Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)

I would like to take a brief call on Part 5, “Fire Service Act 1975”. That is an issue. I agree with the changes made, but I want to draw to the attention of the Committee the huge significance of the National Rural Fire Authority throughout—naturally enough—rural New Zealand. Some real concerns are being expressed, by those of us who live in the hinterland, over the powers that the National Rural Fire Authority has been given. When those powers are exercised appropriately, there is no problem, but we tend to be finding a little bit more, especially in the dry regions of the South Island, that the responsibilities of the authority, which indeed can often involve the Department of Conservation—members will note that that department rears its head in a lot of places—are being taken to the extreme, in so far as when a controlled fire takes place, too often the panic button is pushed for the fire authorities to come in with their bright, shiny new gear and put out a fire, as often as not at huge cost to the landowners concerned.

That is a real problem that really does need to be addressed, yet so far as I can see, it has not been. As often as not, those fires are caused by that thing called an unexplained cause, and as often as not it can be a passing tramper, a cigarette butt, or whatever. But if the fire is put out on rural land it is the responsibility of that landowner, and that is where the cost falls. So, of course, that requires a very significant insurance policy, which in terms of the premium is increasing on a pretty rapid basis as those fires become more and more expensive, and as helicopters are used as the primary tool, if you like, to put those fires out. That cost is falling back on the rural landowner.

Many of us are starting to ask, if the cost is to fall on the rural landowner, then why does the cost of putting out a fire in a city not fall on the owner of that particular house? That would be deemed to be rather unfair in the urban arena, and we deem it to be so in the rural arena, as well. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, the Department of Conservation is a fire authority and it is inclined to push the panic button far too soon and go in with massive resources. As soon as the resource goes in, so too does the cost.

Many of us in rural New Zealand would say that a timely fire is a hugely appropriate way of controlling potentially devastating fires in the future. As we have learnt from other countries such as Canada, America, and Australia, a timely burn is highly appropriate as long as the area is not burnt every few years. But I would like to see the responsibilities of the National Rural Fire Authority or the fire officer curtailed somewhat by ensuring that the key local land groups, for example, in the regions are consulted before the fire authority hits that button. This is a hugely important aspect for most of us, especially in the drier regions of the South Island.

I do not have much more comment to make, other than to say that I think we will be addressing this issue in the not too distant future, especially when we talk about the fire safety margins in clause 25. I see that the Department of Conservation has a responsibility to ensure that they are kept in a state, if I can put it that way, to ensure that a fire does not carry from a private property through the safety margin and on to the Department of Conservation estate, where, as often as not, very significant flora and fauna may exist. So my question really is how on earth will the Department of Conservation control the massive number of margins that exist right throughout this country? Nothing in this bill indicates how that responsibility will be carried out.

Part 5 agreed to.

Parts 6 and 7 agreed to.

Part 7A Government Superannuation Fund Act 1956