Sio WilliamSu'a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I have not had a chance to look through the bill given the amount of time that member spent on his speech. I am happy to take a call on this. I note that the bill has two parts. Part 1 contains amendments to the Telecommunications Act 2001 and Part 2 is simply the introduction of new schedules. That begs the question: it seems like this is something very very easy that could have been done quite some time ago and we are only now coming around to it. But then I am asking myself as there are only two parts to this what is missing from this bill? You have to consider the timing of this—when the country is awash with a national housing crisis we are trying to deal with this issue here. I will tell you at a later stage why I raise that issue.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: While sticking to the bill you will do that.Su'a WILLIAM SIO: In terms of the bill my colleague David Shearer has said that this bill is really timely. It is something that needs to happen and therefore we do not have a problem with it if it goes to the select committee. But I think I would be keen like many I have heard in this House to listen to the submitters. Although the papers that have been made available talk about category 1—methods that have no lasting impacts on property such as those that disturb only grass or other soft surfaces—for these installations a statutory right will be provided for network operators to get on with the installation after providing 5 working days' notice. This is estimated to cover about one-third of installations in shared driveways. The second category of installation that this information provides for concerns methods that have some lasting impact on property and I suspect that would be drilling a cable underground leaving small potholes to access the network every 10 metres or so. Neighbours will be provided with a high-level design and given 15 working days to object on a limited number of grounds. I am not sure what that limited number of grounds is but it appears that for 15 working days you have that opportunity to do so—If they do not object they will be deemed to have consented. Category two is estimated to cover off approximately 51 percent of installations in shared driveway rights of way." Then at the last part of this information we have unprescribed installations—"The remaining 12 percent of installation methods that are more invasive than these new categories will continue to be subject to the existing requirement whereby all parties need to provide their consent." This is information provided by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. I was looking through the bill to see whether there is information available in terms of people living in cars or garages—whether they will have access to this—and I will tell you why. Regarding internet access to the home this is a report released in 2014 which states: "While 86 per cent of the European population had access to the internet at home in 2012 only 68 per cent of Māori people and 65 per cent of Pacific people had internet access in the home." Then it goes further: "In 2001 the gap between Europeans and Māori was 8 percentage points. This had increased to 18 percentage points by 2012 an increase of 125 per cent. Similarly the gap between Europeans and Pacific people was 12 percentage points in 2001. This had increased to 21 percentage points by 2012 an increase of 75 per cent." The point is that you have got a significant proportion of the New Zealand population that has no access to the internet in the first place which I thought would also be something that the Government ought to look at. In my own electorate internet access is 57.9 percent compared with 72.8 percent in the rest of New Zealand. A significant proportion not only of my electorate but also of New Zealanders will not be able to benefit from this and I cannot find anything in the bill that suggests the roll-out of internet access to the rest of the New Zealand population. Given the situation that we currently have will people living in cars garages and emergency homes have the benefit of this? The point of this whole report is to suggest that one of the signs of poverty and one of the signs of growing inequality is the lack of access to the internet and the lack of access I suspect for many to broadband. My colleague David Parker highlighted a newspaper article this morning in the New Zealand Herald—in Howick this occurred—where it showed some holes that had been dug between not just one but a number of neighbours with duct tape being used to attach cables. I hope that as part of this bill and part of the public consultation process the members of the general public who have had some experience so far in being able to access the internet or services that they receive will come forward. My fear or the concern I have is that the power that is given to the network operators to simply come through and determine—I do not know whether they will give that notice to the neighbours by way of a letter or by a card. I suspect that there will be a lot of people in various neighbourhoods who do not even pick up the mail in their letterboxes anymore; they have become dependent on email. I would be interested in hearing from the general public how they would prefer to receive that notice whether it be a letter a card or through their internet service. I do not really have anything further to add to this debate. The explanatory note says that "the Bill will allow prospective liable persons to select their chosen financial year end date rather than mandating the year-ending-30-June format; the Bill will update terminology by replacing the term 'consolidated statement of financial …' "—it seems to be a lot of waffle when we are only trying to do something very very simple and that is: enable people to access fibre. What I am saying is that what is lacking from this bill is what this Government intends to ensure which is that access to internet communication is available for all New Zealanders. For as long as the figures that I quoted earlier remain where a significant proportion of New Zealanders and a significant proportion of the Māori electorate do not have access to the internet the finger-pointing towards this Government that is happening will continue because lack of access to internet is a sign of poverty. Particularly in this day and age in the 21st century if families do not have access to that then they would be classified as poor—but that is only one of the signs. Thank you very much."