Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs: I present a legislative statement on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I move, That the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill, and, at the appropriate time, I intend to move a motion that the select committee report back on the bill to the House by 16 February 2023.

Fire and Emergency and our career and voluntary firefighters are a critical part of our communities. They respond to a broad range of incidents to keep us, our whānau, and other loved ones safe. This includes fires, motor vehicle accidents, medical emergencies, and forming a key part of our emergency management response during natural disasters, among many other things. When these events do occur, Fire and Emergency are there to help protect people and prevent damage to property, land, and the environment. They also play a key role in helping us to reduce the chance of devastating fires in our homes, businesses, and other private and public property in the first place.

The Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 saw the amalgamation of more than 14,000 people from 40 separate organisations into Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ). This included the New Zealand Fire Service, the National Rural Fire Authority, 12 enlarged rural fire districts, and 26 rural fire authorities into one organisation. The legislative framework has mostly been fit for purpose since then.

However, based on feedback from the sector, this Government established a review of the funding model in 2019 to make sure the collection of funding through insurance levies had fair and reasonable settings. This bill establishes the findings of that review and makes important changes to the functions of the levy framework.

FENZ is funded by a 97 percent levy collection, so it’s important that the levy system works well in order for FENZ to deliver critical functions. The levy framework in Part 3 of the FENZ Act sets out the types of insurance contracts that must pay the levy, who is responsible for paying the levy, and the value of the property to be used as the basis for calculating the levy. In other words, it’s a methodology for the levy. The framework does not specify how much money Fire and Emergency will have in the short term; this is done through a separate regulation-making process under the FENZ Act. This means that when we consider the levy framework, we must focus on whether it provides a fit for purpose funding system for the long term, rather than any immediate funding matters of today.

It is also worth noting that the levy framework in the FENZ Act is yet to begin. While most of the FENZ Act came into force in 2017, after the Act had completed its journey through the House, the levy framework in Part 3 has had a delayed starting date. This has given us an opportunity to make certain that the levy framework will work as intended, and ensure that it can be well implemented in practice.

During the 2019 review of the funding model, alternative approaches were considered, such as a property-based model that calculates the levy based on property data, such as value, size, or use. We decided to stick with, and improve, the existing insurance-based model over this alternative. This reflects the fact that the insurance-based model remains fundamentally fit for purpose and the least costly to implement for stakeholders.

However, I would like to acknowledge that there were some concerns among stakeholders about the insurance-based model in the FENZ Act under this approach. That’s why we have this bill here today before us. The Government has heard these concerns and is taking action to address them. I’d like to acknowledge the insurance sector and thank them for the critical role they play in the Fire and Emergency levy under an insurance-based model.

This bill is about enabling the simplest system, making it easier to implement without creating unnecessary cost and complexity. To achieve this, the bill makes four changes to improve the levy framework in the FENZ Act. Firstly, only property insured against physical loss or damage from fire will be levied, instead of property insured against any physical loss or damage.

Secondly, the levy will be calculated using the sum insured in an insurance contract, rather than a term amount insured. These two changes will clarify which insurance arrangements are meant to pay the levy, avoiding potentially complex calculations and stopping some properties being charged twice. The approach in the bill is clearer and it more closely aligns with existing practice and terminology in the insurance sector. It also increases the likelihood that the system will be consistently applied.

Thirdly, the bill clarifies a small technical matter to make sure that motor vehicles insured against third-party risk pay a flat rate of levy, just like motor vehicles with comprehensive insurance will. This was the original intent of the FENZ Act and will mean that all insured motor vehicles pay the levy.

Fourthly, the bill amends the starting date of the new levy system to 1 July 2026, or an earlier date set by Order in Council. This is an unfortunate but necessary side effect of the disruption that COVID-19 has caused to us all. There are several things that must be completed before the new levy system can be complete.

This bill must pass through the House, and the Government needs to set regulations outlining exempt property and what the levy rate will be. It is also critical that the insurance sector has enough time to update their systems to calculate and collect the new levy once the regulations have been finalised. The existing commencement date was set before COVID-19 came to our shores, and it is just not feasible any more.

The effect of these combined changes is to provide a levy framework that is clear to interpret, and simple to apply in practice. This makes the levy framework more predictable and stable for Fire and Emergency and levy payers—two key principles of the funding system. It also ensures that the work of insurance companies and insurance brokers for the levy is much simpler. This will significantly reduce the implementation and ongoing administrative costs they face. This, in turn, ensures that these costs are not passed on to New Zealanders taking out insurance.

Before I conclude, I’d like to extend my thanks to the Insurance Council of New Zealand, the Insurance Brokers Association of New Zealand, the Property Council New Zealand, and to Fire and Emergency New Zealand, who all provided feedback on the exposure draft—your constructive and thoughtful feedback has helped to improve the legislation and ensure it is workable for everyone. Your patience and input is greatly appreciated. I pass that on on behalf of the Minister herself, and I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, if ever there is an illustration of this Government’s inherent lethargy and lack of urgency, it is the speech that we’ve just heard by the Minister Damien O’Connor, on behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs relating to this bill in front of us today, the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill. What, essentially, he is saying is that after the 2017 Act was enabled—included in that Act was a Part 3 which talked about the levy methodologies that would come into effect in 2024. Post the election, there was feedback from a number of stakeholders, particularly the property owners, the commercial property owners of New Zealand, and the insurance brokers, that they felt that there were elements of that Part 3 that were not fit for purpose.

