Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill

When we were last considering the bill, we were debating clauses 1 and 2. Clayton Mitchell has the call, and he has 1 minute and 18 seconds remaining if he so wishes.

I so wish, Mr Chair. It was a great pleasure to have a break and have a bite to eat and come back after dinner. The Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill is taking a rapid trajectory through this House at the moment and, despite the other parties seeming to have their heads in the sand, there are a lot of concerns out there in the real world with how this bill is actually going to manifest itself. The first thing that I would like to put forward from New Zealand First is that we would like to see clause 2, with regard to the commencement date, have 29 February 2018. I think this is a far more appropriate time for this bill to actually be implemented, because, of course, 29 February next year does not exist.

Of course the commencement and the title are very important. Currently, we have got the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill. I think this bill would be suited more to be called the “Fire and Emergency and Revenue Collecting New Zealand Bill”, because the new bill makes sure that the Fire Service actually gets to do what the Inland Revenue Department should be doing. It is collecting revenue to run their organisation, which is not what was or should be part of any ministry’s position to ensure they get positive outcomes.

I have to go back and look at the intention and intent of this bill, the 17th review in 21 years. The reality is that this needs another review, because just shortly after this review was done by the Minister of Internal Affairs, he came out with his fist-pumping pleasured look on his face saying “What a great bill this is. It is going to be so good to see these reforms coming through into this area.”, yet 2 weeks after that announcement, he talked about how civil defence emergency management maybe could have—should have, might have—been enrolled in part of this Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill, which has been put before us. This says one thing, and one thing loudly and clearly—that this Minister has got this bill completely wrong. It clearly needs another review. They need to extend this out at least for another 12 months so that the new Government can actually get in here and sort this problem out.

The first thing we need to consider is that amalgamation is designed to make things smoother, to make things more affordable, and it is about creating efficiencies. Well, this bill has actually done the opposite. By the admission of the Minister of Internal Affairs, in looking through the numbers there is going to be a 40 percent increase in revenue collected and needed—$80 million extra that we are going to be putting on to those people who insure their properties and are going to be charged those levies. If we are talking about efficiencies, why is an extra $80 million required for this organisation? It asks further questions: why, from an organisation that in 1993 did for a short period of time implement the levy system, has it now continued on with this levy scheme on steroids?

Now it is going to be brought in looking after and being levied on car registrations, on contents insurance, on travel insurance, and on commercial and residential insurance. There are a number of people who do not tie up for this emergency service provision and pay their revenues, and pay their fees to support what the Fire Service actually is designed to do. So, many, many people will be getting a service for free, and the other people who decide to insure their property, to insure themselves when they travel overseas, and to insure their commercial properties will be picking up the tab. That may have an adverse effect—and I am sure it will have an adverse effect—because those charges will be passed on to consumers, they will be passed on to everyday New Zealand citizens who will, ultimately, be paying for this service not once, not twice, but three times.

This levy system that they have built here without any caps on the commercial sector is going to be the undoing of this new amalgamation proposal. That is without even going into some of the other aspects that have created some concerns. When we look at international reports—the Ferguson report from Western Australia, the Malone report from Queensland, who have all come out and said that when you amalgamate rural and urban fire services together, there are consequences, and those consequences are quite dire—you find the rural-provincial parts of their country and of this country will be marginalised by this new amalgamated service called Fire and Emergency New Zealand.

I think the consideration from New Zealand First to delay the timing of the implementation of this bill to 29 February 2018 is a very good idea. We hope that the Minister sees the sense in this to move forward, and that will certainly give the next Government an opportunity to give real reforms to an organisation that does desperately require it. There has been so much missed out by Labour, there has been so much missed out by National and so much missed out by the Greens, it just seems to be that the only party that has done its homework on this subject is New Zealand First, and that is why it is common sense. You are going to see a great result come 23 September because people around this country have worked it out themselves. Thank you.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: It’s common sense.

It is common sense.

Members, the question being that clauses 1 and 2 stand part, first we turn our mind to Adrian Rurawhe’s amendment to clause 1. Inserting “Services” in the title was out of order as contingent on an amendment already negatived.

Adrian Rurawhe’s amendment to clause 2, changing “FENZ” to “FESNZ”, is out of order as being contingent on an amendment already negatived.