Cunliffe David: Telecommunications (Development Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCunliffe David: Telecommunications (Development Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3753. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): The clause that we are currently debating is clause 3 which directs the Committee to the principal Act being the Telecommunications Act 2001. I think that it is important for the Committee to bear in mind the history of the development of that Act—in terms of the shaking of the Chairman’s head which means that one might want to stay somewhat closer to the detail of the Act. Therefore this is not the occasion on which to go into the Fletcher inquiry and the review that followed the legislative process which as I recall was a full process that included a very wide set of consultations with the community. It led later to amendments to the Act in around 2005-06 following a 6-month review called if I remember rightly the “Stocktake Review” at which every single company was brought in and the nature of the issues confronting the industry were surfaced and a set of quite far-reaching amendments were brought into play which broke up the incumbent telecommunications monopoly which unbundled the local loop which set in place I think a pretty proactive regulatory framework that brought completion to bear in the industry while at the same time protecting consumer rights and property rights.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to interrupt the member now to remind him—[Interruption]—that the Committee has accepted the principle of the change. Who said that? The member will stand withdraw and apologise.Jacqui Dean: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am just seeking your clarification. For what am I withdrawing and apologising?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): You are withdrawing and apologising for yelling out while I was on my feet. You were the member who pleaded guilty I think to making the noise. Is that right?Jacqui Dean: Is the Chair asking me a question?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I will apologise to the member if I have got it wrong but I thought the member was the member who yelled out and that she did indicate that she was. That is why the member withdrew and apologised.Jacqui Dean: Yes I did. It is just that I was pointing out to the member that it is the normal procedure of this Committee that when the Chair is on his feet members sit down and I was merely reminding the member of that fact. I was trying to be helpful. If I am guilty of anything I—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member will now resume her seat—[Interruption]—and I will remind her that when anyone in the Chair is on their feet the member should sit down. It is the role of the Chair to enforce that rule and not the role of any other member. Although I might need some coaching the member is welcome to do that at some stage outside the Chamber.Mr Cunliffe going back to the point that I was making: this is a very narrow bill. It is the most substantive clause in the bill but it is a very narrow bill and it does not go back to either the origins of the Act or the 2005 reforms. I think one might be able to go to the amount we are talking about and that shape of it.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Thank you for the clarification Mr Chairman. I guess the point that I was trying to come to albeit a little slowly is that the process that this amendment here is following is so different from the process that the principal Act went through on several occasions. Here we are going through a process of urgency without the benefit of a select committee—and I know that that is something that you Mr Chairman will be taking into account by allowing for a full debate of these albeit quite specific clauses.The reason that that is an issue is that a number of members have made the point that there has been no evaluation of the existing $300 million programme that is enshrined in legislation including its sunset clause. Mr Chairman you may not have been privy to the statement from the Telecommunications Carriers Forum that drew attention to the fact that this new tax is overriding provisions made in law for the sunsetting of the previous obligations. That is a serious matter; one which members—certainly of this party if not this side of the Chamber—would wish to see investigated thoroughly by a select committee which has the benefit of public submissions from the industry as well as consumer groups. I think I have made the point that I need to make.In summary this is amending a very substantive piece of legislation. It has fiscal consequences. I think it is now generally accepted by the House that this is a new tax—that this is a breach of an undertaking that the Government did give to the people of New Zealand that there would be no new taxes. I think that is now quite widely accepted around the House. It has certainly been stated on multiple occasions not only by individual companies but also by the industry group concerned the Telecommunications Carriers Forum. And as such we are in the situation where we are amending through urgency a very important piece of tax law.Earlier Mr Faafoi was going to draw the attention of the Houseto a matter that is close to Mr Bennett’s heart—that the generic tax policy process has been thwarted on this occasion. As members opposite well know when a piece of legislation goes through—either by amendment to a principal Act as in this case or when it is a new Act that has revenue consequences—there is an established convention during the generic tax policy process that the accounting profession and the legal profession are consulted to ensure that there are no unintended fish-hooks in the design of the legislation and there is a sharing process normally over a period of about 6 to 9 months where feedback is sought and consultation occurs. This way there are no surprises. The industry implementation issues are thrashed through. None of that—none of that—is occurring in this case. I am sure that Mr Bennett will want to rise to his feet and express his condemnation of the Minister for this outrageous breach of standard tax process; one that has kept the country safe over many years.Recalling very briefly the impact from the previous clause around the commencement issues there is no fixed date for commencement.