Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill

I move, That the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill be now read a third time. I am delighted to do so on International Firefighters’ Day, because the firefighters in New Zealand are our most respected and trusted profession, and today is a day to celebrate not just the passage of new legislation restructuring and unifying our fire and emergency service but also to recognise the contribution that generations of firefighters—paid, urban, rural, volunteer—have made over the years to delivering a quality service to all New Zealanders; to acknowledge the support of their families, who have often put up with their absences; and to acknowledge the work of everyone who has been part of making the Fire Service our pre-eminent emergency service.

This bill brings together our fire services as a unified national service for the first time. Fire and Emergency New Zealand will combine rural and urban, paid and volunteer together to form a new, effective national fire and emergency service fit for purpose in the 21st century. This is the culmination of a series of reviews and reforms over the last 70 years since the Ballantynes fire in Christchurch. It is ironic, perhaps, that until today the one outstanding recommendation from the 1948 royal commission into the Ballantynes fire was the establishment of a national fire service. Never let it be said that we move hurriedly, but today we are giving effect to that outstanding recommendation, and I am absolutely delighted to have driven through this reform.

There has been huge community engagement throughout this process, and the passion and the commitment and the desire for change that we have seen up and down the country, at every meeting that I have had with firefighters and community groups over the last 2 years, has really made possible the scope of today’s change. I want to acknowledge that support. I want to acknowledge the presence of firefighters with us today to celebrate this occasion, and I want to acknowledge their support and encouragement as we have gone through.

It was no coincidence, perhaps—or, in many senses it was, I assure you—that on the night we had the second reading of the bill in February the Port Hills fires broke out in Christchurch, shortly following the Hawke’s Bay fires. What those two events did was put a real spotlight on the camaraderie of firefighters, the lengths that they will go to to serve their communities, and the dangers that they are prepared to face. It also drew attention to why this reform was needed in terms of better coordination, a better delivery of service, and a positive step forward.

It would be remiss of me on this occasion not to acknowledge the sacrifice of Steve Askin, the firefighter—or the helicopter pilot—killed during the Port Hills fires, to acknowledge his contribution and to express, again, our sympathy to his family, friends, and colleagues.

Whatever the nature of the emergency, not just fire but civil or other emergencies, our fire and emergency workers are at the forefront of helping communities. Cyclone, earthquake, flood—any form of natural pestilence, they are there. This legislation puts in place a 21st century solution to their structural issues. It gives them the protections they need, the mandate they need, but equips them in such a way that they can deliver an effective service for the future.

I want to acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson, who chaired the Government Administration Committee that heard the evidence on this bill. I thank her for the efficient and cooperative way in which that committee did its work, and the contribution that she has made as this process has gone through. I want to acknowledge all the parties in this House that have supported this legislation for their encouragement and positivity.

What this bill does is it repeals the Fire Services Act 1975 and the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977, and brings them together in one modern piece of legislation. As I have said, it confirms the mandate and functions of the Fire Service, it gives protection to firefighters in the work that they do, and it deals with an extraordinary irony. The very week that the United Nations released a commendatory report on the work of urban search and rescue services in the Christchurch earthquake, predominantly carried out by the Fire Service, the royal commission of inquiry into that earthquake produced its report and drew attention to the laudatory work of the Fire Service and urban search and rescue, but pointed out that it actually had no mandate to carry that out. That was an extraordinary irony. This bill corrects that and makes sure that, whether it be getting people out of vehicle accidents, extricating people trapped in buildings, dealing with hazardous substance incidences, tarpaulins on roofs, pumping out floods, or responding to earthquakes, the Fire Service—the new Fire and Emergency New Zealand service—will have a mandate to cope with that.

We all know about the work the Fire Service already does in animal rescue, technical and maritime rescue, continuing a lot of ongoing work with other civil defence agencies, and protecting our communities. This is a modern firefighting service for the future. Although it is a national service, it is important to recognise in New Zealand that we have very strong regional differences. That is why we are establishing in this bill a network of local committees to ensure that local interests and local perspectives are focused into the development of policy and operations for the new national service. Pilot programmes to establish those committees are already under way.

New Zealand has around 14,000 fire and emergency workers. Over 80 percent of those are volunteers, and the spirit of volunteerism and the contribution of our volunteers stand right at the centre of this new legislation. Our volunteers are critical to the delivery of our service. They are not paid employees, so they need to be treated differently, and the fire and emergency transition team, and this legislation, bring volunteers together into a new professional relationship with the central entity.

