Nash Stuart: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Nash Stuart: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19480] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I want to concentrate on another issue but there is one point I would like to bring up. The Hon Craig Foss stood up and called out to Chris Hipkins to ask whether he had heard of Skype and whether he used Skype. I wonder whether this is Mr Foss’ answer to local phone calls not being free. Is Mr Foss indicating that everyone should get on Skype and Skype their next-door neighbour if they want to have a cup of coffee which is the example that Mr Hipkins put forward? The other thing I would say is that the people and schools that are not going to get ultra-fast broadband will probably not have great Skype. But Mr Foss or perhaps the Minister in the chair the Minister for Communications and Information Technology could answer on behalf of the newest Minister as to whether he is suggesting that the answer to this is that all people go on Skype and that is the only way they will be able to get free local phone calls. 
Another thing I would like to talk about is Supplementary Order Paper 247. The explanatory note states: “These amendments are to reflect that the KSO will not be operative following the structural separation of Telecom:”. I am not 100 percent sure what that means. Does that mean it will be turned off and it can be turned on again or is it going to be done away with completely? I would love to know these things. 
It is interesting: I was talking to an old Minister—well a Minister who was around a long time ago—and we were talking about what went on in the House. I said that the frustrating thing with a lot of these Committee stage debates was that we throw out questions and most of them are pretty valid questions but the Minister in the chair does not get up to answer them. It is really frustrating. He shook his head and said: “You know in the old days if a member threw a question out to the Minister in the chair the Minister would get up and answer that question.” Every now and again when there is— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Sometimes they didn’t even bother getting up. They would debate back and forth. 
STUART NASH 
: Yes well every now and again—and this is my first term of course so this is all new to me—we will see someone like Peter Dunne sitting in the chair during a debate on a tax bill and there will be questions thrown at him about the implications of the words written in the legislation. Peter Dunne for all his faults stands up and engages. He attempts to answer the questions put forward by members. As Gareth Hughes mentioned and he is a fellow of the new age—he is using Skype Google and Facebook—often what members are doing is only relaying the concerns and questions of constituents who are just as bamboozled by this as we are. 
It would be great not just for us but for the people of New Zealand who are watching this debate and have a vested interest in it because they live in rural areas if the Minister could stand and provide an explanation as to the implications of the fact that the Kiwi share obligation will not be operative following the structural separation of Telecom. What does that actually mean? As mentioned if the Supplementary Order Paper had gone through the Finance and Expenditure Committee we would have found that out. We could have come to this Chamber and debated it in the knowledge that New Zealanders had spoken. But this is not the case. As I mentioned Mr Joyce is not stupid; there is no doubt about that. So I wonder why this was not put in straight away. 
I would like to go to new section 10(1)(b) to be inserted by clause 5 which states: “the Telecommunications Commissioner must report to the Minister about every proposed alteration to Schedule 1 …”. I turn to schedule 1 and I know we are not allowed to use the “h” word but this is where there is a dichotomy or a sense of confusion in terms of the processes we are going through at the moment and what is allowed to happen. Part 2 of schedule 1 talks about the appointment of a consumer complaints system. This bill is incredibly tightly drafted and the reason is that it came under minute scrutiny. Anyone on the Finance and Expenditure Committee will know that it came under intense scrutiny—every word. 
What we are talking about here is the appointment of a consumer complaints system. New section 156UA states: “The Minister may by notice in the  
Gazette 
—”. Why is it that the Minister “may”? Why is it not that the Minister “must”? “The Minister may by notice in the  
Gazette 
—(a) appoint a system to be a consumer complaints system under this Part (with or without conditions) for a term specified by the Minister;”—it is all about the Minister here—“and (b) set rules for the system; and (c) set rules about the funding of the system.” I would love to see that section saying the Minister “must”. We are talking about New Zealanders and we are talking about a very important part of local infrastructure so it would be great to see the Minister change that section to say that the Minister “must”. New section 156X(1) under the title “Objectives of a consumer complaints system” states “When considering appointing a system under this Part the Minister must have regard …”—well he must if he decides that “may” was going to work—