Martin Tracey: Telecommunications (Development Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Telecommunications (Development Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3720. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I am going to admit that I was not looking forward to coming down and speaking on this bill because it was not that controversial. It was not that controversial but I have got to say that it has taken an interesting turn. The comment I would give to Spark is: oh come on! Come on! I went back and looked and this levy was originally passed before the 2011 election so New Zealand First was not here but I think the voting was interesting. The voting was interesting when you actually go back to the votes that were taken. I am going to give the Labour Party points for consistency because it voted against the levy then. So well done because it voted against it then. The Green Party voted against it then but the Green Party has obviously shifted its position because it can see that there has been some movement. We have to get this rolled out—we have to get this rolled out. How much longer can rural New Zealand stop and wait for this Parliament to make up its mind? Something has got to be done to actually connect these people. They have been promised it long enough and we need to make it happen.But the most interesting thing about the vote on this legislation before the 2011 election was that it split the ACT Party. The ACT Party had three members vote for it and two members vote against it. I wonder whether Mr Seymour is going to split over this vote. Is this going to put Mr Seymour into some sort of a tizz? We never know.There is another comment that I think is most interesting and this is why I say to Spark “Come on!” and to the Labour Party “Come on!”. Do not tell me that a company the size of Spark does not have the Minister’s telephone number on speed dial. Do not tell me that a company the size of Spark cannot reach out to this Government and tell it what it thinks; that it does not actually have dinners with this Government to tell it what it thinks. To say that there has been no consultation on what is just an extension of a bill from 2011 is pushing the bounds of believability—it really really is pushing the bounds of believability.Spark is being disingenuous. I have not seen Spark’s press release. I am going to take the member’s word for it that Spark has said that it is going to pass this on to the customer. But if that is what Spark has said then I want to suggest that Spark is pushing both sides of the same horse here. In 2013 members on this side of the House fought to stop an increase in copper pricing to subsidise rural broadband roll-out and to subsidise fibre. We fought against it. But Spark just—and this is when we are talking about; we are talking about 19 May 2015. Spark Chief Executive Simon Moutter said he was encouraged by the public’s response to its campaign to cut copper broadband costs. You cannot have it both ways. If we want to keep the copper price low—and we should keep the copper price low because it is not right that those customers who have remained on copper need to subsidise those customers who can afford and who get fibre. So if Spark wants us to argue on this side to keep copper pricing low you cannot come out in the next minute and decide you are going to up the prices when a levy you have already priced on that you already knew was coming and that already way back here—when is this article from? This is from 5 January 2015. Spark had a conversation with the Commerce Commission around its final decision on the liability allocation for telecommunications providers. Please do not argue that you did not know. I fully understand that you may have budgeted for more profit going forward when you believed that—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!TRACEY MARTIN: Beg your pardon. I fully understand that that business may have budgeted for more profit going forward when it believed that the levy was going to drop to $10 million in 2016 as that was the promise made. Take your issue to the Government; do not take your issue to the people of New Zealand. Take your issue to the Government. If it misled you then take it to the Government but there is no need for Spark to raise its prices. And I agree with the Minister that if it does so when this bill goes through then it does so disingenuously. It cannot have it both ways.As for the digital literacy inquiry I am sorry but I find it interesting that Ms Curran who sat on the digital literacy inquiry and at the time pointed out that rural New Zealand was missing out that lower socio-economic areas of our urban cities were missing out on broadband and that there was a delayed roll-out because the big players were actually going where the money was and where the number of connections were—you cannot argue that there are not enough connections and so therefore they are not valuable if at the same time you want us to put that provision into those areas so that there is the capacity for those people to connect. That will be happening once we find a method by which they can actually afford to connect—that is the first thing. And also how can you therefore argue against a tender system that says that all areas now will be decided through a tender system rather than the telecommunications companies deciding that if there is a whole group of rich people sitting in that space who can pay the bill who will download a lot of internet then the companies will actually go and put the signal into there? I cannot understand the Labour Party and its position at this moment although its position is consistent.And although I certainly want to use any opportunity I can to have a go at the Government about breaking promises—and I will mention it again if the Government broken a promise to you the telecommunications companies take it up with the Government. But to suggest that this levy is new is just beyond belief. It has been here since 2011. This legislation is an extension of the levy. It is an extension. The reason why it is an extension—and unfortunately this might turn the Labour Party right off New Zealand First—is because of Northland. One of the reasons why—Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.TRACEY MARTIN: At the time I was interrupted I was launching into a bit of a tirade one might perhaps call it around Spark. I want to let the directors of Spark know that Mr Conor Roberts earns his money because within 1 minute of me sitting down Mr Roberts emailed me to make sure that I had a copy of the press release to make sure that I knew what it was that I could not believe Spark had said. However I still do not believe that you said it but thank you very much Mr Roberts. I really appreciate it.Can I just read this other little bit about what this levy pays for. We have gone on and on—it has been on and on—about rural broadband and the mobile black spots. They are incredibly important particularly the mobile black spots and particularly for Northland. I think I was referring to the fact that on 12 March 2015 in Kerikeri “the Prime Minister confirmed funding of $100 million to extend the Rural Broadband Initiative and $50 million to fix mobile phone black spots in remote places around the country.” One cannot say that the industry did not know it was coming I would have thought. This was back in March. So all the way along the industry has known that this is what is coming. So to say that it was not consulted to say that it did not have an opportunity is disingenuous.The last thing before I sit down because I know there are other members absolutely gagging to stand up and talk to this bill—and I will have more to say at the Committee stage and at the third reading—is that I just want to read this out from the Telcoreview.co.nz website to make sure that we all understand that this is not just about mobile black spots and it is not just about rural broadband. It says this “levy is used to pay for telecommunications infrastructure including the relay service for deaf and hearing impaired persons broadband for rural areas and improvements to the 111 emergency service.” These things are important to New Zealanders. They were concerned at the time when it was removed. It is interesting that it is now being suggested that the cost will be passed on and that it is onerous to the consumer. It was originally a cut in cost in 2011 from $65 million to $50 million.As I say New Zealand First does not just agree with the Government because we wish to agree with the Government; we are here to hold them to account. But the reality is that New Zealand First will not just stand and oppose legislation on a political basis. This is a levy that is being continued. It came in in 2011. The telecommunications companies need to take it up with the Government if they have a problem. There is no need for them to increase their pricing. So Mr Roberts I hope to see you next week in my office probably but at this stage please reverse your press release. Kia ora.