Clark David: Telecommunications (Development Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Telecommunications (Development Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3740. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I want to talk again about the title of the bill because I had raised only one of my suggestions when the bell so rudely interrupted me earlier. The second suggested title that I have for the bill is “Telecommunications (Government Waste) Amendment Bill” because that would label clearly the problem that we have here where the Government is refusing—refusing—to evaluate this proposal before it takes any further steps.Before I elaborate on this I want to touch just quickly on a point raised by my colleague Mr Faafoi in his contribution. He talked about how things are now as clear as mud and whether this is a tax or a levy. The Minister says that it is a levy; the industry says that it is a tax. Mr Cunliffe has raised the point that the OECD would probably define it as a tax and we have numerous other references including from the Minister’s own department referring to it as “something in the nature of a tax”. The Minister now claims that she is the only one who is right on that point and that everybody else is wrong and perhaps it is as clear as mud in the same way that the Prime Minister’s promise not to raise GST was as clear as mud—and the promises made by the Government that it would raise wages by $7000 by 2026 were made in the same vein. All these promises were meant one way and now the Government is trying to say that they mean something else. It said that it would get to surplus. That was the central promise of this Government’s last election campaign. Well we know now that that has not been achieved.It is not clear whether this is a bill about a development levy. It is a development tax as I have suggested in my previous contribution but it might well be labelled “waste”. If something is not measured—and this is a simple precept—we do not know whether it is actually being spent well or not. We have suggested alternative ways that it could be funded and we have asked the Minister to explain—or others in this Committee have—why it will not be evaluated properly. Questions that hint at conflicts of interest have been raised. I am not aware myself of the detail of that but I think the Minister ought to be on her feet explaining why she is not going to evaluate it. Even if she is going to press ahead without public scrutiny of this bill I think it would be reasonable for her to explain to us why no evaluation is happening. This is why it could well be called the “Government Waste Bill” because the facts that we have insofar as we have them are that $60 million has been spent on this particular initiative so far to get only 8500 connections. That is the best estimate available. That is $7000 per connection and the quality out there is not great. We have heard that from several MPs who have had people coming into their offices to complain. I have certainly had them. I took the petition to the select committee which has seen a change in behaviour as a result and I know that my colleague Clare Curran has done the same and I encourage others to do so.This is a wasteful bill. If we are not going to evaluate whether the programme works—and all of the evidence points to it not working and not being an effective use of taxpayers’ money—then there is an arrogance in not evaluating it in not being able to explain and in not being able to actually front up and say “This is why we think it is worth investing again.” I do not think the public at home are going to say that $7000 per connection is good value for money. There are plenty of other ways that we could get broadband there more quickly. I think the overseas experience would be that it could get there more cheaply and be of a better quality. This is a Government that needs to do some explaining. So I am hoping that the Minister will soon get to her feet and explain to us why it is that what appears to be incredibly wasteful spending is not being evaluated. We all want better broadband—we all want better broadband. All of us would like to have happy people coming through our electorate offices saying: “Look I’ve just started a new business and I’ve got this great fast broadband and now I’m able to participate in the world.” The reality is that that is not the experience.This Government has been in Government for nearly 7 years now. We heard Melissa Lee earlier complaining about the poor quality of broadband. The irony of Government members also complaining about the poor quality of broadband despite their having been here for quite some time seems to be lost on them. So I suggest that in addition to the title “Telecommunications Tax Amendment Bill” being considered the alternative title “Telecommunications (Government Waste Amendment) Bill” also be considered. Thank you.