Telecommunications Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Media and Communications: I present a legislative statement on the Telecommunications Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon CHRIS PENK: I move, That the Telecommunications Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to consider the bill.

Telecommunications services are vital to New Zealanders’ lives, and the sector generally works well. But, as we all know, technology moves fast. This bill makes a series of targeted regulatory changes to ensure regulation keeps up with changes and Kiwis continue to have world-class connectivity services. There is a second bill that gives effect to the rest of the package of telecommunication regulatory changes that Cabinet agreed to, but I understand that this has not been approved across the House for association for first reading.

Beyond the targeted improvements in this bill, we are in the process of making other improvements to regulatory settings for the telecommunications sector. We’re making critical updates to the national environmental standards on telecommunications facilities as part of the Resource Management Act changes—or, rather, replacement—as well as removing barriers from the activities of fibre companies so that they can innovate and expand.

We’re also undertaking a broader communications systems-level review, led by both the Minister for Media and Communications and the Minister for Regulation. Decisions following that review are yet to be made, but I understand that Ministers have worked to avoid duplication between the changes made in this bill and the matters that the Ministry for Regulation has been looking into.

There are three key issues in the Telecommunications Amendment Bill. First, the bill makes permanent the rights that allow fibre providers to access shared property to install fibre. These rights were set to expire earlier this year and have had a short extension until 2028 to give us time to consult on their future. As many of you will know—colleagues, friends—fibre broadband has economic and social benefits that come from Kiwis making use of the high-speed, reliable telco services. But without these rights, some consumers will be at the mercy of an unresponsive or unsupportive neighbour if they want to use shared property to connect to fibre. Making the rights permanent reflects our commitment to supporting New Zealanders to connect to, and benefit from, high-quality telecommunications services.

This Government is also committed to protecting the rights of property owners, and so the bill makes the existing protection mechanisms for these people permanent as well. These protection mechanisms include access to dispute resolution, limits on how much shared property can be impacted, and requirements about how the impacted property is reinstated. The bill also allows for the rights to be invoked when a fibre installation order is placed directly with a fibre provider. At the moment, the rights can only be used when someone has ordered a fibre broadband plan from a retailer.

Developers or landlords are understandably reluctant to sign up to a broadband property for a property they’re not going to be living in just to get fibre installed. But the change in this bill means that a property owner—or, again, a developer—with a shared driveway can use the rights to get fibre installed before anyone moves in without having to sign up to a fibre broadband plan. It will therefore support more properties to be fibre-ready and improve access to fibre for more New Zealanders. The protection mechanisms for affected property owners will also apply in these circumstances, balancing the benefits for consumers who want to connect with fibre with impacts on other property owners.

To the second of the three promised areas, the bill makes it mandatory for large retail telecommunications companies to be part of an industry dispute resolution scheme if they aren’t already. Many of our biggest telecommunications providers have already voluntarily joined a scheme, which is great. However, we’re seeing that as the telco industry evolves, more New Zealanders are finding themselves without access to a telecommunications dispute resolution scheme. Given the number of complaints relating to the telco sector each year, it is important that consumers can escalate their concerns to an industry dispute resolution scheme.

We’re conscious that membership in such a scheme does come with costs for the provider. The bill creates a revenue threshold for when a telco provider needs to join the scheme to balance the benefits for consumers with the impact on the industry. The threshold mitigates the impact on membership fees for these telco providers, meaning that there is still a low barrier to the entry to market, supporting completion, competition, and innovation. The bill widens the type of schemes that can be recognised as industry dispute resolution schemes for the purposes of the Act.

Since providers that aren’t already in the telecommunications dispute resolution scheme will need to join one, the bill ensures that the Act is flexible enough to recognise schemes set up by providers outside the traditional telecommunications industry. Indeed, this change reflects that more Kiwis are buying their telco services from non-traditional telecommunications companies like electricity providers. All industry dispute resolution schemes will continue to be reviewed by the Commerce Commission—fear not—meaning that any poor performance of new schemes can be addressed.

