Curran Clare: Telecommunications (Development Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: Telecommunications (Development Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3756. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I would like to speak in support of the Green Party’s two Supplementary Order Papers. I suppose I would make the comment that this is the discussion that we would have been having in the select committee if we had been able to have a select committee hearing. In fact I would argue that the Committee of the whole House stage tonight has been like a select committee hearing although it has been fairly one-sided because the ability to have a proper debate with all of the parties has not actually occurred which is one of our main problems with this bill. We are also unable through this process to hear from submitters representing consumers from different communities throughout rural New Zealand. The only chance that we have had to do that is through a select committee process with some petitioners from specific rural communities just outside of Dunedin who had very strong views.With regard to the two Supplementary Order Papers before the Committee I would argue that they hit some of the nails on the head with regard to the concerns around the problems that lie with the existing Rural Broadband Initiative. The problem that I have and that the Labour Party has is that we are unable to judge the value of the existing Rural Broadband Initiative in these terms. It is only an amendment to the Telecommunications (Development Levy) Amendment Bill that goes forward for the next tranche of the Rural Broadband Initiative; therefore there is no ability for there to be an in-depth discussion about matters such as diversity for non-urban communities.I would contend that competition is one of the most important things here and I just draw your attention to page 7 of the regulatory impact statement to point No. 17 where it says that it is anticipated that much of the future telecommunications development levy funding earmarked for Rural Broadband Initiative extensions could be allocated to the larger telecommunications development levy players if they secure contracts to supply infrastructure for the Rural Broadband Initiative extensions. Well right there is a significant issue. The whole purpose of the Rural Broadband Initiative or one of the purposes was for it to be open access—for the infrastructure to be built but for there to be the ability for other players to come in and for there to be a competitive environment. We do not think that that has occurred; or if it has it has occurred only in a very limited way. But we are not absolutely sure because there has not been a proper evaluation done. Here we have a regulatory impact statement telling us that the next tranche may be dominated by big players. If that is the case then is that the best expenditure of the money?The competition aspect of Supplementary Order Paper 83 is quite critical in ensuring that the different technological options that may best serve particular non-urban communities are available. With regard to that I am not quite sure what that is referring to specifically but I am hoping that it is referring to the fact that 5 megabits which was offered in the initial Rural Broadband Initiative is patently insufficient particularly in the era of Netflix where rural New Zealand is basically unable to access the new technologies and the new content offers that are coming into our country. It is urban New Zealand that is going to be able to access and benefit from those and enjoy those things and rural New Zealand is just not going to have the capacity. These are really critical issues and they are critical issues that should have been teased out in a select committee with the full ability for submitters to come before us. That is not going to happen. Instead the shadowy entity that is the Rural Broadband Initiative is going to be allowed to continue on unchecked and with no accountability. We implacably oppose that.