On the basis of that feedback, 18 months later, the Government starts a consultative round with a wider group of stakeholders to reflect on whether the Part 3 levy framework as proposed in the 2017 Act was fit for purpose, whether there should be a broader reset on how the levies and how Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) is funded—should it be through an insurance levy on property and motor vehicles? Are there too many free-riders? Should it be a much wider application of risk and activity, bearing in mind that FENZ increasingly are the first responders to “code purple” heart attacks, which bear very little to the original brief of Fire and Emergency New Zealand to look after fire in our community. After that consultation process, which took two years, the Government then said in 2021 in Cabinet that, ultimately, they will not go down the path of resetting the revenue for FENZ in a more broad context but would focus instead on the particular issues with respect to the levy process which is captured by the insurance companies.

Here we are, 18 months further on, with a relatively small and simple bill which tweaks and confirms for the Insurance Council the figure which they will use, being the sum insured, for their calculations with respect to the fire proportion of insurance on buildings, reconfirms the current rate with respect to motor vehicle and residential insurance fire levies that are paid to FENZ, says that all the exceptions which are in the current Part 3 have yet to be dealt with—“and we will get around to dealing with it as a Government”—and also confirms that the start date is four years away.

I mean, literally, what on earth is this Government doing? What is Minister Tinetti doing? She is the Minister of Internal Affairs, accountable for FENZ, and the sum total of five years’ effort in this space is a bill which is simple in its application and says, “By the way, all the hard issues, all the issues around exemptions and whether the rates need to change, that’s going to be in regulations, and that’s over the next four years.” Frankly, it’s not good enough, but it is illustrative, for people watching on TV now, around the approach that this Government brings to these matters. They are far more comfortable lost in the sea of process than actually doing anything and actually getting stuff done, and this is an example.

Now, as I say, the bill itself, being simple and being focused on clarifying how, from an insurance levy perspective, the fire portion is going to be charged, is fine—makes sense; there’s nothing particularly onerous in it, so, therefore, as you would expect, we’ll support it for what it is. This is it—sum total of five years’ effort. We’ll support it, but, frankly, it’s a lost opportunity.

Also, the issue around what, ultimately, the rate will be set at by 2026—as I said: silent. That’s a subsequent four-year effort. There’s no acknowledgment of the Government that, actually, the levy payers of this country have funded FENZ to the extent of $220 million more than what was expected in this year of operations when FENZ was created in 2017. Who’s paid for that? The Government? No; $10 million a year—motor vehicle owners, residential homeowners, and, in particular, non-residential homeowners, the commercial property owners, who pay 60 percent of that levy by virtue of the amount of commercial property there is and how much their properties have risen in value over the last few years.

So where is the critical assessment by an accountable Minister as to whether $661 million of FENZ revenue is appropriate, is being spent well, is actually delivering for the front-line services? They’re all silent on that. In fact, there’s every chance, knowing this Government, that the actual rates finally decided will go up, because, from their perspective, tax, revenue, costs only go one way. They don’t know how to wrestle back efficiencies. They don’t know how to look at FENZ and say, “Actually, we expect more for the money, not just keep spending, keep spending, and don’t bother telling us what you spend it on. We’re not really that interested. If it doesn’t get to the front line, we don’t really care. We only contribute $10 million a year. This is really a levy payer problem, not ours.” Not acceptable—nowhere near acceptable.

When you overlay that spend—$200 million more than expected—and put on top of it $460 million in five years for capital, and you go to any fire station in this country—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: And we have.

TODD MULLER: —and we have—and say, “Well, have you seen the benefit of it?” Not at all—all lost in the wash. No accountability from the Minister. She just says, “Oh, that’s FENZ’s problem.” You appoint the board, Minister. They report to you. They say, “Here’s our budget, this is what we’re going to spend it on, here are our statements of performance indicators. Here are our KPIs.” Where is the accountability and drive and urgency to get value for money on behalf of the insurance payers of this country? You can tell there’s no urgency because this bill—five years in gestation and four years subsequent to the day to fulfil the detail that sits behind it. That lack of urgency, that lethargy, if that was applied in the private sector, you wouldn’t last five minutes. You’d be out the door before you even sat down.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Some of them will be next year.

TODD MULLER: They certainly will be, Michael Woodhouse—they certainly will be. But they just simply don’t get it, that, actually, there are people out there trying to do the job, put out our fires, be the first responders, under intense pressure. Their parent organisation spends more money than was expected by a factor of $200 million. They are not feeling it. A funding review that became too hard, so let’s just tweak the current model—two more years to get that legislation up, and four more years to finally implement it. It’s illustrative of a tired, lethargic Government who simply doesn’t have the urgency to grasp the opportunity that we need in this country; 12 more months, and that’ll change. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, we welcome this bill to our select committee. This is a great bill. We’re looking at increasing efficiency, making sure that the way that we collect levies for our fire services is improved, so that we can actually save money and produce efficiencies. I think there was a bit of a contradiction from the last member who has just resumed his seat, Todd Muller, in terms of whether he wants efficiency through this bill or not.

