Lee Melissa; Williams PotoMELISSA LEE (National): It's a great pleasure to rise to take a call on the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill and I'd like to start by commending the Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital Media who actually spoke on the second reading. Considering the fact that he's only recently just been given the portfolio I thought he actually did a spectacular job of doing a 10-minute speech on a subject that he may not necessarily be familiar with. I have to actually say he probably was briefed really well by his officials. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank the great chair that we have in the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. I have to say that Mr Jonathan Young is probably a very open and generous chair who actually gives members on the committee a bit of a wide berth to have a free conversation about issues and I thank him for his hard work.I really don't want to sort of get into the whole bill because there was quite a large number of debates that actually happened during the select committee process. The bill sparked a huge amount of submissions and as the chair pointed out we had a total of 257 written submissions of which 37 were heard as oral submissions before the committee. I thank the secretariat for their due diligence in compiling and administrating the hearing processes which is sometimes quite difficult to manage with you know all the wishes of the submitters wanting to speak all at the same time. I'll also perhaps go into an area where something has actually come up after the fact of the select committee. I haven't actually had an opportunity to have conversations with many of the members of the select committee but if Minister Faafoi—I had a quick chat with him. I'd like to note that the Minister's office hopefully will have actually advised and informed him in the changeover process that there have been some issues that were raised after the select committee process with the former Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital Media Clare Curran and she was engaging directly with some of these stakeholders about this particular issue facing them: the LFCs the local fibre companies in the private sector. This morning I lodged several parliamentary written questions around this particular issue over the definition of fibre network"—in particular about access points as they relate to those who currently provide the fibre services to those who will be supplying future cell towers perhaps for the provision of wider mobile connectivity in our country. The concerns these particular LFCs have are in relation to the use of the phrase "access point" in the definition within the legislation. The way it was actually drafted did not actually talk about access points. I think we were talking about "building". You know sometimes what happens with legislation when it actually goes a select committee and the debates that actually happen over time we sort of haven't quite done the recall of specific discussions but I remember the concerns that some of the select committee members actually had were that if the connection was being delivered to a particular building—let's say for a farm where the actual dwelling was quite a long way away from the actual road for example. If the connection was only delivered to the building—it could be a shed—the people who were actually living maybe a kilometre away may not actually have the access to fibre. That was one of the discussions I think that we actually had. The way it was actually developed through the select committee process was we've actually come up with a word in the report back in the legislation called "access points". What that might inadvertently do is actually make local fibre companies provide fibre to actual cell towers and that might actually perhaps impact on the business of the LFCs. These are some things that maybe the Minister should perhaps consider.And I know that as members of the select committee we never actually had an opportunity to discuss this with the officials because it was never raised during the process of the select committee because it wasn't actually a concern at the time and nobody actually raised that with us. And perhaps in the officials' and the Minister's consideration of the comments that are actually made by the LFCs the Minister might consider and support a Supplementary Order Paper during the committee stages to make sure that we don't actually have an inadvertent hindrance to the businesses going about in their business.I guess I also wanted to talk about some concerns that some members of the public actually raised—and I think Jonathan Young actually stole my thunder when he talked about that—in terms of their concern about the 5G and the mobile network innovation and how the radio waves were going to be impacting on people's health. One of the quotes that I actually remember from the Ministry of Health coming to the select committee and telling us is that the Ministry of Health meets every six months to access the latest information regarding health effects resulting from the exposure of radio waves and that the committee last held meetings in February of this year and the conclusion from their discussion was—I quote—"that there is nothing in the research which would indicate there is a need to change current policy on the health effects of radio waves." That was the reassurance that we actually had from the Ministry of Health officials who actually came to our select committee to explain that which was raised as a result of the submissions that were raised which were not necessarily part of the scope of the bill but were obviously enough of a concern that many people actually wrote to us.As the chair actually pointed out there were two particular issues that were very prominent during the select committee discussions. One was in relation to the anchor products and the other was in relation to the line of business restrictions and the Minister has also actually addressed those issues.In terms of the anchor products I think most of us actually struggle with things like that. When somebody says "What is an anchor product?" we go "What?" An anchor product is the very base product that a fibre company would actually deliver. It is the anchor service to ensure that voice and basic broadband services are available to consumers at a reasonable price and to provide an anchor on the prices and quality of service around other fibre products that are actually being offered. What the committee has heard—and it was actually quite pleasing to hear from some submitters who actually came from Australia who were suggesting that New Zealand has such an amazing broadband service compared to our Australian neighbours. It was really pleasing to actually see. There were lots of recommendations as to whether we should have it lower or higher and we actually came to an agreement as a committee that we would actually sit on an anchor product where we are looking at 100 megabits per second upload and 20 megabits per second download and a voice-only product as anchor products as a base and that it should provide a price stability for consumers. I guess that actually indicates to the retail service providers that that is the price that they need to actually work with and that they have products around that they can actually offer to consumers.The other issue which both the Minister and the chair have actually dealt with which was quite controversial I guess—and we heard a lot of submissions and talk after the fact as well—was in terms of line of business restriction. You know the local fibre companies and the wholesalers actually wanted the ability for them to innovate. They keep talking about innovation. But I guess there are other companies who are worried that that innovation might encroach into the retail area and that it might actually mean that the competition—that perhaps a bigger player like Chorus might encroach on some retailers and that as a small company dealing with retail might not be able to compete against a big giant like Chorus it was a concern.I think I can understand Chorus' perception and all the other fibre companies' wishes to actually innovate themselves because they have new technology actually progressing at such a fast rate. But where we actually landed on was that the committee in fact decided that we will retain the existing line of business restrictions. But it doesn't actually mean that they can't innovate because after the first sort of period case by case will be provided so that they can—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. Your time is expired."