There has been a bit of criticism in recent days, largely from ill-informed sources, about the fire levy. Vested interests and ill-informed sources will always oppose an insurance-based levy system. They claim it is going to be extremely costly for the people who have to bear the 70c-a-week increase in the Fire Service levy; it would be much better to fund this out of general taxation. Of course, if we were to do so, tacking on about half a billion dollars a year on to the direct taxpayers’ budget would cost individual taxpayers far more than the 70 cents a week that they complain about—but then that is the protection of their vested interest.

We have a fairer levy system as a result of this bill. We will ensure, through its provisions, that there is public consultation and a greater sense of transparency, to ensure that the funding that is provided is tied to the strategic needs and business needs of Fire and Emergency New Zealand.

We will also have a better disputes resolution service when disputes occur within the service. The current process is cumbersome, it is archaic, and I think it acts as a disincentive to good problem resolution. This bill sets up new structures in that regard.

As I have said, this bill has been a very long time coming. There have been something like 16 previous attempts to reform the Fire Service. All have failed, for various reasons. Today we stand on the cusp of passing legislation that will ensure Fire and Emergency New Zealand can take its place from 1 July 2017. The principal reason why we have been able to succeed at this time, when other attempts have failed, has been the goodwill and support and encouragement of the men and women of the New Zealand Fire Service up and down the country who recognised there was an opportunity for change, who sought to promote change, and who worked constructively with us to achieve that change. I salute them for the work that they have done.

I want to acknowledge, as I close, a number of people. I want to acknowledge the Hon Paul Swain and the board of the New Zealand Fire Service, which is soon to be the board of Fire and Emergency New Zealand, for the huge job they have done during the transition progress. It has been truly, in the right sense of the word, an awesome piece of work by them.

I want to acknowledge our firefighters up and down the country, and my officials in the Department of Internal Affairs, who have worked tirelessly and enthusiastically on this legislation since it was but a concept about 2 years ago. It is a great joy for them to see that work come to fruition today.

I want to acknowledge the communities of New Zealand, which, as a result of the passage of this legislation, will have a better fire service, a better-organised service, and a greater level of confidence that their safety is being protected. With huge pride and a great sense of satisfaction and pleasure, for the final time I take pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa. First of all, can I acknowledge the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Peter Dunne, and just say that where others have failed he has now succeeded. It is a pleasure for me to stand on behalf of the Labour Party in support of this bill. I also want to recognise the Minister, who has brought to the attention of the House that today is International Firefighters’ Day. I also join with the Minister in sending my aroha and condolences to the family of Steve Askin as well.

I think it is also appropriate to acknowledge the officials who assisted the Government Administration Committee with good, concise, and timely advice, which was appreciated. I subbed in on to the Government Administration Committee for this bill, and I want to acknowledge all of the members of the Government Administration Committee as well, for the collegial way in which this bill was dealt with.

As the Minister has pointed out, this particular bill repeals the Fire Service Act 1975, and there are also the two reviews that took place. This system that we have had for decades has largely been unchanged since the 1940s, and today we have the pleasure of passing this piece of legislation. It has been a long process, and this is a very detailed piece of legislation. The committee—and I had the pleasure of being on there, as I said—scrutinised this piece of work. I want to acknowledge the, I think, over 100 submitters and their submissions. I think their submissions have highlighted things that the committee went on to make recommendations on, to make this a better bill. I think there are a number of things that I would like to highlight.

First of all, speaking to the levy system—and we heard many submissions on this—I just want to highlight some of those things that were brought to our attention. I acknowledge what the Minister is saying around the levy system. There is probably never going to be the absolute perfect system that everyone is going to agree with, but I think this one, for its purposes, comes close. So I want to acknowledge that. I think that the issues that a number of the insurance companies and the Insurance Council brought to our attention were listened to—for example, ensuring that not only the insurance companies but also insurance brokers and policyholders, for the avoidance of payment of levies, were brought into this as well, because at first it did not seem that they were. So I think that is just one example where the submitters have made a valid point. It was heard by the select committee, and amendments have been made to this bill. So I want to acknowledge their contribution.

In the same vein, we had a number of submissions from museums, and I think they were often passionate and they were often giving very real situations that they could find themselves in, and I want to acknowledge them also, because I think their contributions made this a better bill.

I cannot help but refer to volunteers. I come from a very small community. We have a volunteer service in our small community, and this bill aims to improve the support for volunteers and bring them into direct relationship with the new Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ). I think it is a very good thing to have the support of the new FENZ organisation, not only for its own sake, but for the sake of the small communities that it serves, or all communities that it serves. Often the volunteer fire service is at the heart of the community. I think that our smaller communities—whether they be urban or rural—deserve to be supported and I fully endorse the support of voluntary firefighters.

