Boscawen John: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Boscawen John: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19693] 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the third reading of the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I have to say that there have probably been very few bills in the last 2½ years of this Parliament that have caused as much discussion as this particular bill has in our caucus. During the second reading debate my colleague Sir Roger Douglas advised the House that the ACT Party would be splitting its vote on the second reading. We continued to split our vote during the Committee stage of the bill and we will be doing so again this afternoon. My colleagues Sir Roger Douglas and the Hon Heather Roy who is in the House with me this afternoon will be voting against this bill and my colleagues the Hon Rodney Hide and Hilary Calvert and I will be supporting this bill. 
I want to take this opportunity this afternoon to state our two positions and to express the concerns we all have including those members who are supporting this bill. Let me start by referring to the arguments put forward by my colleague the Hon Sir Roger Douglas for opposing this bill because it was Sir Roger Douglas who did the heavy lifting on this bill for our caucus. It was he who attended the Finance and Expenditure Committee meetings heard the evidence and formed the opinions. He has a number of concerns but I think his most important concern is that no proper economic analysis has been done. There has been no detailed study by Treasury as to the benefits of this bill and no detailed analysis has been done by the Ministry of Economic Development. 
Clare Curran 
: Why are you supporting it? 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I am being asked by Clare Curran why I am voting for it. If members have the courtesy to listen I will be happy to explain it to them. But let me just go back to the comments of Sir Roger Douglas in his speech. He highlighted the fact that there had been no proper economic analysis. In fact he referred to the fact that the only major economic analysis and independent study were done by the Motu Economic and Public Policy Research Trust which concluded that there was no economic benefit. I will quote Sir Roger Douglas’ second reading speech. He said: “The Motu Economic and Public Policy Research Trust has done the only empirical work in this area and it concluded that faster broadband speeds are likely to have a negligible impact on the New Zealand economy.” I will come back to those comments shortly. 
He also said that the bill was a gamble that would bring benefits to New Zealand that were uncertain. He said we could not be certain of those benefits. He went on to say that there had been no proper cost-benefit analysis and that “with all significant interventions the onus is on the Government to show that the investment of taxpayers’ money is warranted and beneficial to New Zealand.” He said that the greatest flaw with this bill is that it lacks vital information to make an informed decision. 
Not surprisingly he asked a rhetorical question. He asked which is more extreme: a National Government that is happy to spend taxpayers’ money in times of economic hardship with no cost-benefit analysis or politicians who seek fiscal restraint in times of economic hardship and who require sound intervention to justify Government spending programmes. 
I thought long and hard about voting for this bill because I know that Sir Roger Douglas has done the work and that my colleague Hilary Calvert has listened to Roger’s arguments in caucus and supports him. However others in caucus have also spoken—[ 
Interruption 
]—they have spoken to people in industry in education and in health I tell Mr Cunliffe and we have also heard the arguments in support of this bill. We have heard the arguments that it will be transformative for the economy. We have heard the arguments about the benefits it will bring in the education sector to medical centres and in commerce. 
It is a fact that a number—in fact I think most—of our major hospitals are already connected by ultra-fast broadband. Cables are already in the ground. Fibre is already in the ground that connects a number of institutions and that certainly connects the central business districts of some of our major cities. But we are talking about an intention to lay out literally thousands of kilometres of fibre in order to provide better access. Although there has been no major economic study for us to point to that demonstrates the benefits to a certain extent if we look around the world and at places where changes of this nature have been brought about before we see that people tend to absorb the services. New technologies develop that give rise to new uses as people see opportunities to develop and to provide services. 
Although I am reluctant to be supporting this bill given the lack of economic analysis I have listened to the Hon Steven Joyce and his arguments in support of the bill and I have listened to others in the commerce health and education sectors who do believe that it will be transformative and who do believe that services will be provided to New Zealanders that otherwise would not be provided. 
I guess one can look at entrepreneurs such as Sam Morgan and Rod Drury who have recently announced publicly that they are supporting an investment in Pacific Fibre to provide additional international links. I look at their investment and I see them showing that this technology needs to be developed and that if we provide it there will be commercial customers for that capacity. 
I also think of small business New Zealand. I think of small businesses. I am speaking tomorrow at a seminar—as are a number of MPs in the House. It is a conference for supporting small business. It is said that New Zealand is a country of small businesses. We do not all work in central business districts; we are not already connected by cables provided by Vector Unison and other fibre-optic companies around the country or by TelstraClear in the case of Wellington. A number of our businesses and business people work from home. They are a disparate group. All around the country people work from home. Their businesses are spread out. Without the commitment to providing the necessary infrastructure there may be businesses that will not have the chance or the ability to get ultra-fast broadband. 
Who is to know the potential? Who is to know what could come from an investment like this? Yes we are uncertain but I have to acknowledge that another consideration in our decision to support this bill this afternoon—certainly for the three of us who are supporting it—is the fact as Clare Curran said this afternoon that ultra-fast broadband was a key priority of the National Party before the election. We cannot forget the fact as Clare Curran reminded us that it was No. 2 on the National Party’s pledge card. ACT represents just under 4 percent of the party votes cast in the last election. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Ah bye-bye principle. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: That is right I tell Mr Cunliffe; that is right. We recognise that 46 percent of the population of New Zealand voted for National and although we have been strongly outspoken and have voted against issues such as the emissions trading scheme—and the marine and coastal legislation for that matter—we recognise the fact that the National Government is very popular. It has a 46 percent mandate so we ask ourselves whether it would be wise to stand up and ignore that. Let me touch on— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I point out to the member on my left Clare Curran that Speakers’ ruling 61/5 states that running commentaries are out of order. If the member wants to make a speech she can do so. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: One of the issues that Clare Curran raised this afternoon is the role of Telecom and that is certainly a concern we have. We are very conscious of the fact that Telecom has a massive investment in copper. It is being asked to invest its own money along with the Government’s money to lay fibre from the cabinet to the home or past the home. We have to ask why that company would want to do that. Why would it want to do that when it does not have the incentive to do it? 
This contract provides requirements for performance and penalties if the company does not meet those performance requirements. I would like to put our support on notice this afternoon—unlike Mr Mallard who is saying “Let’s tear up the agreement. Let’s tell all of the infrastructure investors around the world that if there is a change of Government we will tear up Government contracts.” No the ACT Party would not do that; we would enforce those Government contracts. We would enforce them. But I say to Telecom that to the extent that there are deadlines in the contract and to the extent that there are obligations in the contract—and there are many obligations and many deadlines—we will not expect Telecom to come back and seek variations. We will not expect Telecom to come out and try to avoid its obligations. We would expect Telecom to meet its obligations in the agreement in exactly the same way that we expect the Government to meet its obligations. Thank you.