this bill should actually be returned back to the select committee to allow us to go through the SOP and consider the amendments that the Government’s put forward, because at the moment there is no democratic oversight—apart from a short, truncated process in this committee—for those to be considered.

There are some quite substantial changes that the Government’s recommended. I want to refer to some changes referred to in inserting a new section 232A into clause 33, which refers to a “Commission 111 contact code”, and it outlines a number of new requirements around a 111 emergency service. My colleague Ian McKelvie has spoken about this earlier in the debate, and I thought it was a very worthwhile contribution from a rural MP. I myself have got a large number of rural constituents as well. I think it’s fair to say that they’d like the opportunity to have some feedback on this provision as well, because we’re all concerned in this House to ensure that there is the availability of the 111 system and emergency services to people in rural areas, but the problem with this is that it’s been brought forward at the eleventh hour with no possibility for people to contribute on it.

It’s fair to say that we did grapple with this issue during the select committee process. It was raised by a number of submitters, and their concern was that they’d be, essentially, cut off with the new technologies that do emerge. It’s fair to say that we should be embracing innovation where possible and making sure that we do make use of new technologies as they come along, but this was a fundamental concern that submitters did have that people in rural areas would be cut off from the service. So, in some sense, it’s good to see that the Government’s listened to that and brought forward an SOP to make those changes, but, again, there is no possibility for members of the people to submit.

The other aspect which came up quite a lot during the select committee process was around health issues, and this was something, again, that the committee grappled with. We brought the Ministry of Health in to discuss it, because there was concern from people—again, particularly in rural areas—that with the rise of ultra-fast broadband and radio waves, their health would be impacted by that. So those issues haven’t really been addressed in this SOP, but nor did we expect them to be. We did ask for some advice from the Ministry of Health and we had them come in. We felt we were satisfied by the advice that they gave us that there were no additional concerns that they had in relation to the increased radio waves and the effect on health from that. But, it’s fair to say, we do have our concerns with the process.

We do support the bill overall. The SOP does make some worthwhile changes, but there are some things that the select committee should have been able to consider. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to do that. It’s been introduced at a very late stage in the process. It’s much longer than the bill itself, and I think that, unfortunately, leaves a real democratic hole when it comes to this bill and the opportunity for this House and our Parliament to consider it.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and can I just support the previous speakers in their comments. Yes, indeed, Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 118 is certainly a very substantive SOP. It’s probably the biggest SOP I’ve seen introduced in this Parliament—95 pages. In fact, it would be just about the same length—no. In fact, it’s longer than the bill that went through the select committee. So, obviously, there’s been a lot of discussion, talking, and to-ing and fro-ing between the Minister and his officials since we reported it back to the House.

Just to echo my colleague Andrew Falloon’s comments, certainly, when there are such substantive changes, perhaps it would have been wiser for the Minister to return the SOP to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee just to be updated, at least, and to have some input into those various other amendments that came. Perhaps the Minister in the chair tonight could explain to us some of those changes over those 95 pages. That would be very interesting.

I want to just touch on—as the previous speaker did speak regarding it—the 111 Commission contact code. There were quite a number of submitters who were very concerned that as they move away from copper, a system which they have some safety and security and certainly confidence in, to a purely digital form of communication—when there are, at times, power blackouts, as occurs on occasion throughout the country for various different reasons, they were concerned that they could have the assurance that they would be able to contact the emergency services, as the case may need at different times. So I would think some of the questions to the Minister are what suggestions have been proposed to the Minister by officials regarding options for the practical implementation of the Commission 111 contact code’s objective to “require the providers of those services to supply vulnerable consumers, at no cost to the consumers, with an appropriate means for contacting the 111 emergency service that can be operated for the minimum period in the event of a power failure;”, as proposed in the proposed new section 232A(3)(d) to be inserted in Part 7 in clause 33?

I guess those are, indeed, questions which people—particularly the elderly amongst our communities, who often have mobility challenges and issues—who want to be able to, if necessary, contact 111 have. That might be not for a fire, but it may actually be because they have fallen over in their house and they are unable to put themselves back on their feet. They need to have the confidence that if there was a power outage, they could have some sort of contact with an emergency service.

We would also want to know what specific class of persons—I’ve just mentioned one; that’s the elderly and perhaps those less mobile—have been indicated to the Minister by officials that would be considered as vulnerable people or persons under the Commission 111 contact code, and did the Minister and his officials engage with the emergency services of New Zealand? Did they get some feedback and did they seek some advice? Do they know how often somebody who might be a vulnerable person would contact an emergency service, so that, in fact, we do have a strong factual base on which these decisions can enable the Minister and the officials to, obviously, make recommendations, as they have in this SOP 118? Did the Minister and his officials engage not just with the emergency services but also New Zealand Police or the New Zealand Minister of Police about the suggested code as proposed, as well?

The Police Association, civil defence—there are multiple services and sectors where this information could be accessible. Certainly, for the sake of those people in our community who do consider themselves vulnerable, we want to ensure that we have a regulation that’s not just forward-looking but also takes into account their situations that they face and live in every day of their lives. That, to me, would express what a caring community is.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Amendments related to consumer matters, consequential amendments, and other miscellaneous amendments