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:3731. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): There are so many things to say. I am going to start my contribution in the Committee stage addressing clause 1 by talking to the history of the telecommunications development levy and the legislation within which it sits. The Telecommunications Act was passed in this House in 2001 with a vote of 65 to 52. One of the most interesting things about that vote was that the ACT Party which then had five members in the House split their vote. Three members voted against and two members voted in favour. The two who voted in favour were the two who had been sitting through the select committee process for the whole time.That piece of legislation split Telecom in half. It was structural separation. The Labour Party did not oppose that. It did not oppose that at all. The person sitting on my left was the Minister for Communications who brought in the legislation for the operational separation of Telecom. We did not oppose that. What we opposed was the process and the setting up of a monopoly—a monopoly that is now called Chorus which was set up to be given handed over on a plate the contract for the ultra-fast broadband project. We opposed that implacably we opposed the way it was done and we opposed the concessions and handouts that it was given along the way to do that.Chorus has now become the monopoly provider of 60 percent of the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband at the same time as being the monopoly that has the copper network which sits alongside that and has continued to provide problems.In that legislation was the establishment of the telecommunications development levy. Labour did not oppose that part of the legislation. We never opposed that because we knew the benefits of providing a fund that was provided by the industry for the provision of services that could not be got through the market. My colleague over here talked about the market gap. There are many market gaps in this country with regard to the digital divide. There are market gaps within urban areas as well with people who cannot afford to access broadband cannot afford to access home phones anymore and use prepaid mobile phones. There are people who are disadvantaged particularly families with children which is the biggest problem.Nobody—nobody—could say that the Labour Party has not stood up for those people. Nobody could say that the Labour Party has not been the champion of closing the digital divide in this country and has not led the charge on that. It led the charge in that select committee which you referred to earlier around it and has pushed and pushed around those issues so nobody could say that.That telecommunications development levy—and by the way everybody should remember that this was Steven Joyce’s baby; the brainchild of Steven Joyce was to create this—has caused so many ongoing headaches for the Government. He created the legislation that set the terms for that levy to be reduced to $10 million next year. What the National Party—and the Minister in the chair sitting over there was a candidate in the election—introduced 3 weeks before the election out of the blue was to just willy-nilly extend that levy. It extended it created a new levy and came up with more money. This was because National members knew—their market research was telling them—that there was a big problem in rural New Zealand because there were too many people getting crap broadband. It was turning out to be a problem for National members in their polling and in their market research.So what happened? All of a sudden we get $150 million. There was no consultation no reports no analysis and interestingly since the election—and it is now more than 6 months since the election—we still have not seen any reports. There still has not been any analysis and the regulatory impact statement admits it. It is embarrassing for the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment I have to say that it has put out a regulatory impact statement that acknowledges that it has not done the work. What we have got is a levy that was supposed to go to $10 million and now—oh—it is up to $150 million.I think that my colleague David Parker made it clear that if there had been a different process around this if there had been full consultation around how to spend that $150 million how to do that with the community not just with the providers who are paying the levy but full consultation about whether the Rural Broadband Initiative worked and which bits have worked which bits have not worked and then how could we do it better if they had done that in a way that had been contestable and fair we would not have opposed this—because we had never opposed it at the time when it was made before the election. What we said was that it needed to be contestable. It absolutely needed to be contestable and fair.What we are seeing in the regulatory impact statement is that there could be capture by the big providers again which is a rort an absolute rort. This is why we are opposing it. This is why we are retaining our consistency of opposing something that is wrong. It is putting good money after a bad outcome and we are terribly concerned about that.I want to turn to a curious thing. My colleague Chris Hipkins referred to the fixed wireless broadband and the terrible situation that is occurring out there. Well what we think we have discovered—and this is one of my questions or many questions that I have for the Minister tonight during this debate—is that there is some information around the number of customers. This goes to the 8500 customers on fixed wireless broadband which looks as if it has cost around $7000 per customer. Who are they and who are the providers behind them?Dr David Clark: How much?CLARE CURRAN: It is $7000 per customer. That is a rough estimate but it is just doing some basic maths.Dr David Clark: No evaluation.CLARE CURRAN: We have no other information to go on Dr Clark—no other information. There have not been any reports produced.Well let us have a wee look at who those customers might be and who is doing the connecting. Well the top provider—self-described top provider actually—for the Rural Broadband Initiative’s fixed wireless connections is a company called Farmside. It describes itself as that and I have even got a piece of paper here that I would be very happy to table if anyone wanted me to. It talks about how it provides fast broadband via satellite Rural Broadband Initiative’s fixed wireless and fixed line solutions as well as phone and mobile access. It says it has got more than 15000 rural customers.Well that is really interesting because what I have heard is that it is transferring many of those customers over to fixed wireless broadband which is fine in itself but it might be interesting for the House to know that the managing director of TeamTalk which is Farmside’s parent company is David Ware who is the—Hon Amy Adams: Brother-in-law yes.CLARE CURRAN: —husband of Belinda Milnes who happens to be the Minister’s sister. It is curious—Hon David Cunliffe: —and Jason Ede’s employer.CLARE CURRAN: Oh and Jason Ede’s employer. I forgot about that. The fact remains that it is a little bit curious that Farmside which describes itself as one of the top providers for fixed wireless broadband which has got very few customers—and I think everyone would acknowledge that given that it has had 5 years has spent $60 million and now it has got 8500 customers which equates to about $7000 each.Dr David Clark: Good transparency. It’s an evaluation.CLARE CURRAN: I think there is a really important issue here around transparency and around what actually is going on here with rural broadband. There are questions about how the money is being spent on the towers and there are questions around what actually is being delivered out there for rural New Zealand.So I say to the House tonight and I say to anyone from the other parties who wants to listen that there are some very very good reasons to say: “Hang on a minute. Let’s not commit another $150 million to a programme that is highly questionable and needs scrutiny. Let’s take a pause.” We are absolutely committed to rural broadband and delivering that infrastructure and delivering it in the best possible way.