Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): It is a pleasure to speak to the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This is a bill as was reflected on by my colleagues—notably Clare Curran who has worked so hard for many years on this bill and the concepts that underlie it—that the Labour Party is supporting. But there are a few issues that are worth reflecting upon that have arisen during the select committee stage. I want to focus my comments in that direction.The first thing I want to say is that in reading through the notes from the Commerce Committee on this bill the part of the bill that I was really excited about in terms of the work that the select committee has done has been around the point that was touched upon by my colleague Aupito William Sio around where we have fibre that is crossing farmland and the way that we practically manage the impact on property rights. One of the major conceptual matters that the select committee considered when it looked at this bill was effectively that trade-off because what this bill is attempting to achieve is a breakthrough in terms of ultra-fast broadband delivery—and everyone would agree that that is a good thing—but what we have practically found since we started going down this track several years ago is that people's natural property rights sometimes get in the way. That is the brute reality of the matter. Sometimes you need to cross someone else's land in order to get an ultra-fast broadband connection to your property. That is the core problem and it is the duty of this House and all of its processes to consider that stuff seriously because although we support ultra-fast broadband and its wider roll-out we also need to take care to ensure that when we do disrupt people's property rights we do so in an appropriate and balanced and reasonable fashion given the benefits that we are trying to achieve.And so one of the things that drew my attention in the select committee's consideration is amended sections 155ZS and ZT and these amended sections provide that when the owner of the existing works in other words the provider is going over someone's land particularly in a rural situation—how do we effectively offset for the fact that we are impinging on that landowner's property rights? And I think the solution that has been arrived at here is actually very elegant which is that effectively we provide that landowner with the connection. And to me that is an example of some smart thinking in terms of balancing rights with things that we want to achieve at a public policy level.There were some good comments around this in the submissions. We had them being weighed up. We had groups like InternetNZ which was concerned that providing this obligation potentially makes it less likely that we will get roll-out. We had other service providers that were not so keen. We had what looks to me like the honest farmers of various parts of New Zealand saying that we should supply to a certain length—potentially up to 500 metres—at no cost to the landowner. And where the select committee has settled is a distance of 200 metres free with effectively a 50 percent cost offset if it goes over 200 metres. To me that is a good balance that we have struck there and shows the select committee and the process working very well and balancing up the different rights of people with the public policy that we are wanting to achieve in this process.Some other points that I think are just worth reflecting on in the bill particularly in the select committee's considerations is amended section 155Q which relates to the ability of rights to access being able to be withheld. In properties where there are potentially multiple owners this is a key issue that the bill considers. And I think of my own apartment not too far from this House where there are probably something like 80 property owners in the one apartment building. How do you deal with access to common areas? Is there an ability for one person to unreasonably frustrate what would otherwise be reasonable access for the purposes of getting ultra-fast broadband to one or a number of the units in that apartment building? What this amended sections says and it has been clarified by the select committee is simply that that cannot be unreasonably withheld. So again I think that the select committee has done good work in this area in really going through with a fine-tooth comb and pick out the problems where we might not be getting the outcome that we want.Some other areas where I think some good work was done in that area was amended section 155TA which limits the right of people to object when there is an ultra-fast broadband connection on the grounds that it would interrupt telecommunications during the period of installation. It says that that objection is reasonable only if it is within business hours. I think there are some very sensible changes that have been made by select committee and we are certainly supportive of the bill.