Nash Stuart: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Nash Stuart: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19311] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 The last speaker Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga outlined things that the Labour Party is against but let me outline what the Labour Party is for. Let me outline why the Labour Party has major concerns about the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The Labour Party is about consultation. The Labour Party is about going out to the people of New Zealand—the taxpayers who will be funding this bill—asking for their opinion and listening to their advice. The Labour Party is about proper process. The Labour Party is about listening to everyone involved in this sector. The Labour Party is about transparency. The Labour Party is not about doing deals in secret. The Labour Party is about putting a plan in place that allows consultation that allows transparency and that allows proper process to be followed. 
The Labour Government was the one that came up with the Digital Strategy which recognised the need for ultra-fast broadband. The Labour Government knew that if New Zealand was to increase its productivity and get to the upper quartile of the OECD we needed to have a decent Digital Strategy. What happened to the strategy? 
Clare Curran 
: It got canned. 
STUART NASH 
: By whom? Mr Joyce canned that Digital Strategy because he had a plan. Mr Joyce had a plan and he decided that he did not care about what anyone else thought or did or about their opinion. “I” said Mr Joyce “have a plan.” I feel a bit sorry for Mr Foss who chairs the Finance and Expenditure Committee which this bill had to run through. I think this bill probably went against every instinct in his body. Mr Foss knows that the people of New Zealand are meant to be consulted but when this bill was rushed through and when Supplementary Order Paper 204 was rushed through I could tell that Mr Foss felt uncomfortable about it. He knew that this was not the proper process to follow. That is just not right. There was no plan and that is just not right. It is simply not fair. 
I know that the New Zealanders who are listening to this debate will remember a time when under Telecom phone prices went through the roof. I remember being a student in Wellington and having to pay $200 to $300 a month in phone charges because of Telecom’s monopoly. The service was dreadful— 
Clare Curran 
: A rort. 
STUART NASH 
: It was a rort. I say “Welcome to this bill.” Once again Telecom has a 75 percent monopoly on ultra-fast broadband. Now anyone who thinks that is good for New Zealand and anyone who thinks that is fair for New Zealanders needs to have their head read. The Government should be ashamed and as is the case with everything else that has gone through the House in the last month to do with the Budget I would love the Government members to call a public meeting and talk to their constituents about why this bill is good. This legislation will result in more cost. 
Labour recognises the fact that New Zealand needs to improve its telecommunications infrastructure. We understand that improved infrastructure will be great for productivity good for education and good for business. We know that; we understand that. That is why we set up the Digital Strategy. But this bill is not the way to do it. This is simply not the way to do it. The Government is struggling to meet one of its major 2008 promises: the one about getting broadband to 75 percent of New Zealand homes for $1.5 billion. 
New Zealanders need to have access to ultra-fast broadband in their workplaces in their schools and in their houses. But we believe that when the Government spends $1.5 billion of taxpayers’ money it had better have its processes sorted out. I get the very distinct impression that New Zealanders do not like the secrecy. They do not like to feel that perhaps a deal has been done behind closed doors because this has been a little bit sneaky. They do not like the fact that they cannot get a regulatory impact statement or even a cost-benefit analysis to hang their hat on and say: “Oh I see; this is why it is done.” They do not like the fact that there is no research or evidence. If this deal was well researched if there was a lot of evidence for New Zealanders to be able to see what the justifications and the rationale were and how the Government will do it then that would make us feel happy. New Zealanders do not like sneaky stuff and this deal reeks of it. This reeks of the sneaky deal stuff. That is why New Zealanders are not happy with this deal. 
It is not only New Zealanders who are unhappy with this deal. I know that Mr Joyce underestimated the industry. He treated the people in it like fools. That has been shown in the way that they have come out hammer and tongs against this bill. In fact they did so to the point where Mr Joyce was forced to pull one of the major platforms of this bill the 10-year regulatory holiday. I do not think that anywhere else in the world—nowhere else in the world—there was anything like a 10-year regulatory holiday. It basically said we should wipe out the market have no policing and Telecom could do whatever it wanted to do. As my colleague David Cunliffe said the Commerce Commission came out against this bill so hard that I am surprised Mr Joyce did not sit down have a cup of tea and rethink the matter. But no he busted straight on through when the Commerce Commission said it had major concerns. That made everyone sit up. 
That is why I think Mr Foss felt so uncomfortable about how this bill was progressing. He knew. He had read the reports he knew the Commerce Commission was not happy about the deal and he saw the way that Telecom sat in front of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and acted with an arrogance that I thought had gone. I thought that arrogance had gone 20 years ago; I hoped it had gone 20 years ago. It filled me with the same sort of dread I used to feel when I received a Telecom bill. What was it called in the old days? I do not know. When I received a Telecom bill as a student I thought: “Oh my God $200.” That was when jugs of beer cost $3. Telecom now has a 75 percent monopoly on ultra-fast broadband. I do not think that is right for the people of New Zealand. I do not think it is good for the industry. 
As I said we accept the need for faster broadband but this deal is only one part of what is needed to deliver a digital transformation strategy for this country. We want to transform our economy. We know that we need to transform our economy by giving New Zealanders better internet access and the best technology and by making sure that every New Zealander has an opportunity to take advantage of that technology. I tell every New Zealander who has a concern about this bill to look at Labour’s minority report and at ACT’s minority report. Labour and ACT do not often agree on things but if people look at the ACT minority report they will see that it also raises major concerns. They should look at the Greens’ minority report; it raises major concerns. I heard the Maori Party speak on this bill but I do not remember its members being at the select committee. They might have been. There is no disrespect but I certainly do not remember a Maori Party member uttering one comment during the process of considering this bill. I ask the question that my colleague Clare Curran has been asking: what was the pay-off? 
This bill was very close to being pulled down because every single party across the political divide across political philosophies had a good hard look at the bill heard the submitters listened to the arguments and said “Whoa we need to pull back on this. We need to think about how we will deliver it because something is not right.” When the Government spends $1.5 billion it needs to do that properly. There needs to be a proper process and transparency. I for one would not have minded if we had delayed this process by 6 months to make sure we got it right. When the Government spends this sort of money on this sort of infrastructural strategy it needs to make sure it gets it right. Sure there is a need and there is urgency but there was nothing that the select committee and this Parliament could not have pulled back on and worked together on. This matter is very important. As I said when ACT the Greens and Labour all say something is not right then perhaps it is not right. David Cunliffe used to be the Minister for Communications and Information Technology. He knows this area inside out. Sir Roger Douglas went through this bill with a fine-tooth comb. Clare Curran went round the world—well to a couple of places—and talked to people in the different areas that have implemented this sort of thing. Everyone came to the same conclusion: this measure simply is not right and is not fair so we should pull back and do it properly. But Steven Joyce had a plan. This is Steven Joyce’s plan.