Third and final, the bill creates a new regulation-making power so that telecommunications development levy amounts can be set in regulations. The levy funds non-commercial telecommunications services and infrastructure and has been critical to some of our most successful rural broadband programmes, but the amount of the levy is currently set in the Act. This means that if there is a need to increase the levy to respond to a specific connectivity challenge, a full parliamentary process is required to amend the Act.

If we really want to be able to use the levy to meet its purpose of addressing non-commercial telecommunications challenges—and I think we do—then we need greater flexibility. By amending the Act so that the amount of the levy is set in regulations, we’ll be better placed to respond to connectivity challenges as they arise. To balance this increased flexibility, any regulation that increases the levy amount will need to have consultation with telecommunications providers that pay the levy. This addresses some early stakeholder concern about a lack of checks and balances.

I think it’s important to note that decision making on increases currently need to go through the House, and so we’re engaged in the process of balancing the need for accountability and a robust process, on the other hand, with the ease of being able to do the business of changing that as need be.

The bill will allow for necessary flexibility to set the amount at an appropriate level while keeping regulatory uncertainty to a minimum. The bill also makes minor and technical amendments to improve clarity and make consequential amendments. For example, the bill amends a set of regulations to reflect the Commerce Commission no longer accepts cheques.

At a high level, this bill is about making sure we have the right regulatory settings in place for an important market. The targeted changes in this bill support competition, foster innovation, and help stimulate economic growth. I encourage members and the public to have their say on this bill through the select committee process, and, in the meantime, I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s good to have an opportunity to confirm that Labour supports efforts to modernise the regulation of the telecommunications sector.

As we know, there’s a complicated and complex set of physical infrastructure across New Zealand—both terrestrial and satellite infrastructure—that enables the telecommunications sector in New Zealand. Despite all of that, there are still gaps and blind spots within New Zealand where we can’t connect or are unable to connect for various reasons. What needs to happen is that that legislation that governs telecommunications in New Zealand needs to close up the gaps in the same way that we would then be empowered to close up the gaps in connectivity across the country. We know that connectivity is crucial, and we see that no more so than in times of natural disasters or, as someone on this side of the House suggested, Mother’s Day! Yes, it’s very important that connectivity is available at that time of the year as well. We do welcome the move from the Minister to bring the regulatory environment in line with modern industry practice.

What this bill does, as part of a programme of regulatory reform, is ensure that the regulatory environment that the telecommunications sector operates in is fit for purpose and consistent with changes that have occurred in the industry. It’s a very fast-moving industry, which is why the legislation needs to move to not just keep up but to, in fact, get ahead of that. Right now, membership of an industry dispute resolution scheme is voluntary, and the Commerce Commission estimates that 200,000 consumers don’t have access to a dispute resolution mechanism—which is a lot of people who would be unable to progress or raise claims or complains, should they need to, about issues to do with their telecommunications connectivity.

The bill will mandate that telecommunications providers with an annual revenue of more than $50 million must be members of an industry dispute resolution scheme. This is set at $50 million to maintain a lower barrier to entry. The bill makes the rights for fibre internet providers to access shared property to install fibre permanent. These rights were set to expire earlier this year, but that had already been extended through to 2028, and this bill now makes that permanent. It allows the Minister responsible for the Telecommunications Act to set the telecommunications capabilities, like the Rural Broadband Initiative, through Order in Council. It’s currently set at $10 million per annum in Schedule 3B of the Act, and increasing it would require an amendment to the Telecommunications Act through the normal parliamentary process. The bill also empowers the Commerce Commission with a role considering requests for regulatory exemptions for the smaller fibre companies, which is also an important thing for us to see happen as well.

One of the other things I wanted to raise as we discuss the subject matter of this bill and the services that it provides to New Zealanders and connects us with is that, earlier this week, I had the opportunity to attend the Spark Accelerate summit in Auckland, which happened over two days, on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. That was a really impressive showcase of some of the opportunities to innovate and to increase productivity across our business sector and our business community, which is fantastic. It also provides enormous opportunity, through connectivity, for us to empower communities—rural communities, regional communities, isolated communities, and also some of our underserved communities in our cities and in our urban centres who, up until now, haven’t been able to, or, for many reasons, aren’t able to enjoy the level of connectivity and the level of service that they need and deserve to have.

