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:19472] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I would just like to correct something the previous speaker Amy Adams mentioned. She said that the National Government stands up for rural communities. Well I have a major concern because in the rural community in the Napier electorate which I deal with not one single school will get ultra-fast broadband. No school will get ultra-fast broadband. The problem with that—this comes under the Kiwi share obligation—is that what will happen there is just another hollowing out of provincial New Zealand. These schools are going to get nothing. 
National says it is the party of the farmers. Well that is the biggest load of cobblers we could ever get. I can tell members that there are a number—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Running commentaries are out of order. I refer members to Speakers’ rulings 61/5. Members can have a speech shortly. 
STUART NASH 
: There is great concern when the member stands up and says that 75 percent of New Zealanders will get ultra-fast broadband. I ask how many of those New Zealanders live in the large metropolitan areas and how many of them live in places like Wairoa which will get nothing according to a document put out by the Minister for Communications and Information Technology. 
I will talk about the Kiwi share obligation. The Kiwi share obligation was set up in 1990 in recognition that we live in a country that is quite long and narrow and where there are not many people. The Kiwi share obligation was set up to ensure that no New Zealander would miss out and that a purely market-driven market-led monopoly or organisation could not come in and do away with the rights of New Zealanders who live in remote or rural areas that may have been seen as uneconomic by a purely overseas market-driven organisation and therefore were where the service was going to fall down. The Kiwi share obligation was put in specifically to protect the rights of ordinary New Zealanders of everyday New Zealanders of New Zealanders who choose not to live in places like Auckland or Wellington but in rural areas like Wairoa. 
What does it say when the Minister yet again whacks a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table on the day the bill is being read? Supplementary Order Paper 247 wipes out one of the major instruments that give New Zealanders security around telecommunications. Well I will tell members what it says. I can tell members and tell the country what it says. It says that Mr Joyce really does not care about a whole lot of New Zealanders living outside Auckland. Mr Joyce must have known he wanted to do this. I am sure he did not go to bed on Monday night and think “Oh goodness me the Kiwi share obligation! Oh hell! I had better do something about this because what we are doing here is protecting the rights of New Zealanders. We had better get rid of it.” come in on Tuesday write this Supplementary Order Paper and whack it down on the Table. Mr Joyce is a smarter man than that. He is a lot more cunning than that. The Minister always knew he was going to do this. He always knew he was going to do this. 
I have sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. What has happened with this bill is that the original bill was tabled and it went through the select committee process. We called for submissions as we do with bills and they came in. Then lo and behold another Supplementary Order Paper which was as large as the main bill— 
Clare Curran 
: Bigger. 
STUART NASH 
: —bigger than the main bill was suddenly whacked on the Table. Oh goodness me! We did not have enough time to go out to the industry and use proper process to call for submissions. We asked and David Cunliffe and Clare Curran asked for an extension because this is pretty important. 
Amy Adams 
: It was granted. 
STUART NASH 
: It was granted for 2 weeks; we wanted 6 weeks because this is significant legislation. The extension was granted for 2 weeks and I think the only reason Government members did that was that they knew that the serious players certainly would not have the time to go out consult and put a decent submission together. 
There was a breakdown in process but this Supplementary Order Paper is worse. Mr Joyce knew he was going to take out the Kiwi share obligation when the legislation was first introduced. If he did not know then he certainly knew with the first Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 204. The only conclusion I can reach is that the tabling today of Supplementary Order Paper 247 which gets rids of the Kiwi share obligation was a cunning plan to make sure that it went below the radar and that New Zealanders had no opportunity to debate it in the public forum. 
Mr Joyce knows that if he had put something out about the removal of the Kiwi share option there would have been many submissions from all around New Zealand including Wairoa and it would not have gone through. Enormous concern is being expressed today to Clare Curran Labour’s spokesperson on communications and also to David Parker and to other members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. This Supplementary Order Paper is seen as being rushed through. It is almost like we are under urgency. This is urgency when it is not urgency. This is urgency when it is not urgency because essentially there is no opportunity for New Zealanders to debate the removal of the Kiwi share obligation as put down in the Supplementary Order Paper. That is not good enough. 
I know what will happen. As we have seen Mr Joyce has taken on a powerful industry. I think he has underestimated the power and resolve of the telecommunications industry. I suspect that he will see a massive public relations plan against this whole thing. He has opened up a can of worms. It is not only the telecommunications industry that he has rattled but also the people of New Zealand. No one liked the sale of Telecom but the Kiwi share was there and it protected people’s rights. Roger Douglas took it only so far but he knew he could not get away with screwing the people like this. So when Amy Adams says she stands up for rural communities all I can say is that I would love to call a public meeting in Wairoa and take that member up there so she can stand up and tell the people of Wairoa that the removal of the Kiwi share obligation will look after rural New Zealand. Those people are not stupid. 
Mr Joyce has played into the hands of the media. I bet the press are writing about this at the moment. They are not in the press gallery; they will be in their offices saying that he has handed them this story and asking what he was thinking. It is just like when Don Brash came in. He is a smart man but he does not quite have the political smarts. I am surprised that a man of Mr Joyce’s intelligence has come into the Chamber and dumped this Supplementary Order Paper on the Table. He must have known that the removal of the Kiwi share obligation was not going to sneak through under the radar and that people would report on it. This was always going to be a huge issue. I am not too sure whether it is arrogance or whether he just miscalculated. I am not too sure what it is. 
I would also like to talk about an amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 247 that Clare Curran has tabled. 
Hon Member 
: Who? 
STUART NASH 
: Clare Curran Labour’s spokesperson on communications. She has suggested adding a new clause 6A to make sure that Telecom does not have unbridled monopoly power that it can abuse. I would like to think that Telecom would never abuse monopoly power but history suggests that perhaps it has a slightly dodgy track record in that regard. Clare Curran’s amendment is “To substitute the following subsection for new subsection (2A): To avoid doubt”—is that not what Parliament is here for to avoid doubt and provide clarity—“in determining whether or not or the extent to which competition in telecommunications markets for the long-term benefit of end-users of telecommunications services within New Zealand is promoted consideration should have regard to (a) the benefits of competition to the end user;”—that is nice is it not; I would have thought that every party would give consideration to the benefits of competition with the end-user—“and (b) the benefits of efficient investment.” Clare Curran’s amendment also omits from Supplementary Order Paper 247 the heading “Discontinuance of accounting separation” and new clauses 23GDC to 23GDF. 
This comes across as a very common-sense amendment. It is not a political amendment; it is common sense. I think the Minister in the chair the Minister for Communications and Information Technology has probably looked at it and thought—like he did with the Kiwi share obligation on Monday night—that it makes sense and that he will allow it to go through because after all we are all for competition for New Zealanders and we all want that element of doubt removed. Thank you very much.