This is a bill where I think we have to look at how we collect the levy and not what we’re collecting, so this is just one of the things where we have to tweak the process of it. In this process, we’ve worked really closely with the insurance sector as well. So that’s why we’re about to propose that this is a four-month report back as well, just to make sure that everything is on time and everything is efficient. So to the spirit of this bill, I commend it to the House.

Well, sorry, Madam Speaker, I was a bit slow to follow on. I was a bit surprised after such a rousing speech from that Government member, Naisi Chen, on what is such an important bill this was, in her mind—she took all of about 45 seconds. That very much sums it up, because, with that last speaker using words like “save money” and “increasing efficiency”, I would go as far to say I doubt there is one firefighter in New Zealand, whether they be volunteer or paid, who would use the words “save money” and “increasing efficiency” and “Fire and Emergency New Zealand” (FENZ) in the same sentence at the moment. I mean, what a shambles. And it is no surprise that we haven’t heard from the responsible Minister, Jan Tinetti, who’s the Minister from the Department of Internal Affairs, today, because that is symbolic that she has been silent on this whole debate around FENZ. What FENZ is looking for is some leadership from this Government. That is exactly what we are missing in New Zealand today: leadership from this Government.

I want to echo the words of my good friend and colleague Todd Muller, who led off for the Opposition in this bill, today, when he spoke of engaging the many brave men and women around New Zealand who, today,—who, this morning—will put their lives at risk responding to emergency calls on behalf of their communities. As Mr Muller quite rightly pointed out, it’s not always responding to fires; it is responding to emergency health incidents as well. They don’t feel backed, at the moment, by this Government, and they don’t feel backed by FENZ.

The Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act was passed in this House in 2017. We had this review of Part 3 five years later, and here we are, debating a levy framework that will be enacted in four years’ time. If you think of all the issues facing our brave firemen and women today—here we are, in this House, and they wonder why New Zealanders feel that, more and more, increasingly, Wellington is being disconnected from the issues of real New Zealand. We’re debating a levy framework that will be enacted in four years’ time. There’s some real serious concerns—how do we have this independent Crown entity with an income of around $661 million, as Mr Muller quite rightly pointed out, an expected increase of $220 million. Yep, there might be some nice fire stations around the country. In my electorate of Waimakariri, in my region of Canterbury, there’s a number of new fire stations, largely, of course, to do with the devastating earthquakes, but it’s actually the equipment and their personnel that this funding needs to flow down to.

If I could tell a story of when I visited the stations in Canterbury, specifically the Redwood fire station in my electorate and the ANZAC fire station in Canterbury. It’s quite heart-breaking to hear the stories, the intensity, and the level of complexity that our firefighters are now going out to and engaging, especially in emergency health incidents. Quite rightly, we need to make sure—and it is Mental Health Awareness Week this week—they get the right services, whether we want to call them employee assistance programme (EAP) services or mental health support services. One fireperson told me that they got given the number for the EAP service, they rung up, they needed some support, and the therapist actually had to stop them and say, “Actually, I’m a relationship counsellor; I’m not a trauma counsellor.” These are the lack of services that our brave firemen and women are not getting at a time when it’s greatly needed. Yet in the House, we are debating a bill that got reviewed five years after the enabling legislation, and now we’re debating a levy framework that will be brought in in four years’ time.

When you look at the changes, yep, they seem quite perfunctory. They seem the right way forward—we’re going to change to looking at a levy based on sum insured, and the insurance around the motor vehicle, and defining and giving more clarity to the insurance sector around insuring a physical loss from fire. But, actually, when we look at the levy and the methodologies, this Parliament needs to know and needs to be comforted that when that levy is taken and it is dispersed through FENZ, that money will get to the front line. That’s a problem we have today. We have a FENZ that doesn’t seem to be backing our front-line fire and emergency workers. What we have is a Minister who is missing in action—a Minister who should be stepping up at this time of crisis.

There wouldn’t be one member of Parliament, across any party in this House, that hasn’t received a heartfelt email from someone who’s working at the front line. I’d be very disappointed to find out if there was member of Parliament in this House who, actually, based on those emails, hasn’t gone out and visited one of those fire stations, because that’s when you’ll hear the real stories of what’s happening on the front line. So it’s all very well for this Government to get up today and say, “Yep, we’re bringing this bill to the House. We’ve had a review based on engagement with the insurance sector and other sectors. We’re moving forward about”—what did that last speaker say?—“saving money and increasing efficiency.” I mean, that really has to be a Tui ad, doesn’t it? A Labour member of Parliament getting up—and the audacity to keep a straight face and to say that under their Government, they’re going to save money and increase efficiency. If there’s one thing that the New Zealand public has learnt under this Labour Government, it’s that there is no saving of money—profligate spending, a Government addicted to spending—and there is no increasing of efficiencies.

In fact, when you listen to some of the stories of our firemen and women at the front line, you’ve really got to scratch your head about equipment that is turning up not fit for purpose, money paying for a number of consultants, where work never goes anywhere. So, I suppose, it’s all very well debating this levy framework today, but, I tell you what: New Zealanders listening today will want to know, “Yep, there is a social contract there. We, quite rightly, agree to levies being taken through our insurance, whether it be in our property or to our motor vehicles, to fund a fire and emergency response.” But they want to know there’s due diligence in FENZ to ensure that that money is getting spent well and wisely, and getting into the front line.