One final note that I really wanted to reference in closing is that there was a request for this bill to be wrapped into the Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill on the Order Paper, but I think that it’s very important that, given the differences in the two bills, and the different areas that each of them seeks to address, we need to keep those bills separate, and we need to deal with the issues in each separately because they are separate issues. We do support the bill, but we think it’s important to take the time to get the legislative infrastructure right.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Greens are supporting the Telecommunications Amendment Bill, and we look forward to having a constructive conversation at the select committee stage and engaging with submitters on the issue. As others have canvassed, what this bill does is it sets up a dispute resolution scheme for high-revenue telecommunication providers and makes other minor changes to the Telecommunications Act. I think this is a worthwhile bill to support because enhancing consumer rights and improving dispute resolutions are good things that I think can build cross-party consensus. This shows that, actually, should the Government choose to prioritise its legislative agenda towards the rights of consumers, we could probably be having far more constructive conversations in the select committee stage and in the House, unlike the previous debate we held, which clearly was driven by one party and one party alone.

I think it’s important here to put in context that Chorus was initially set up to provide ultra-fast broadband. That has been quite successful and important to modernise our economy and for access to information and other services. I think it’s good that this bill will also, then, look at the next steps in relation to extending the right for fibre providers to access your property to install fibre. I think there’s other conversations we need to have in relation to the dispute resolution scheme because, in some ways, that, in and of itself, will lead to consumers having better outcomes.

One of the things that I’ve noted in the context of this bill has been the broader political conversation around the purpose of Chorus moving forward. The Government did, effectively, invest in Chorus when the roll-out of the fibre settings were being put in place. I think the services that Chorus provide, in my view, should be a public good, and we should work towards that because access to services like internet are actually becoming essential services. We saw that during, for example, the pandemic. For those entities that help provide that very same infrastructure, we should be empowering them to broaden the services that they can provide but ensure that they are also retained in the public good. While it is good to see that this bill is being introduced to better support consumers and broaden the services that Chorus can provide, I think it’s important also that the Government, in its broader political and economic agenda, enhances the ability for Chorus to remain, as I mentioned earlier, within the public good.

There are also other provisions in this bill that we look forward to examining in greater detail at the select committee stage, which includes allowing a telecommunications development levy to be set through regulations, as opposed to primary legislation, and this would be led by the Minister in charge. This is, I think, something that feels practical. Often things that are set within primary legislation end up not necessarily keeping up with the times or the economic conditions, so having provisions for these levies to be set through regulations by the Minister is a useful way in which we ensure that we can adapt to the different economic outlooks and also what the industry at large looks like. We also have, in this bill, the provision for the Commerce Commission to fulfil roles given to it by the constitutions of Enable Fibre, Northpower, and Tuatahi First Fibre with ministerial approval. All of these changes, I think, are things that are common sense.

We commend the Government for bringing this bill forward. As I said earlier, I think one of the key things that will continue this constructive conversation will be submitters’ engagement with this bill. I look forward to members of the public, people who may have an interest within those industries, participating in the select committee stage, but also, within the select committee stage, to us continuing to honour the accessibility of participation by members of the public. I also reflect on the fact that we’re receiving a lot of submissions to the Standing Orders Committee and on the fact that, I think, bills like this one are a great example where I hope we receive an above-average amount of submissions from the public. It should not always be bills that rally up a lot of outrage—rightfully, in many cases—that get public engagement, and the protections for the public to engage with bills like this one, in my view, should be protected. We look forward to continuing to hopefully support this bill, and we commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT and speak on the Telecommunications Amendment Bill. You know, ACT is proud to be part of this well-functioning Government. It’s actually been interesting coming into Parliament and, obviously, being involved in select committees and in part of the Government. A lot of the work we’re doing is actually fixing up areas where things have been neglected for some time. This is another excellent example of where we’re taking a targeted approach to updating the Telecommunications Act 2001, which is actually quite old now, if you think about 2001 and think about all the technology changes that have happened.

