Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill

Members, we now move to Part 4, and this is debate on clauses 107 to 161 and schedule 2.

Can I thank, hopefully—in anticipation of Minister Peter Dunne answering a question around clauses 132 and 133 in Part 4 of the bill. I think these go to questions around times where Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) inspectors can enter properties. In a previous piece of legislation before the House—I think it was the Intelligence and Security Bill, which was passed recently—marae were singled out, and for a very good reason. But I just think that question again needs to be put on the record to clarify that, for the same reason, under clause 133, marae are singled out as separate from any old dwelling, as to consent from occupiers to, under a warrant, enter that land or building.

Clause 133(4) also goes to that, so that when a warrant is exercised on a marae, “so far as practicable” the fire and emergency service staff must take into account the kawa or protocol of a particular marae. So my first question is: is this being singled out because we designate them as special, as it was in the Intelligence and Security Bill? The second question is, I guess, an assurance that communication will be sent to FENZ officers that the protocol of the marae must be adhered to in reasonable circumstances, because I think that is a very important part of the legislation—to make sure that we get that right.

I am assuming these clauses are for a good reason, and that we are respectful of what happens on marae and of the protocols around the marae. This was just a very short call to the Minister to put on the record that we are singling them out for a positive reason, and not a negative one.

In the absence of any other speaker, I am happy to give the member Kris Faafoi that assurance. This does dovetail with the earlier legislation that he referred to. I can also assure him that the Fire and Emergency New Zealand transition team, which is quite comprehensive, is well in tune with these sorts of nuances and relationships, and is working quite closely to ensure that we get the message out to the people on the ground about what the provisions of the bill say and how we expect them to be honoured in practice. I think there has been quite a level of cooperation and agreement between marae and iwi interests and the transition team in terms of that process. I am happy to give the member that assurance.

I too want to speak to Part 4 of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill. I endorse the words that my colleague Kris Faafoi has said—I sort of jumped up earlier. But one of the issues around that is not having a proper interpretation of what kawa is, because it can mean different things in different places, and I just wanted to note that.

I wanted to speak around the inspectors in investigations. One of the issues that was raised by submitters was that Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) would not, seemingly, have independent, or its own, investigators. That seemed to be something that was lacking within the FENZ structure. So I just wanted to ask Minister Dunne to comment on that, and ask whether he thought that that was something that diminished the role of FENZ or gave it some weakness around its potential operations around carrying out investigations.

I want to follow along some of the contributions with regard to tikanga. I accept the response given by Minister Dunne about the capabilities of the Fire Service, and I know some of the iwi liaison officers—for want of a better term—work very closely with their particular communities. In this particular clause 133, it talks about the power to enter homes, and I understand that and I take on board the comment made by the Minister but I wonder whether, in the Minister’s experience—or, certainly, in his communications with the Fire Service—they have talked about what happens post the actual event.

I think that is an important thing because, in my experience, where there has been an emergency on a marae and the Fire Service has come in and done a great job, quite often there is a very, very clear ceremony that, I guess—in the true respect of the proverb: “Ka mate kāinga tahi, ka ora kāinga rua”—one house burns down, or dies, and another one rises—goes with that. In my experience with that particular incident in Whakapara in the Far North, the marae at Whakapara—recently, actually, when that fire took place—the communications from the Fire Service were excellent from the outset. It was a sad and tragic occasion, and they did the best that they could do at that particular point in time.

But post—post is where I am getting to, in regard to my question on tikanga—the particular incident, I wonder, can the Minister give us any assurances, or, certainly, make a commitment to make sure that that post process of an emergency event, like the one that happened in Whakapara and out in Mōkau, out in Ngātiwai, as well, takes place; to make sure that, no matter where those particular incidents take place, there is the follow-up and things are not just focused on the actual event itself.

I move, That the question be now put.

I have just got a small contribution in relation to Part 4. Subpart 5 of Part 4 covers the dispute resolution process, and I think that it is a very good process that has been outlined in that subpart. But I want to alert the Minister to a piece of work that I hope he is interested in and gets started this side of the election—he or somebody else can pick it up on the other side of the election—and that is looking at whether there is a need for an organisation such as the Independent Police Conduct Authority has, particularly now that Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) covers the whole raft of firefighters and tends to be quite an internally focused organisation.