You can’t help but think that what’s happening in FENZ, at the moment, is the permeating culture from this Labour Government that is addicted to spending, and there is actually no fiscal discipline, and there’s actually no outcomes. There’s no evaluation. Are we doing what we want to achieve? You’ve got to wonder why this has been kicked out for four years. I tell you what, when you look at what these guys tried to do—sneak through a retirement tax, they’re trying to sneak through a jobs tax at the moment. What’s up around this four years? What is their plan for the levies? Why is it going to take four years? That’s, I think, the question that hangs over this House today. Maybe we might hear some clarity from the Government members when they take their call. But I’ve got no doubt that there will be some suspicion out there in New Zealand, and quite rightly so, because every time they seem to turn on the TV, costs are going up and this Government’s coming up with another reason to tax hard-working Kiwis.

What a negative speech we’ve heard for the past 10 minutes. I feel sorry for people who are listening at home or who are up in the gallery, listening to that 10 minutes of negativity. That’s just an example of where the National Party is at, at the moment.

We are a Government that is getting on with doing good work for people in New Zealand, and we hear speeches like that—just negative, going on and on.

Matt Doocey: Have you been to a fire station?

JAMIE STRANGE: I’m sure that if John Key were listening at home, he would be incredibly disappointed with the state of the National Party at the moment, because he was a pretty positive person when he was Prime Minister. And, to answer the member’s question, yes, I have visited a fire station—in the past six weeks—and I acknowledge the work that they all do there.

I’m not going to take too long, because the Minister clearly outlined what’s in this bill. It’s an important piece of legislation. I acknowledge the Minister Jan Tinetti and, as a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, I look forward to welcoming this bill if this passes in the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to take a call on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill. First of all, I want to acknowledge the workers—I acknowledge the firefighters.

Over the past few months, Green MPs have been going out and visiting different fire stations. I myself visited the fire stations in Whanganui, Newtown, my home town of Palmerston North, and Auckland, and the stories I heard were very concerning. It was very concerning to hear about the breadth of the work that our firefighters are doing. They do a whole lot more than just fighting fires. They’re among our first responders. They’re the first to respond at medical events, car crashes, and other traumatic situations, and, increasingly, flood events because of climate change. So I hope that Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) is listening to their calls for better pay and conditions and that they hire more firefighters, get proper equipment, and offer health insurance to firefighters, and also provide help and psychological wellbeing for firefighters, including those diagnosed with occupational cancers.

When I went and visited the Palmerston North fire station, I was shocked to see the condition of the gear. One of the firefighters took me out and showed me the truck. The gear was falling to pieces, and this was something that had come up at all of the fire stations that I’d visited. He had this compressor hose connected to the fire truck, and he said to me, “Do you know what? We’ve got to keep this thing going 24 hours a day because this truck has got to get out that door and to the fire within minutes, because if we don’t get there, that house could go up in flames.” This is the immense pressure that many of our front-line firefighters are facing. This is the pressure that they’re under, so it’s really important for us to acknowledge that.

We will be supporting this bill to at least the select committee. We do have a number of concerns. I do take the point about the efficiencies and inconsistencies, and making sure that we don’t waste money and making sure that that stuff is streamlined. That will help to give some clarity for the levy, and that’s a good thing. That will give clarity right across as well, so I do want to acknowledge that.

This bill follows two other recent FENZ bills that relate to its levy on insurance policy holders, which presents the primary source of funding for FENZ activities. The 2017 bill revamped the Fire and Emergency structure in Aotearoa, and the 2019 bill delayed the commencement of its new levy regime to allow the insurance industry more time to prepare. The levy rates are prescribed in regulation by the Minister.

This bill makes amendments to the new process for calculating and collecting the levy to reduce administrative complexity, and that’s a good thing. It supports stability—another good thing—and it ensures that the levy complies with its funding principles in the principal Act, and if you go through that, you can read what those are.

This includes narrowing the scope of collection to fire damage insurance previously covered by material damage, physical loss, and technical amendments. Possibly, our primary concern is that in the context of the national fire strike action and the conversations that we have heard as well, we would not support the proposed principles narrowing the levy scope and then being justified to use tighten funding for FENZ as well, because, actually, they need more funding. So I think this is something that needs to be brought up in select committee, or if Government members could give us some clarity about what that implementation will look like, that would be good for front-line workers, and it would be good for insurance companies as well, because it gives us that clearer direction of what’s going to happen here as well.

That detail is good because, as I said earlier, fire stations are underfunded. They are under-resourced. Ends are not being met, which is very, very stressful for the workers. It’s very stressful for the workers and, of course, it’s stressful for their families as well. We’ve got to remember that our firefighters and our first responders are also our parents. Some of them are parents and some of them are grandparents, uncles, aunties, and so on and so forth. So what we do here impacts entire communities.