Back in 2001, no one would have imagined that we would now actually have a satellite network around the world that can deliver internet to you anywhere in New Zealand. I know members across the House who use phones that are supplied by Parliament will now know that that service is actually available anywhere in New Zealand to actually get communications on your phone even when you’re not near a cell tower. So those are the kinds of changes we’ve seen even in what could be described as a relatively short period of time.

This bill just seeks to make some very sensible updates and actually add to the existing dispute resolution scheme by making it mandatory for certain companies with over $50 million in revenue to have to join the scheme. Our broadband roll-out in New Zealand has been very successful and we want to ensure that where there are these issues around enabling access to shared properties, that can still be done. Actually, if you look in the bill—and if people have got time, there is a great example. Sometimes these bills are great; they have little examples of what they’re talking about. They use the example of a three-storey apartment building and why needing this shared access is appropriate, so that’s a very sensible change.

We’ve got some other minor updates around the telecommunications development levy, and we’re going to set that by regulation. We’ve got a bit of an expansion to the role of the Commerce Commission in relation to very specific companies, and some other technical updates.

All in all, this is actually a very, very sensible piece of legislation to make sure that the Telecommunications Act remains fit for purpose. It’s very encouraging to see that—we’ve already heard all the parties that have spoken so far are going to support this to select committee, which I think is very good, because it is at the select committee that any of the specific details can be worked through. I’m sure this will get a number of submissions, particularly from telecommunications providers and users, I suppose, of telecommunications services as well. They will be able to go through the details of this bill and identify any issues. I know that the select committee will work diligently to make sure that when this is returned to the House, any issues have been identified. This is a very sensible update and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Telecommunications Amendment Bill. This is a particular area which I have a lot of interest in as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for communications with the delegation of rural connectivity.

The telecommunications industry provides an essential service—in fact, some would say it’s a critical service. The industry provides the foundation of every modern service that we consume. We, in fact, have high-class digital infrastructure networks in New Zealand—we should be very proud of that. We know that the high-quality digital connectivity drives economic growth; it increases productivity, social inclusion, and access to essential services like healthcare; and, of course, education is enhanced by it. It empowers rural, remote, and hard-to-reach regions to thrive.

Also, whether you’re high-tech farming; whether you’ve got a quarry that needs intelligent quarrying systems; if you’re into gaming development, PikPok—went to visit them this week, doing marvellous work—emergency management, we see that they are increasingly integrating high-tech tools to enhance preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. We have 87 percent of the country covered, now connected, through the Ultra-Fast Broadband Programme, Rural Broadband Initiative as well, and the Marae Digital Connectivity Programme. So we do have, in fact, a telecommunications network that is the backbone of our daily lives in ways that we couldn’t have imagined mere years ago.

I’ll mention a couple of changes in this bill. We’ll be changing to the telecommunications dispute resolution scheme, where we’re raising that threshold—where a telco or an internet service provider being part of that dispute resolution scheme—from $10 million to $50 million; raising that threshold. I’ll give you an example of a Manawatū Inspire Net. They deliver internet services right across the Manawatū to the council, a lot of land area, as well as Massey University. In the last 26 years they’ve had two complaints. Do they need to be part of that disputes resolution scheme? They’re only a small provider; they don’t meet that big threshold. So no. It’s common sense and practical, the changes we are making here.

Access to shared property: we’ve heard others mention that this is a practical and pragmatic change. We’re making sure that the current temporary rights to accessing shared property—so if you live at the end of a shared driveway, your front neighbour can’t block you getting fibre. That’s a great change in this bill; and that telecommunications development levy, also known as the TDL, it’s currently sitting at $10 million. It was $50 million originally when we rolled out the broadband; through regulation instead of through legislation, we could change that up at some point and that regulation will be managed by the Minister for Media and Communications.

