Shaw James: Telecommunications (Development Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShaw James: Telecommunications (Development Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3733. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMES SHAW (Green): I have been listening to the debate on the Telecommunications (Development Levy) Amendment Bill and I am trying to sum up what the different objections and questions are that have been raised by various members previously—and there are nine that I can discern. I just wanted to flag these and to ask the Minister in the chair to provide some kind of response to these questions.The first question is of course about the concern that was raised earlier tonight when Spark released a press release saying that it was going to be passing along these costs to its customers. What is her response to Spark about that?The second question that I have got is around some of the questions that were raised to do with the quality of the connection. Is the work that has been done so far actually producing the kind of result that we would want it to? Are those connections actually working for people? Are they providing the kinds of benefits that we would expect?The third question is about the evaluation and the reporting of the existing Rural Broadband Initiative. Is it an effective way to spend the money? There have been questions raised about the sheer amount of money per connection. That has come up so we would want an answer to that.The fourth question that we have got which Gareth Hughes raised earlier is about the extent to which we are considering new technologies as part of this initiative. Is that being considered? And is the pace of change in these new technologies being considered? Is it possible that there will be a disruptive technology that will come along while we are still rolling out the existing solution that may actually render it redundant?The fifth question that we have got is about whether companies will have two bites of the cherry. As we understand it when the Government auctioned off the 700 megahertz spectrum it reached a contractual arrangement with Spark and with Vodafone to roll out cellphone towers which meant that they got a slightly reduced price on the spectrum. If that is correct will they be bidding for this new money essentially to be doing the same work? Will they get two bites of the cherry for the same piece of work?The sixth question is around process. Why is this being considered under urgency? I will leave it at that.The seventh question is related which is: why are we seeking funding for initiatives now before the policy details about how that money is going to be spenthave emerged and while the policy design is still being consulted on? Why do we have the cart before the horse in terms of seeking funding before we know the details of the policy?The eighth question is in relation to competition and our concern that was raised earlier about needing a more diverse and multiparty approach with different solutions for different rural communities.And the ninth question is: what is the Minister’s response to the two Supplementary Order Papers that are being put forward by Gareth Hughes and me?I do not know whether that is comprehensive. I have been trying to discern what the different objections and questions are that various members have raised. I may have missed some but if we could start with those nine I would be delighted. Thank you.