Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:670;Page:17255] 
4. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: Would he indicate his agreement to a further extension if it were required to the report back date for the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 No; I do not think such an extension is necessary. The first reading of this bill occurred on 9 December last year and the Finance and Expenditure Committee has until 16 May to complete its consideration which is a period of getting on towards 6 months. Supplementary Order Paper 204 in relation to Telecom’s potential structural separation was tabled on 16 January but I note that many of the issues—in fact most of the issues—in it were canvassed in a discussion document which was released in September of last year. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister consider 10 minutes for the submission of a major corporate or industry body on this complex legislation to be sufficient or might he agree with the Chief Executive Officer of the Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand Paul Brislen who said that the process for this bill has been “outrageous”; if not why not? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I note to the member that the deliberations of and hearing of submissions by the committee is one for the committee. I also note that one of the companies I think it was Vector was given 40 minutes in front of the committee—this morning I understand. The other point to make in terms of Mr Brislen is that he needs to decide which view he is taking because he congratulated us previously on the approach we were taking to the bill. He said: “There is plenty to get our teeth into and now we have the time to do just that.” 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Has he been involved in any way either directly or through his staff in communicating to Government members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee or their staff in relation to the process for oral hearings on the bill; if so on approximately what dates and to what end? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No I have not. I cannot vouch for every member of everybody’s staff but I am not aware of anything occurring in that regard. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he agree with TelstraClear’s Chief Executive Officer Allan Freeth who claims that the hearing process for oral submissions on the telecommunications amendment bill is a “democratic farce” and that not enough time has been given to speakers to adequately articulate a position; if not why not? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am aware of Mr Freeth’s views. I point out to the member that Mr Freeth has been opposed to the whole idea of the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative since it was first announced in 2008. So I suppose the question for the member would be whether he is now siding with Mr Freeth in terms of his views on the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister agree with Vector’s Group Chief Executive Officer Simon Mackenzie who warned the Finance and Expenditure Committee just today that the consequences of the Supplementary Order Paper and the truncated partisan process of the bill will increase regulatory risk and investor uncertainty and that that will be priced into up-front bid costs; and can the Minister then explain to the House why his process is costing the taxpayer potentially millions of extra dollars that could have been sent to Christchurch? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Minister to answer I tell the member that of course the select committee process is not the Minister’s process. But in so far as the question can be answered by the Minister I call the Hon Steven Joyce. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Obviously I was not at the select committee to hear whatever it was Mr Mackenzie is said to have said. But I think taking it at face value the point that it is important to have bipartisan support on these matters is important because it ensures—to the extent that we can—that future Governments will take the same approach. Therefore I ask the member and his colleagues on the committee to deliberate carefully and if possible support the legislation.