Part 3 of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act set out the levy framework for Fire and Emergency. It is an insurance-based levy, which means that insurance policy holders are charged a levy based on the type and amount of insurance that they have. In most cases, insurance companies and insurance brokers calculate and collect the amount of levy to be paid to Fire and Emergency, and that’s just part of the functions of it. Part 3 of the Act sets out several matters related to the bill. These are the types of insurance contracts that must pay a levy, the value of property to be used as the basis for calculating the levy, and funding principles for the levy system.

One of the key changes made by the bill—and it makes some sense to me; I’m not an insurance policy expert, but it’s clear enough to me—is around calculating the key on the sum insured in an insurance contract for fire damage. This change will require the levy to be calculated from the sum insured in an insurance contract, rather than the existing approach, which is to calculate the levy based on the amount insured. The amount insured has an unclear meaning when applied to insurance contracts in practice, so having that cleared up would be one of those things about getting rid of the inefficiencies within the current system. So I’d support that going ahead.

Another provision is about charting the levy on contracts of insurance for fire damage. This change will ensure that only contracts for insurance covering physical loss or damage from fire will need to pay the levy. So contracts covering physical loss or damage from fire will need to pay the levy, instead of the current approach for any insurance contract covering physical loss or damage from any other source.

Probably the concern I have here is that when we talked to our firefighters in the different fire stations—and Green MPs did that right across the country—what we found was that the actual firefighting aspect of their job is just around about 40 percent. So if the main levy is about trying to get it—I’m tracking the funding here—from fire damage, then into the levy, and then into paying for the services, will that appropriately cover all the different things that they do? We’re talking about them being first responders to car crashes and first responders to medical events, and they are responding more and more to flood damage as well, so I think we need to have more discussion about that particular provision, and whether that stuff will carry through directly or whether that’s being handled and done in a different way.

So we will be supporting this bill to select committee, but there are a large number of concerns, or a number of concerns—I wouldn’t say that they are large. But I think it’s really important for the Government members to give us some clarity about that and a process in which we can have these discussions in the select committee, because that will give clarity both for front-line workers and their families as well, and for all of us. So we will be supporting this bill. Thanks, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill in its first reading. The straightforward approach to this bill is to support it, but to do so with some reservations.

It delays the provisions that were to come into force on 1 July 2024 back a further two years, to 1 July 2026, specifically on how the levy is calculated and what it applies to. The justification for the delay is a recognition that the provisions were going to be too complicated and potentially costly. Those provisions could end up doing more harm than good. We do question, though, whether this bill is just kicking the can down the road. ACT questions why the Government is delaying these provisions by two years, to 2026, when the original implementation date is still two years away, being 2024. Instead of two years, it’s actually going to become four years before these provisions can be implemented. So that leaves us questioning why the intricacies of implementation cannot be determined over the next two years, and why it requires four years instead; specifically so when our firefighters are literally protesting for help and support.

That being said, on the whole it does make some sense to do this amendment if it means that at some point we have legislation that can be implemented without issue. If we can ensure that our Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) workers are adequately paid and looked after for the work that they do, we can support that. However, four years is a very long, long time. Our firefighters’ pay has increased by less than 5 percent since Labour took office in 2017, but the administration staff at FENZ have seen at least an 11 percent increase in their pay. Prioritise our firefighters, our front-liners over the next four years, please, because with a mere 5 percent increase in pay, our firefighters are doing so much more than extinguishing fires now. Increasingly, they are attending more and more to assist in all types of emergencies. They turn up to medical emergencies, family harm and domestic violence incidents, suicides, and flooding. They just want to be valued and recognised for the work that they do, and they totally deserve this. Firefighters have told us that they are happy to take on these extra responsibilities and attend at incidents not fire-related because they went into this line of work to serve their communities. But they need to be helped, so that they can help others.

The nationwide recruits’ course for 2022 was cancelled. What was the reason behind this? The rumour is that it was cancelled to save on costs, yet FENZ administration staff did get an 11 percent increase in their pay. Operators who are over 60 years old have been asked to delay their retirement plans so that new and future staff members can be trained before they leave. It is hard to train new firefighters when courses are cancelled or there are no appliances to train new recruits with, let alone there being no recruits to be trained. We are aware that there are firefighters who were enrolled in aerial courses over 2½ years ago, and they still haven’t been able to enter training because there aren’t any appliances for them to train on. We are told of firefighters being given basic two-day St John first aid courses and then are expected to attend some serious medical events. The workers at the centre of the FENZ reconstruction were not consulted about this massive expansion in their job description. Some told us they don’t feel that they’ve had adequate training to deal with some of the issues that they are attending. Their response to medical calls, including respiratory, cardiac, and other life-threatening situations, is leaving them wanting—wanting for further training, wanting for support and financing so that they can continue.

This should also include mental health assistance. I know in the short time that I worked for the Rotorua Coroner, some of the situations encountered by our professionals left them in need of help for themselves. They’re now in situations where they themselves have to give help to members of our communities suffering from suicidal tendencies or needing mental health assistance. Many are doing this without adequate training. It is common for firefighters to be working tens of hours of overtime each week due to staffing shortages, attrition, and the sheer lack of recruits. While they dedicate themselves to protecting and helping our communities, the truth is, many of them cannot afford to go by without the money earned from working overtime.

