Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I will see if I can actually get to five minutes plus one considering the fact that I think I had one minute left in the previous session when we started discussing the issue. I'd like to acknowledge the Minister in the chair Kris Faafoi and now that he's actually there he may possibly be able to answer some of the questions that I did pose in relation to the concerns that were raised by the local fibre companies (LFCs) in terms of the definition about access points. If I could remind the Minister the concern was that although the bill doesn't actually change the contractual obligation with the Crown they believe that perhaps the regulatory regime as set up in 2011 relative to the contractual scope with the Crown has actually changed by adding the words access point"—so if the Minister could possibly explain that. In terms of the consultation process that perhaps went on in relation to the concern that the LFCs have it would be very good if the Minister could explain that.Just in terms of the comment that the previous speaker made in regards to the commission 111 contact code—nobody I don't think in this Chamber would not be actually concerned about vulnerable customers vulnerable people in our society if they're not able to contact 111 for emergencies and whatever. I think we are all concerned about people and I think we would want to make sure that vulnerable customers are looked after. Having said that I'm wondering if I could ask the Minister what consultation the Minister or his officials actually undertook with industry stakeholders regarding the feasibility of the proposed commission 111 contact code as outlined in new section 232A in new Part 7—inserted by clause 33—as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118. I guess one of the reasons is that although Ms Tracey Martin mentioned about the copper withdrawal and how vulnerable people are concerned that it is in fact the copper—well actually it's not the copper or fibre. It's not the issue of fibre that is actually of concern; it's the electronics in our new telecommunications devices. Most people say "Well without copper we can't have a landline." Well actually you do. You have a landline; it's just that modern electronics means that often these telephones rely on power and battery. By the Minister adding this particular bit in relation to the 111 code and perhaps putting an extra burden on the supplier I'm just wondering what kind of reaction he might have had from the industry because it would mean that the industry is actually burdened with the cost of providing perhaps a different method of electronics for telephones or battery chargers or whatever it is. But I'm just wondering why we are legislating for something that—it's not the legislation that is actually changing the issue for these people. I mean you know there are people who are concerned and we have actually had in the select committee submissions from concerned people who said that the copper withdrawal actually means that they have health concerns. The mobile cell towers—they have health concerns. But we have allayed their concerns by getting advice from the Ministry of Health suggesting that they don't have to worry about that. But if the Minister could possibly answer some of these questions it would be really good.Also what indicative costs for the telecommunications industry have been given to the Minister in regard to the administration of the code proposed in the new part? I believe it would be quite a lot and what definition does he have for "vulnerable people"? Who are these vulnerable people and how many people are we actually talking about and how much is it actually going to cost these telcos and what does it actually mean in terms of the costs that they would probably recover from customers who use these services? I think these are some of the issues that we probably will need to get some explanation for.In regards to the 111 thing the contact code it also says it will require the providers of those services to supply vulnerable customers at no cost to the consumer. As I said earlier there will be a cost. It will be a cost to telcos and ultimately telcos are not going to do it for nothing. It would probably mean that the customers will eventually have to pay and I would like to hear the Minister's rationale in actually putting this to the committee for us to debate today.Obviously there are other clauses in Part 1 that I'd like to discuss as well—[Bell rung]—but maybe I might give some other members an opportunity to speak. Nobody is actually standing up so maybe I'll continue if the—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): If you want another call. Are you seeking another call?MELISSA LEE: Yes I would sir. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Melissa Lee.MELISSA LEE: Thank you very much. My learned colleague on my right Jonathan Young actually talked about—Hon Scott Simpson: Very learned.MELISSA LEE: Ha ha! He's very good at what he does. He's a great chair. He talked about some of the issues. Clause 4A in Part 1 replaces section 6 with a new section clarifying how publication of public notices on the Commerce Commission website and in the New Zealand Gazette should actually take place. I mean that is also slightly concerning. I thought the Gazette was actually something to let the public know what we've actually decided and that it actually lists everything that we've done and the full detail should be listed and gazetted. But it seems that what this new section actually does is effectively make it so that only a summary of the matter required to be published needs to be included in the New Zealand Gazette rather than the whole document. I'm just a little bit baffled. I mean is this the new way? Is this the new style of things that are gazetted? I'm not so sure. I haven't really paid too much attention to this but perhaps the Minister could actually explain why the Minister and his officials feel that only a summary of a public notice issued under the Telecommunications Act of 2001 should be published in the New Zealand Gazette rather than the whole document. Yes as I said I'm a little bit baffled. Will such a summary of the public notice issued under the Telecommunications Act 2001 include an address to where the full document can be located in hard copy not just via the internet? If not why not?In regard to the proposed new section 6(3) if a public notice is actually dated and issued solely on the Commerce Commission website and not in the Gazette will the Government consider this the relevant date of public notice? If not why not? Perhaps they could actually answer that as well. There is also in clause 7 an amendment to allow for the operation of fibre fixed line access services and a new phrase: specified fibre service. There is actually a whole raft of things. I guess one of the biggest questions I have is that often in this House we work collaboratively together and when I came into the Chamber to debate this particular bill in the committee stage that's when I noticed the huge Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 118 which actually impacts on virtually all our clauses. It was the next day that the actual SOP was delivered to my office. I wonder what kind of consultation the Minister has actually had terms of the SOP because it seems that some of the stakeholders were rather surprised at some of the issues that the new SOP creates for them; whether it's actually the local fibre companies or the telcos. But considering the fact that we are supporting the bill and the fact that the industry is rather eager to get on with this I'm not interested in delaying this a long time. Having said that there are issues that I have actually raised during this debate and I'm sure that there will be other members who will actually raise some of their concerns and it will be much appreciated if the Minister could actually answer some of the questions.Also in terms of the suggestion regarding the 111 which I raised earlier what specific class of persons have officials indicated to the Minister that they consider a vulnerable person? I was looking for the definition. I know that in the SOP it actually says they might have a potential to be vulnerable. What does that actually mean? Does that mean that if a certain person is older than us they physically have to have a medical condition to be classed as a vulnerable person under this part? Or does it mean that just because I run the risk of—Hon Scott Simpson: Who knows?MELISSA LEE: Who knows. I'm just a little bit baffled. Some clarification would be much appreciated sir."