Lastly—but not least—local fibre companies (LFCs): we are going to make sure that they can operate in line with the permitted activities of Chorus. This will level up their playing field; this is long overdue. It’ll allow these LFCs to create additional lines of business, expand their networks further into rural communities—which New Zealand First believes is extremely important. They’ve found ways of being creative with their business cases, but this actually will help them to expand further and deeper into rural areas. This is really important to ensure the economics will actually be the right bridge to cross. I just want to acknowledge the local fibre companies, Enable networks, Tuatahi First Fibre, and Northpower—the OG of LFC—for the great discussions that we’ve had. Also acknowledging the team at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—James and Deb—for the great discussions we’ve had. Thanks for listening. I commend the bill to the House.

This Government has made one thing abundantly clear—its determination is to push ahead and strip away what it calls red tape; rules and so on that it believes hold back the progress of our country. We saw that approach in the passing of the Regulatory Standards Bill, a piece of legislation we unequivocally oppose. Unfortunately, we didn’t get the opportunity to speak to that bill, but let me be clear: progress cannot come at the expense of accountability or the voices of our people, and that rings true even for the Telecommunications Amendment Bill, which I stand to speak to.

At first glance, the Telecommunications Amendment Bill may seem straightforward but it’s remarkable how outdated regulations can stifle even the most basic functions of modern infrastructure. This bill updates the rules for phone and internet providers so they keep pace with rapid technological change. It permanently allows fibre providers to access shared properties, apartment buildings, and multi-owned land to install fibre internet. It also requires large telecommunications companies to join a dispute resolution scheme, giving consumers a simpler path to resolve complaints. It gives the Government flexibility to set the communications levy, it expands the Commerce Commission’s oversight of fibre companies, and it makes technical changes for clarity and efficiency.

These are good things on paper—necessary things. But we must look deeper at the implications for Māori. One concern is how permanent site access might extend to shared Māori land. The disclosure statement assures us that the safeguards under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act apply, and that provides some reassurance, but greater engagement from te iwi Māori is required in shaping these provisions further.

Our position is to support this bill at first reading, not because it’s perfect but because it deserves full scrutiny at select committee, where te iwi Māori can be heard and amendments considered. Progress must never come at the cost of partnership—that’s the principle we continue to uphold. Thank you for the opportunity take this call, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou.

Now, Ms Kapa-Kingi, the requirement would be that that was the Te Pāti Māori call. Did you have the go-ahead from Te Pāti Māori to take that call?

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: I didn’t have a direct conversation.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): All right, OK—probably a mistake on my part but I’m happy that, in future, to take that call that will be a requirement. If you’re taking another party’s call, you’ll need to actually get their permission.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ka pai.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): A wonderful speech anyway.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is with great pleasure that I rise in support of the Telecommunications Amendment Bill. It’s great to hear support around the House for this piece of legislation. Of course, the National Party has a long history when it comes to telecommunication because it was Steven Joyce who rolled out the ultra-fast broadband right across the country—

Simon Court: Such a good project.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: —such a great project; thank you, Mr Court—which has allowed so much progress here in New Zealand. Actually, my colleague to my left, Tom Rutherford, the MP for the Bay of Plenty, actually remembers before ultra-fast broadband, when we had dial-up, so, maybe, he’s not as young as I thought he was. But the thing is, there’s been a lot of development in the telecommunications field. I must give a shout-out to RIVIR, based in Christchurch, which has developed world-leading technology when it comes to the Internet of Things over satellites. A couple of months ago, I had the great pleasure of talking in depth with the founder there about the great work that they’re doing and the usefulness of being able to monitor things in far-flung places. It does just highlight how far we have come when it comes to telecommunications.

I do just want to get back to this bill because, really, what it is about is actually modernising our telecommunications legislation to enhance that even further. Of course, we need a reliable high-quality network and digital connectivity to improve our productivity. It’s essential to growing our economy and easing the cost of living. Of course, these days, with artificial intelligence and a range of other technologies, we need that communication. We’ve also heard about smart farming and other options, which are just going to require more data, and we need to make sure that we are up to date with our telecommunications. Of course, this bill introduces regulatory changes to improve telecommunication services, particularly in those rural and hard-to-reach places. I know there are areas in New Zealand which still could be considered hard to reach. Of course, there is now satellite communication with some of our mobile networks, which is interesting and great, because it helps support that innovation and economic growth by enabling better connectivity.