Equipment is failing, mental health assistance is failing, training and recruitment is failing. ACT would like to see provisions in this bill for better fiscal oversight. There are many questions that do need to be asked. If we’re going to keep delaying the difficult questions, should we be investigating alternative avenues such as privatisation? If we want to keep giving firefighters more tasks to do, is the status quo good enough? They’re asking for better wages, less overtime, newer equipment, more staff, more training, better mental health services, among other things. ACT argues that this bill isn’t addressing the hard issues.

We thank our hard-working FENZ front-liners for the work that they do in and for our communities and acknowledge the struggles that they face. We do support the Government getting it right and hence we will support this bill in its first reading. However, we do think addressing some of the issues they are facing now rather than in four years’ time is essential, and we implore this Government to give this the urgency that it deserves. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

大家好 and talofa, Madam Speaker. As we’ve heard, the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill will ensure changes to the levy framework that will ensure the collection of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) levy is simple and easy to administrate. It will reduce the extra costs and disruption to the system, while adhering to the funding principles set out in section 80 of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017.

While this bill changes the way the levy is collected, it does not change the amount that is collected. So it will not increase or decrease the funding to FENZ. This is an important piece of legislation. Really happy to support it, but before I finish my contribution, I want to say thank you to the firefighters in the Ōtaki electorate, up and down the coast, many who I know, but a special shout-out to William Watters, a firefighter in Christchurch, who is my brother. We’re very proud of you. Thank you for your service, for your sacrifice, and to all the FENZ workers out there, thank you very much.

I call, Joseph Mooney—five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as the member of Parliament for Southland, on behalf of National Party, to speak in respect of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill. This bill makes some minor tweaks, which the National Party supports; however, it does bring to mind fiddling while Rome burns, because this is an incredibly challenging time that the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) members are facing. There won’t be a member of this House who has not received many, many emails from people who are very concerned about what is happening with FENZ and asking us to get involved and to assist. Although this bill does make some, as I said, minor amendments, which are useful ones, it doesn’t address the fundamental issues.

I was a volunteer firefighter for a number of years, and I know just how great the contribution of firefighters around New Zealand is. These are people who have their heart in the community. Their first and foremost concern is for the community, literally putting their lives on the line. It can be any time of the day or night, at no notice, and their families have to see their loved ones go away to protect and care for other members of the community—and literally, as I say, at times put their lives on the line. So I have a deep empathy for the concerns that are being expressed by these firefighters around New Zealand. I certainly hope every member of this House has been going to their local fire station and talking with people on the ground to find out what’s happening, because firefighters don’t just fight fires; they respond to 96 percent of all ambulance out-of-hospital cardiac arrests around the country. Yet they are poorly trained and receive no recognition for this work and increased exposure to trauma.

The number of career firefighters has barely changed since the 1990s despite the significant growth in population and other risks in the community, but the corporate administrative arm of FENZ has increased by more than 200 employees. Career stations are regularly closed or fire trucks left unstaffed due to the lack of firefighters. The only way to increase career firefighters is to recruit, but FENZ cancelled the April 2022 recruit course. This bill is not addressing these issues. Career firefighters are fatigued, routinely working more than 60 hours a week, with some working up to 100 hours a week to keep the stations open. Almost daily, the 111 emergency call centres are operating below minimum staffing, sometimes leaving one dispatcher to cover the whole of the South Island. This is unsafe and impacts on the quality of service to the public. Again this bill is not addressing that issue.

Auckland has only two heavy aerial appliances, needed for high-rise and large buildings, which regularly break down. In 1984, the 800,000 population, which Auckland then had, had the protection of five heavy aerial appliances. The most recent procurement of hose has been removed from fire trucks due to repeated instances of the hose failing, leaving firefighters in burning buildings without water. I have fought fires, and the idea of fighting a fire and not having water because the hose fails is absolutely horrifying. This is something, again, that the Government should be focusing on, should be addressing. It is not being addressed in this bill.

FENZ automatically provides income protection life insurance to its management and its corporate administration roles; yet, it is refusing to provide an allowance to enable career firefighters to access medical insurance and income protection insurance. FENZ spent $10 million rebranding signage while career stations have closed due to black mould and asbestos. Other career stations have less than 50 percent seismic ratings, and almost half of all career fire stations do not have sprinkler systems. There is a great irony: half of all career fire stations do not have sprinkler systems. This is a public safety issue, as closed stations or insufficient firefighters means a fire truck has to come from further afield. I have been speaking to folks in my region, who are expressing these concerns. They don’t want to speak up. They don’t want to be out there protesting. They want to be out there looking after their communities. Their focus is very much on serving and protecting the communities that they live and work in, but they are deeply concerned that the community’s safety is being put at risk by not having the resources that they need.

FENZ has a revenue of $661 million—$200 million was forecast for when the merger occurred; $460 million in capital has been spent over the last five years; $460 million capital. It’s an eye-watering amount of money. Yet FENZ has not been able to resolve issues with its lack of staff, poor resourcing and procurement, and bullying and mismanagement. We in the National Party want to see these addressed before any policy is implemented. Labour and Minister Tinetti need to make sure that FENZ has its spending priorities straight. With that, like I say, these are some minor amendments, but we cannot fiddle while Rome burns.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very happy to stand in support of this bill, which is really just clarifying and improving the way levies are collected and set in the fire and emergency sector.

