Nash Stuart: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Nash Stuart: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19697] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 If this bill is the only plan that that Government has for economic transformation then heaven help us—heaven help us. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Same old speech. 
STUART NASH 
: The Minister says “Same old speech.” but that is because it is the same old message. We keep hearing all these things about the Government having a plan for economic growth—it is to sell State assets it is to create a telecommunications monopoly and it is to not listen to the people. 
The Government needs to start listening to the people of New Zealand and I do not know when that will happen. This legislation absolutely proves that one Minister with one agenda drove it straight through this House—straight through this House. He was not interested in communication whatsoever. Mr Bennett had the nerve to stand up and congratulate all submitters to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. He said: “I would like to congratulate all submitters who contributed to this bill.” I tell this House that only one submitter supported this bill and that was Telecom surprisingly enough. Nearly all submitters were against this bill. I am not too sure whether Mr Bennett’s words were dripping with irony; I am not too sure whether he was rubbing salt into the wounds just to say: “We won. You lost. Eat that!”. I am not too sure what he was trying to do but thanking those who were being screwed was a little bit nasty I tell Mr Bennett; it was just a little bit nasty. 
The other thing I will say is that Sam Lotu-Iiga once again got it wrong. Sam said Labour is the party that is against competition innovation and driving this economy forward. That member has obviously forgotten that Labour was the Government that set up the Digital Strategy. We were the ones who recognised that in order to drive economic growth forward and in order to improve productivity one needs a decent digital strategy. So we set it up but we also made sure—and we were really good at doing it—that we went out to the community went out to the main players and consulted. We talked to the people who would be affected from the real big guys down to the consumers just to understand the market just to find out what it required. That is what Labour does really well and that is what National always fails to do; it fails to consult those who will be affected. 
Then John Boscawen spoke—goodness me! It just shows what disarray the ACT Party is in. John Boscawen called Heather Roy by Hilary Calvert’s name. I am surprised Heather did not stand up and take a call to say she took personal offence at that. I found that astounding. We have a party that is held up by two very senior MPs. Sir Roger Douglas for all his faults—and they are many—sat on the select committee and listened to the arguments very closely. He understood them and wrote a minority report that basically said that this was flawed legislation. 
Hon Heather Roy 
: Good minority report. 
STUART NASH 
: It was a very good minority report. As the ACT member on the select committee he took the report back to the ACT caucus and said that they should not vote for this bill. Heather Roy—and we are so far apart in terms of our politics but it does not mean that I do not respect her intelligence and it does not mean I do not respect her principles—actually listened to Sir Roger. She listened to Sir Roger Douglas and said: “This is the man whom we chose to represent us on the Finance and Expenditure Committee for this bill. He has written this report and I will stand by it.” Well we finally heard why ACT Party members will support this bill. 
Clare Curran 
: Because they’re lapdogs. 
STUART NASH 
: Because they are lapdogs. John Boscawen stood up and said that the reason the ACT Party is supporting this bill is that it was No. 2 on the National pledge card. He admitted it. We have now shown that there are two ACT members with principles—even though like I said we completely disagree with their principles. There are two ACT members who act with principle and three who are there because they are lapdogs and they are voting for this bill because it was No. 2 on the pledge card. That party was founded out of—totally misguided—principle. 
Sir Roger and Heather Roy will carry that party into the next election. I hate to think of the workload that Heather Roy will be forced to carry as she goes around the country explaining what has happened to the ACT Party. But goodness me she will be a very busy MP for the next 5 months. Unfortunately I think she is in a party that is now devoid of all principles and the electorate has finally seen that. It is a sad end for Heather. She will probably come back; I do not know—will she be No. 2 on the list? What a sad end. Anyway I think it is a shame that the ACT Party apart from Heather Roy did not listen to Sir Roger Douglas. 