It’s not just connectivity for households; it’s also about businesses and essential services. Regulatory barriers do prevent smaller, maybe more local, fibre solutions or companies from offering a diverse array of services, and, of course, that will be addressed. I know there are companies in Christchurch that are looking forward to that happening.

Rural Kiwis will see improved access to reliable, high-quality digital connectivity. That helps for remote learning, but also we want to have more digital healthcare. This Government, of course, has rolled out telehealth, a great way to maybe see your GP; maybe you can’t get into the local one, but maybe if you have a cold or something like that, you can have digital healthcare, which is really, really important. This bill really supports innovation, investment, and delivery of world-class connectivity services across New Zealand. Of course, that connectivity connects us with the rest of the world. Therefore, I commend this bill to House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a bill that Labour supports because improvements to consumers’ experience of telecommunications in New Zealand is important to everyone, and this is something we intend to work through carefully at select committee, to really understand what the trade-offs were here for the Government. There are a few noted in the regulatory impact statement, like a move from what was consulted on from the option to mandate membership in the industry dispute resolution scheme for retail providers from $10 million, and it’s gone up to $50 million in this bill, and some other changes like a ministerial regulation-making power over the Telecommunications Development Levy, which is important to all New Zealanders.

I want to draw the House’s attention to the information that we’ve been presented with here. It says just at the top of the page, pretty plainly, “A programme of regulatory reform is underway to ensure that the telecommunications regulatory regime continues to support a well-functioning telecommunications market”. That statement suggests that there is more to come, and I would ask the Ministers: what is more to come here? What can the House expect, that might be introduced, say, at the select committee stage or at the committee of the whole House stage, no doubt, that would make this a priority for a Government that has a busy legislative agenda and more to do, when these changes are relatively minor, relatively technical, and make a small change to the improvements that consumers can expect?

I’ve heard from the Under-Secretary, Jenny Marcroft, that this makes a big change to the local fibre companies, and it does. It is important for rural connectivity here that they come within the remit of the Commerce Commission, but that has been a change long-signalled—I think since 2011—and it is pretty well understood in the industry. So what else in here is planned? We know that the Government has flagged up an intention to sell off State assets, and one of those is Chorus. Can we expect other changes that will impact on Chorus’s ability to continue to offer public benefit through telecommunications infrastructure? As the member for Ilam noted, National has a long history of proud State investment in Chorus and the fibre roll-out. That is something to be proud of: National walking back on its State-asset commitment to that important infrastructure, and, also, overseeing, while under the John Key Government, a break-up of the telecommunications sector that was allowed by—quite innovative at the time—competition rules that allowed a third player to enter the market. Can we expect further market consolidation under this Government’s watch, as we have in other important sectors like in energy and in supermarkets?

I want to just highlight, for our work at the select committee, the things that I will be most interested in. The first is the dispute resolution scheme. It’s great to see the Government mandating membership of an industry dispute resolution scheme. It would be useful if other consumers in other industries, where complaints are really important, had a mechanism of accountability. We’ve had that from this Government, but we haven’t seen that in financial services or in consumer credit. So my questions will be around how far this extends, why the threshold at $10 million has been changed to $50 million, which would essentially be the bigger providers, when a huge range of consumers will miss out on those dispute resolution mechanisms if that threshold is changed higher. It is sensible that all consumers have access to a well-functioning dispute resolution scheme, and you would think that it would also be in the Government’s interest to make sure that consumers could raise complaints about fairness and about service quality when that is so important to our economy.