Firstly, I was astounded to hear the ACT Party suggest that we should privatise the fire service, of all things. I’m glad that it is the only party, I’m sure, with such an extreme view. One of our most important services, and they would throw it on to the private sector. In fact, that’s where it originally came from, and the fire engines would go along and look to see whether there was an insurance plaque on the house that was burning and they’d only put it out if it had been insured. We soon worked out that that wasn’t a good way to protect cities from huge fires which would ravage—we saw the public interest in a fire service.

But I just actually really wanted to touch on the commencement date, because there’s been some suggestion that this is, you know, in some way dilatory. But, in fact, it’s the insurance sector that’s asked for this. There’s three things; first of all, this bill’s going to come back to this House next year and be passed in the first half of the year; then, of course, regulations will need to be set under the Act in light of the legislation; and then the insurance industry will need to put in place the appropriate computer programmes, and what have you, to collect the levy in accordance with those new rules. So, in fact, 1 July 2026 is not that far away, given that time line, entirely appropriate. That’s why that commencement date’s been put in there.

Good to see that this bill will be supported through this reading.

I’d just like to add to the comments of my colleague Dr Duncan Webb, because although it’s only ACT that has this extreme view about privatising the fire service, can you imagine what a National-ACT coalition might have to do in their agreements, and what kind of privatisation deals we’ll get: will it be the Police, will it be the prisons, will it be the schools?

Look, many years ago I did a TV series following firefighters around. I’d just like to add my gratitude for the incredible work that they do, not only at the scenes of fires but also car accidents and other harrowing situations. I’d like to acknowledge them today because there are firefighters who have joined the defence conference next door in the Grand Hall, looking at issues of equity and gender. So they really are making some strides in the way that they are managing some of their cultural shifts.

Today, I’m wearing a pin called the huia pin, which is actually a Police pin, which is around Police Remembrance Day, which is tomorrow. I’d like to also acknowledge firefighters as well, because we know that many of them have workplace risks around smoke inhalation and so on. So I’m just thinking about all those who serve on the front line, and add my gratitude.

I can’t believe Todd Muller would think that this Government was lazy and not steaming ahead. MinterEllisonRuddWatts said in 2017 that they acknowledge this Government for listening and not persevering with a regime that wasn’t going to work. I quote from an article they published: “the Government is to be commended for acknowledging the unintended consequences of the change and abandoning it, rather than trying to salvage it with complex carve-outs and other measures, which might have been more politically expedient but would have been risky and inefficient.” That is the reason for the delay. The devil was in the detail, as the article says. I’m not going to go into the complexities, but this piece of work that we have in front of us today has taken all of that thinking and listening into account in a timely way. I support the bill and I’m really pleased that we’ve got to the place we have.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s nice to see Ms Leary wearing the huia pin, but, as a former Minister of Police, before she goes into a station, she might want to turn it around. It’s actually worn the other way around. Rather important.

Now, Jamie Strange rebukes Matt Doocey for being negative, so I’m going to put a positive spin on this debate. I am absolutely positive that this Government has made a complete hash of the fire and emergency service when it has been in Government. The fact that we are here five years after the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act was passed, tinkering around the edges of a levy reform process that should be faster and deeper and more comprehensive than it is is another emblematic symbol of this Government’s flaccid, slow, and lazy approach to policy making. The idea that Duncan Webb puts forward that this is necessary and appropriate because the Insurance Council wanted it—well, actually, it’s the Government that makes policy. Lobbyists lobby; Governments listen, then they act.

Let’s look at the time line, because it’s not the four years; it’s the nine years since the Act was passed that Labour now expect us to believe is appropriate. Five years since the Act was passed, five years since they came to office, and then another four years from now before these levy changes are made. And yet, rather inexplicably, the Government wants the select committee to do its job in a shortened report-back period of just a little over four months. So they’ve taken five years to get to the start line, they’re going to take another four years to get to the finish line for that excellent committee, the Governance and Administration Committee—

Todd Muller: Oh, sensational committee.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —fine committee it is, Mr Muller. I’m proud to be on it; it only gets a little over four months. That’s not an issue for the Governance and Administration Committee. We are efficient, we are collegial, we’ll do a good job, but the submitters are being disrespected once again. Now, the Government could say, “Oh, well, it’s only a small change.”, but, actually, this is going to affect a significant number of people.

Now, I want to add my acknowledgment and thanks to the tremendous and very professional men and women of the New Zealand fire and emergency services—obviously our professional wing—and, as Mr Muller said, just about every single National member of Parliament has been out there providing solidarity. That’s an odd word for a National member to say in the context of an industrial dispute, but on the unprecedented first one-hour strike, Erica Stanford and I—she was in Dunedin with me—called in to the Lookout Point and Dunedin stations. I have to say, there was not trepidation—I thought we would be reasonably well-received—but the warmth and the sense of collegiality and gratitude for our concern of their lot was very, very palpable. I want to pay tribute to them. They are the people that keep my community safe.