Then we had Maori Party members standing up and once again how were they bought off? Because there will be a working group. There will be a Maori broadband working group. Well that was pretty easy—that was pretty easy. I would have thought that the Maori Party would demand that not 75 percent of New Zealand but 95 percent of New Zealand would benefit from this bill. Mr Joyce told this House that 75 percent of New Zealanders will benefit from this bill. I tell the Maori Party member Te Ururoa Flavell that every single school in Wairoa will not benefit from this bill. I tell that member that the vast majority of those pupils in Wairoa are Maori. 
This bill is not good for Maori; it is not good. I cannot understand why the Maori Party continues to back legislation that does not support its people. I am astounded—I am astounded. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In terms of disruption to the House I tried to ask the member to pronounce “Maori” properly and I interjected a number of times to try to assist him. If he could at least listen to this discussion and pronounce “Maori” properly that would be helpful. Thank you very much. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I hear what the member says. I remind the member that this is a third reading speech. I refer the member to Speaker’s Ruling 117/3 which states: “Members must confine themselves to the main purposes and contents of the bill;”. That is Speaker’s Ruling 117/3—the member might like to take note of that. The point of order is a very valid one. We ask that you do the best you can to pronounce terms correctly. 
STUART NASH 
: Can I speak to that point of order? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No the member will continue with his speech. 
STUART NASH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not related to that member’s point of order. I understood—and I cannot point to a reference obviously—that if members in a third reading speech make contentious points against the Opposition then members have the right of reply. All I was doing was exercising that right. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has certainly done that and he has done it for 6 minutes. I am asking the member to now come back to the third reading speech. 
STUART NASH 
: One thing I would like to say is that Labour absolutely understands the need for a strong and robust telecommunications infrastructure. Napier—I mean the Labour Party completely understands this. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: The “Napier Party”. 
STUART NASH 
: I have Napier on the mind. Napier is coming back to Labour; I can feel the pull! 
There is some legislation that can have cross-party consensus and that we should be able to work on together. If we did work together we would come out with fantastically robust legislation that would drive economic growth forward for this country. This is that sort of legislation. This is what should have happened. This is legislation that both major parties should be agreeing is wonderful for New Zealand. Mr Joyce could have achieved that if he had sat down with Labour and gone through the bill. That could have happened if we had had cross-party consensus on the very important parts of this bill but the Minister just rammed it through. 
I can say that answers to written questions reveal that Minister Joyce neither sought nor received any official advice from the Ministry of Economic Development or Treasury on the economic costs and benefits of ultra-fast broadband—none whatsoever. We do not know whether this $1.5 billion of taxpayers’ money will be well spent. I suppose that comes down to the crux of our arguments in opposition to this bill. We are spending a lot of money. We are spending $1.5 billion of taxpayers’ money. We are fundamentally changing our telecommunications infrastructure in this country. This is not some bill regulating the use of cars or dogs; this is about a fundamental part of New Zealand’s infrastructure and I believe the process has not been well followed. A major Supplementary Order Paper was introduced to the select committee without sufficient time to have full submissions on it and another 12-page Supplementary Order Paper was whacked on the Table in the Committee stage. It was like urgency without urgency because no one had the ability to submit on it or comment on it. This is simply bad process. 
I understand and we understand the need for urgency on this because this is vital to our productivity. It is vital to our connectivity but it does not need to be rushed through. If it had taken an extra 6 months but that meant we got it right then that would have been fine. We could have accepted that. But the process here has been really really bad. That was highlighted by the Greens speaker and it has been highlighted by every Labour speaker. It was actually highlighted by Sir Roger Douglas. That is the fundamental problem we have. We are all in agreement that we need ultra-fast broadband. No one will ever disagree that we need a really strong good and very robust telecommunications infrastructure. But this bill does not deliver that. That is the major concern I have. To make matters worse a whole lot of questions for Mr Joyce from our spokesperson have not been answered. They simply have not been answered in a way that makes us feel comfortable about this. I certainly cannot support this bill.