Dear Minister for Communications,

I am seeking clarity surrounding the use of 20mm green conduit and the usage rights to that conduit, particularly in relation to installing ultra fast broadband within Christchurch, where Enable Networks are undertaking the infrastructure build rather than Chorus.

Question 1:
By default, is any conduit installed below ground automatically owned by Chorus, regardless of who paid for the conduit?

Question 2:
Can existing conduit installed by Chorus be purchased by the customer for the use of ultra fast broadband installation?

To help clarify my questions, I have some example scenarios.

Scenario one:
A developer, builder or persons not involved or associated with Chorus buys lengths of green conduit/duct and installs this into a new build or greenfield property. Enable Networks representitive is sent on site to inspect and scope the fibre installation, but tells the customer that green conduit can not be used because it belongs to Chorus, even though the conduit is unbranded, not stamped, plain green conduit. Is this correct?

Scenario two:
There is conduit installed below ground which is white but has Chorus network inside it, Scoper tells customer that it can not be used because Chorus network exists inside the white conduit. Is this correct?

I believe there are hundreds of scenarios where Crown Fibre Holdings/Enable can save a considerable sum of money in civil costs if there is legislation that allows Crown Fibre Holdings/Enable to utilise pre-existing conduit which will otherwise effectively be redundant once copper is phased out for good.

Look forward to any information you can provide on this matter.

Yours faithfully,
Bryce Young.