I must say, on the wall of the staff room at the Dunedin Central Fire Station, there is a picture of two vehicles, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you’ll be very familiar with one of them. It was a police car from 1987. I think it was a Mitsubishi. It was black in those days. Beside it, was a fire appliance from 1987. The point of the photo was that the fire appliance from 1987 is still in the garage in Cumberland Street at the Dunedin Central Fire Station, having been cobbled together. Now, I don’t think that’s acceptable for police, and indeed, they have a very modern fleet. Why doesn’t the fire service have the same—I was going to say privilege; that’s the wrong word—right to have the tools that they need to do a job well and professionally? They’re being let down. Goodness knows where all of that money has gone, because it has been raised by the levies that we are changing by this bill—a significant investment, apparently, in capital. Well, it hasn’t got to the front line as far as they can see. There was another appliance there, a seven-year-old one where the left rear door had to be opened using a pair of pliers, and the parts weren’t available to be able to replace the interior of the door. That’s just not acceptable.

It’s not just our professional wing; our volunteers actually pay twice. They pay their levies, and then they pay with their time in places like Cromwell, Kurow, Roxburgh, and others up and down this great country. We are tremendously well served by people who put their time and risk their safety for us. Then, of course, the third leg of that treble is our rural fire service. Of course, as someone who spends a lot of time in the outback in Central Otago, we are about to go into what I think is predicted to be one of the hottest summers we’ve had for a while. That dries out the fuel, that raises the risk of bush and forest fires, and the rural fire service will be there for us when we need them. It’s a pity that the Government isn’t there for them when they are needed.

The other very disappointing aspect of this bill is that, as I say, it doesn’t dive deeply enough into the questions of how we levy or what we levy, because, as both Mr Muller and Mr Mooney pointed out, a significant amount of the work that’s done by Fire and Emergency New Zealand is not related to fires and it’s not related to emergencies based on structures. I think this is an opportunity lost. One would have thought that if it was going to be a nine-year journey to get to a new levy framework, the Government could have taken that time to dive a little more deeply into the issues that were being discussed when I was around the Cabinet table in 2016 and 2017, about a fair and efficient levy process that broadens the levy base. You know, we do that in our tax framework. We do it in our ACC framework. We have a broad base. The broader the base, the lower the rate, effectively, and the less it is that people are—not freeloading, that’s an unfortunate use of language, but there are a number of things that are stated exceptions to the fire service levy. Many of them are Government-owned. I don’t think that should necessarily be the case in the long run, but there is also a significant part of the service that’s provided by Fire and Emergency New Zealand that’s not related to fires. Now, motor vehicle accidents is one and indeed, a levy appropriately is paid by motor vehicle owners through their insurance. Actually, that’s one of the good parts of this bill. I think that is a decent tidy-up to include the third-party insurance and so on.

But, certainly down my way, and I think it’s still the case, there is a thing called the Primary Response in Medical Emergencies (PRIME) service, which is primary response in medical emergencies. Very often in remote and rural communities, the PRIME responders are members of Fire and Emergency New Zealand. There’s no levy for that—no levy for that whatsoever. There’s a significant amount of equipment and capital, and for those stations that do have a paid staff, there is a cost that I think it’s appropriate for the levy at least to be adjusted for. Whether that’s the domestic homeowner levy or some other way—I mean, we do this with ACC all the time. We have a levy framework that’s based on risk, based on employers. It’s different in industries and sectors, and whether we’re on the rugby field or in our cars or in our hospitals, it’s a mature levy framework. Actually, I think the Department of Internal Affairs would do worse than pop along to the good people at ACC and ask for some advice about how to broaden and deepen the base, because the broader the base, the lower the cost on individuals.

So, yes, we support this. I look forward to it coming to the Governance and Administration Committee, I hope and trust that the unusual haste that the Government has for the select committee process will not mean that the submitters—because bear in mind that four months and a bit period includes the summer break. So we’re going to be rushing into the middle of December, taking a break, and then working out how on earth we’re going to get the report back in a meaningful way by the middle of February.

Rachel Brooking: Oh, you’re a great committee.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: So that four and a half months is really three months, because, actually, it’s not the MPs that need the break, Ms Brooking; it’s the staff, the Clerk’s Office, and the report writers. But apparently the party of the worker doesn’t care about the worker quite so much. Well, we do, and we’ll be making sure that they do get a decent summer break, and we’ll do our best to report back to the House in a timely manner.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It is my pleasure to take this last call on the first reading of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill. As we all know, the insurance companies and brokers collect the levy from the policyholders and they pay it to Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ). The levy is the primary way in which FENZ’s activities are funded. Since the principal Act was enacted, further information has become available on the implementation of the levy and how the existing Part 3 levy will likely be applied in practice. Without amendment, the existing Part 3 provisions are likely to create a bit of complexity and uncertainty, and this will lead to implementation and admin costs, as well as making levy calculations less predictable and stable for FENZ, the insurance sector, and also policyholders as well. So it’s worth noting that the changes in the way that the levy is collected will not reduce the amount that is collected.

As this is the final call, I would like to extend our thanks to the Insurance Council of New Zealand, the Insurance Brokers Association of New Zealand, and the Property Council of New Zealand, as well as FENZ, who provided some fantastic feedback in the exposure draft. So I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The question is, That the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

Instruction to Governance and Administration Committee