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:3741. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I will definitely try to be original; thank you very much Mr Chairperson. First of all can I thank Dr Clark. I am actually enjoying myself. This is a debate but I find it very interesting that I am doing the Government’s work. Not a single member of the Government apart from the Minister has stood up to actually address the issues that the Labour Party has raised. So first of all—Hon Judith Collins: You’re doing a great job Tracey.TRACEY MARTIN: Thank you Ms Collins. First of all New Zealand First would agree absolutely with the comments around evaluation that Dr Clark raised. Absolutely we would agree. It has been raised also by the Green Party and previously in conversations we have said that the Commerce Committee would be a perfect organisation through which to do an evaluation. But that is no reason to stop this bill.We can accept that urgency may not be the best thing but even if we—[Interruption] I think I am in a parallel universe. I am standing here arguing against the Labour Party about a levy on a corporation. Can I just talk about a press release from Friday—Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member’s address raises an interesting point. If the New Zealand First Party were in the position where on the basis of its concerns about the lack of an evaluation it wished to change its vote is there any possibility of correcting the record on clause 1 which has already passed?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No it is not an issue and it is not a point of order. Continue.TRACEY MARTIN: Speaking to the point of order New Zealand First is quite clear in its own mind how it votes and when it votes. It does not require the Labour Party—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): That is a matter for debate not a point of order. The member may continue with her call.TRACEY MARTIN: Thank you Mr Chair. And the evening goes on so there you go. Can I just draw the Committee’s attention to a press release on Friday 22 August 2014 headed “Spark annual profit almost doubles … grows mobile revenue”. It said: “Spark New Zealand … the rebranded Telecom almost doubled annual profit on the sale of its Australian AAPT unit and grew mobile revenue as it repositions itself away from relying on dwindling landline use.” It made that record profit with this levy in place—with this levy in place. And that net profit rose to $460 million or 25c per share—25c per share—but 22c only per month is what it needs to recover on mobile calls to actually pay this levy. Yet it made 25c per share in the 12 months ended 30 June from $238 a year earlier.I am arguing this against the Labour Party. I find that unfathomable. I would not have believed when I came down to the Chamber today that I would be standing here doing the Government’s job—doing the Government’s job on a Government bill. Why on earth am I doing your job for you? Get up and argue.I agree that there needs to be an evaluation. Surely because the National members are not rising to their feet National must agree also because the Green Party and New Zealand First appear to be doing their job for the consumers of New Zealand and those in rural New Zealand who want broadband. The other thing that Dr Clark said if I can just address it was that the alternative way to pay for this infrastructure which as the Minister quite rightly pointed out is used by every one of the 22 telecommunication companies—upon which a percentage of their profit is paid into to create this infrastructure. [Interruption] For goodness’ sake Mr Jami-Lee Ross please take a call and stand up for your own Government bill. This is just so unusual that I am having difficulty dealing with it. One of the things missed out that Dr David Clark said was that the Future Investment Fund could pay for this.Hon David Cunliffe: Would the member change her vote if the National Party—TRACEY MARTIN: No we will not change our vote Mr Cunliffe because you have not provided enough evidence to suggest that this is the way that we should go. The Future Investment Fund—New Zealand First quite clearly said that we believe that 49 percent of our State-owned assets should not be sold. How on earth now could we vote for the use of those profits when we said that they should be reinvested in income-earning assets that provide an essential service such as power which has been sold off? How on earth would New Zealand First then actually stand by and support some organisation that said we should take it out of the income of the Future Investment Fund?But here is the irony that blows my mind. Whether the consumer is currently paying 22c per month for a mobile call or 80c for any other service because the levy is currently in place or whether as the Labour Party suggests we actually take that money out of another taxpayer bucket they are the same people—they are the same people. The consumers of New Zealand who have got the mobile phone in their hand and I suggest if Spark puts up its prices they change their provider—