We did not have a lot of concern raised at the Government Administration Committee about this, but we did have enough concern raised about the lack of transparency and independence—so even though it might be independent, it is not seen to be independent—of the dispute resolution process currently. I think it is particularly the case with volunteer brigades at the moment. Nobody has tabled an amendment or a Supplementary Order Paper on this point, and I do not think it is necessary, but I do think that it is a point that would be well worth considering for the future—to have some investigation into it.

The second point I want to make is in relation to clause 128. Inspectors are mentioned throughout the bill, but at this point, in particular, is one of the few parts of the bill where the officials had a quite significant difference of opinion with the chair of the committee. Of course, given my position on that committee, I think the officials were wrong in this instance. I was of the view that we should have a requirement for FENZ to appoint investigators. In Australia, if you look at the investigation role there, they have a dedicated team of investigators, who are required to travel to various parts of their jurisdiction, state-wide. They have a high level of qualification, and that is their only role.

We have investigators in New Zealand at the moment. They are not trained to the same standard as they are in Australia, and we no longer have a requirement for them to be part of FENZ. I think we are moving in the wrong direction. There is a risk that the only investigators who are qualified will be the investigators employed by the insurance company. That cannot be seen as robust and independent. In some situations we will be talking about investigations, the results of which may later be used in a murder prosecution in court because of a fatality in a fire, so this is not a small issue; this could turn out to be a very big issue.

I indicated that I was quite interested in pursuing it. It was clear that the avenue for that to be included in the bill was not open, so it is something that I will be keeping a very close eye on, to see what tensions there are between, particularly, insurance-employed investigators and the FENZ inspectors. The FENZ inspectors in clause 128 do not have a lot of power. They do not have the training and the qualifications that investigators need, and I think that our fire investigations, as a result of that, will be of poorer quality than they should be, particularly if you think of that leading to evidence in a murder trial.

Those were the only two points I wanted to make. The rest of the bill is, I think, working very well.

I will take just a chance to reply to a number of the points that have been made. I go back to Mr Henare’s comment. I think he made a very valid point about post-event contact and relationships. At one level it is easy to say “Well, after every significant event, the Fire Service conducts an operational review of what happened.”, but I think the member is talking more about a community, and almost a spiritual, relationship, in terms of working with the people who are adversely affected and who are seeking to both gain recovery but also restore their confidence and their esprit de corps. That is really, I think, a critical function. It is certainly something that the new organisation will be focusing its attention on, because this is a very strongly community-based and community-oriented organisation now, and I think that the member does make some very good points in respect of that.

In regard to the issue that the Government Administration Committee chair raised about the need for an independent investigation authority, because the nature of the disciplinary powers are shifting from a pretty prescriptive arrangement in the current Act to the arrangements contained in this bill, I have asked the board of Fire and Emergency New Zealand—technically, the current commission—to look at how it is going to give effect to those and, within that, particularly the capacity to look at situations that could come under some form of independent investigation. So there is nothing specific to report at this stage other than that it is something we are cognisant of, and I have asked the board to take it into account as it plans the nature of the procedures that it will apply after 1 July.

With regard to the issue of inspectors, if members look at clause 128—particularly, clause 128(1)—it sets out a range of people who might be eligible for appointment as an inspector. The point here is to try to ensure that we get a range of adequately trained and qualified people who can exercise the power of being an inspector. I certainly do not want to see a situation where we are reliant solely on people put up by the insurance industry, for example. There needs to be some autonomy and some independence there, and what we are seeking to do in the provisions of the bill is create that framework. But, again, given that come 1 July, when the new entity takes effect, there is quite a process of transition to be worked through; a number of these will be details that will be finalised in the working environment post 1 July, given the overall flavour of the bill.

I said at the commencement of the Committee stage the other night that the important thing to remember about this legislation is that it is essentially permissive. It is moving away from an old prescriptive environment, where we dotted every “i” and crossed every “t” and we were hidebound by our inflexibility thereafter. So this is a more fluid arrangement, quite deliberately so. It does place a lot of responsibility on the part of the board and the senior management of the service when it is up and running. There will be challenges for them to ensure that the flavour or, if you like—from that wonderful Australian film—the vibe is given effect to as proceedings follow. So I can give members those assurances this evening.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 262 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to Part 4, and the following amendment in his name to clause 151, be agreed to:

New clause 151(5)

After clause 151(4) (page 109, after line 19), insert:

“(5) FENZ may require a person who has applied for a permit to supply further relevant information before determining whether or not to grant the permit.”

We move to Adrian Rurawhe’s consequential amendments to Part 4 inserting “Services” and changing the name of FENZ to FESNZ. They are out of order as contingent on an amendment already negatived.