I’ll also be asking questions about the development levy. You know, just for the House’s context, that is a levy that subsidises telecommunications capacity in the public interest, and it has been so since 2011. Things like rural broadband, black spots, telecommunications service obligation-relay services for the deaf and hearing impaired, and connectivity to the Chathams are all things that their levy pays for. Why would we set a new regulation-making power, where the incentives to the Minister were to set that down, when this pays for such important public infrastructure for people to communicate with each other and to do business in Aotearoa? Those are the questions I’ll be asking.

This bill could be dealing with things like bill transparency for consumers; copper withdrawal by Chorus through many of our towns and rural areas; retail-service quality, which is declining in New Zealand for telecommunications customers, particularly over the three major providers; and phone consumer-credit debt, where affordability is a huge issue for most New Zealand consumers. I’ll be asking why in this bill are those things not addressed?

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s great to stand up and make a contribution on the Telecommunications Amendment Bill. I was just talking with my colleague Hamish Campbell next to me; he was telling me about a time he can remember when the internet was being created, and I can’t remember a time when we didn’t have the internet available. You’re looking at a bit of chalk and cheese on this side of the House, but it’s great to have both of us contributing on this legislation, because it’s good to have a variety of perspectives on the legislation, and lived experience, Mr Campbell, I think, would be really important. It’s great to stand up and speak about it.

It is an important piece of legislation, as Arena Williams was talking about in her contribution as well. The following piece of legislation that will be coming through the House shortly as well is the Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill. Both of these are making sort of targeted changes to the regulatory settings, which, from our Government, is really important because, number one, it supports economic growth; competition, which is really good to have in the telecommunications market; and, ultimately, better outcomes for consumers. These legislative changes seek to ensure that the regulatory regime keeps pace with changes in the market and remains fit for purpose, and I think that’s a really important part around legislation—ensuring that, as I talked about last night regarding Deborah Russell’s companies address members’ bill, it’s really important that legislation is agile and not nostalgic, and actually is prepared to change and adjust as times change and develop. I think this piece of legislation and the supplementary Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill is going to do exactly the same as well.

Let’s talk about some of the key provisions that are included in the legislation. We know that reliable and high-quality digital connectivity both improves productivity and is essential to growing our economy and easing the cost of living. We know that’s really, really important for us. We also know that this bill is introducing regulatory changes to improve telecommunications services—particularly, as Arena Williams also highlighted in her contribution, in those really rural and hard-to-reach areas. It’s really important for those communities to have increased and improved access to telecommunications services, particularly in our rural and hard-to-reach areas.

The bill does also support competition, innovation, and economic growth by enabling better connectivity for households, businesses, and essential services. Regulatory barriers that are preventing smaller, local fibre companies from offering diverse services will be removed, and I think that is really, fundamentally important for competition, and for your normal household, those in rural communities, but also businesses to know that local fibre companies are offering diverse services. The regulatory barriers they have will be removed, which is really, really important for competition. As I’ve been talking about with rural New Zealanders, they’ll see improved access to reliable, high-quality digital connectivity, which is a really good thing for our rural communities—they are the backbone of New Zealand, and to support them in this space is really, really important, and the legislation does exactly that.

It also focuses on better connectivity supports for remote learning, digital healthcare, as Hamish Campbell talked about in his contribution—

Jenny Marcroft: So did I.

TOM RUTHERFORD: And so did Jenny Marcroft as well. We are rolling that out as a Government and wanting to take it further, so having access to digital healthcare is really, really important, and this legislation supports it. It enables it to go further, for more Kiwis to get access to digital healthcare, and that’s a good thing. That is a really, really good thing. It also provides economic opportunities for local businesses.

The bill also supports innovation, investment, and the delivery of world-class connectivity services across New Zealand, and it amends the rules governing certain local fibre companies—LFCs—so that Enable Networks, Tuatahi First Fibre, and Northpower Fibre can have more types of activity, sort of similar to Chorus and what we see that they do across New Zealand, encouraging wider service provision.

My last two points are around how it helps to unlock the growth potential of regional fibre companies, which are really important, so that they can actually better serve their communities and compete more effectively and create more competition in the market, which is a good thing. When you have increased competition, what does it do? It drives down costs for households and for businesses. That’s a really important thing to do in the economy, and a really important thing for New Zealand families with the cost of living—drive down costs for households and businesses. This is a great piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. This bill does a lot of things. I’m not sure if it’s driving down prices for households quite as much as the last speaker, Tom Rutherford, said. But, hey, if that does something in this, I guess we’ll support it, because we want to deal with issues such as the cost of living. As I listened across the House to a piece of legislation I know very little about—and it’s in a wheelhouse that’s not my own. It is always good to understand, and here are the experts in the room or those with the good speaking notes from their parties to talk about what this bill is and what it does.

The previous speaker also admitted that he’s only lived in a life where he has known the internet and that kind of thing. It is amazing how quickly the world changes and how often this House doesn’t always keep up with the rapidly changing nature of technology in the world. I don’t want to age you, Mr Speaker, so I won’t, but I remember a time when I used to visit my grandparents and we had great joy in the party line that they had on their street and the ability to—“Was this our ring or was this not our ring?”, in terms of the different rings it had and—listen in to other calls. Obviously, that has changed rapidly over time to everyone having a fixed telephone in their home—generally one, maybe two, but always fixed on the wall—to the fact now that we have telecommunications in our pockets almost anywhere.

I want to raise just a couple of reflections on this bill and, I guess, the autonomy of Aotearoa New Zealand and how we make sure that we’re getting it right. I was reflecting that in Taranaki we have a fibre provider called Primo. Interestingly, about three, four months ago, the Australian Navy came through and, using their Australian navy technology and radar, accidentally knocked out the whole of our telecommunications—well, it was for Primo in Taranaki. It was a complete mistake. It wasn’t intentional, but it definitely was a challenge. Yep, there are challenges with the spectrum space, but the reason I say that is because we have, obviously, international players like Starlink and others that are in the game, but if we can get our telecommunications, our connectivity, right, then I think it’s good for New Zealand and for “New Zealand Inc.” that we’re protecting our own brand and who we are.

As I look through this legislation, I see that it mandates telecommunications industry dispute resolutions, which will mean that yes, consumers are better served. But then I was interested, as I flicked through—where is it? I’ve just lost it now, but it was somewhere here. It was very interesting. Part of the programme is the regulatory reform to ensure that the regulatory environment the telecommunications sector operates in is fit for purpose and consistent with changes that have occurred in the industry.

I was surprised by this part, that the reality that is right now is that membership of an industry dispute resolution scheme is voluntary. If you think that telecommunications is such a key part of our everyday life, the fact that it’s currently voluntary actually staggered me. The fact that this legislation will ensure that the Commerce Commission is able to establish and ensure that the rights of consumers are protected is a good thing.

Finally, it is good to see, as was said, that it is often about the smaller players. The fact is that there is scope and there is space in this legislation for those smaller players to stay in line with the Commerce Commission rules and regulations, but they’ll have exemptions within this. I think that is good because there are small community groups that are engaged and we need to support that.

Finally, we support this bill because it is simple and practical. As my colleague Arena Williams has said, we look forward to taking it to select committee because that is a space where we take something which we agree with, but then we ensure that it is properly pulled apart, critiqued, challenged, we have engagement from industry, from members of the public, and it’s put back together and comes back into this House fit for purpose for the coming years.

Well, that was a long five minutes, wasn’t it, members? Look, there’s a lot to be proud about our telecommunications sector. We have one of the highest rates of connectivity in the developed world, thanks to the previous National Government’s roll-out of fibre by Steven Joyce. I also want to mention the Hon Amy Adams, who also led that effort. We also have a lot to be proud about retail competition. We’ve got lots of players in the retail competition market, and that is, I think, thanks to one of the former Labour Governments who really broke up the sector and encouraged greater competition. There’s also a lot of innovation: satellites, data centres, artificial intelligence—there’s lots going on. I think there’s lots to be proud about. This bill is about making some cosmetic changes to improve the regulations—Rima is going to tug my arm very shortly. I think this is a good bill, and I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The question is, That the Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill be considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.