There was a lot of discussion around the local advisory committee, and that is another way to ensure that the voice of the entire community is heard. Each community has its own distinct way of operating, and I think it is important that the diverse voices are heard all throughout the services that are provided.

Both the Minister and I have used the word “service” quite often and I do want to make one comment around that, purely because of the number of firefighters and service people who make a huge commitment, not only in their professional lives but in their personal lives as well, in the service of our country. I think it is worthwhile noting that their service is appreciated, and that not only is it appreciated; the word “service” may not now be in the name of the organisation but it is my sincere hope that the whole concept of service continues, and continues to be appreciated by the wider New Zealand public. I am certain that that will happen.

I also want to talk—as I say, I come from a small community—about the heart and core of our economy really, the primary sector. One of the things that was submitted was around using fire as a land management tool. Again, I thank the officials because, whilst there were provisions in the original draft of the bill, I think what has been accepted by the Committee of the whole House makes the use of fire as a land management tool that much more explicitly clear. It also provides that FENZ provides guidance around the safe use of fire as a land management tool. I commend that also.

I want to acknowledge the many people in the gallery today, particularly those who have made a huge contribution to this whole process leading up to today, the third reading of this bill. Without any further delay we need to pass this bill as soon as possible, and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Like others in this House, I want to begin by congratulating the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Peter Dunne, who has achieved a significant updating of the basic underpinning legislation for the New Zealand Fire Service, soon to become the Fire and Emergency New Zealand organisation. Congratulations, Minister. This is something that has been overdue for some time, and the constructive and consultative way in which you have undertaken this work is something worthy of praise, I believe.

I also want to thank members from across the House. I had the pleasure of sitting on the Government Administration Committee during the consideration of this legislation. With the sole exception of New Zealand First, I think all parties in this House have taken a very constructive view. They listened to the evidence that was put forward from not only our heroic and hard-working firefighters but the community groups, the museums—all the organisations and individuals who came forward to submit on this bill. I think it is very unfortunate that there is one party in this House that is taking the view that this legislation is not necessary, and, in fact, that is a view based, in my opinion, on ignorance rather than on an understanding of what this bill actually does.

This legislation updates the underpinnings of our Fire Service for the 21st century. It is a fact that already more than half of the emergencies attended by the Fire Service are not actually fire in nature. They are the car crashes, they are the accidents. In some cases, the Fire Service is a key component of our civil defence response. So it is quite appropriate that the name of the Fire Service be updated to include reference to that emergency component.

In so far as the way levies are raised, and given that the starting point from this legislation did not see a move away from the use of insurance levies, rather than general taxation, to fund our fire and emergency services, I think we on the committee paid close attention—certainly I paid very close attention—to what those in the museum and gallery sectors were saying. These are organisations where the capital value of the precious taonga that they hold—the paintings, the artworks, and, in the case of the Museum of Transport and Technology in Auckland, the Lancaster bomber, which is one of maybe only 10 left in the world and of incalculable value—and the insurance they take out on these capital products, these investments, these treasures, is not reflective of the cost perhaps of actually servicing them from a fire protection point of view.

So I am grateful that the Minister listened very carefully to those concerns, and they will be reflected, I think, in a regime for levying those organisations, which is sensible and allows them to pay their dues and to pay their way and to make sure they are contributing their part. But, at the same time, it does not impose crippling costs upon organisations that are crucial for protecting our treasures and our history.

There are many other clauses in this legislation that are positive. I think the way we looked at search and surveillance powers—this is something I certainly took particular interest in. I think that when you are using the coercive powers of the State to pry into people’s private business, there have to be checks and balances. But bringing the search and surveillance powers that may be used, for instance, for fire investigation into line with the Search and Surveillance Act so that there are warrants and there is the need to produce identification—these are all measures that I think provide appropriate checks and balances.

So I think, all up, this is very good legislation. I want to, once again, pay tribute to the men and women of the Fire Service, who risk their lives to keep the rest of us safe and who do so much more than fighting fires. They do the protective work and the educational work but also are out there freeing people from damaged vehicles and generally serving their community in a selfless way. I also want to pay tribute to the many officials who worked on this legislation, as well as the serving officers of the Fire Service who offered their views during the consultative process. I commend this bill to the House.

Can I commend the member who has just resumed his seat, Paul Foster-Bell. He is the deputy chair of the committee that I have the privilege to chair, the Government Administration Committee, and he does a very fine job. He really genuinely assisted in getting cross-party collaboration on trying to make what we thought was already a good bill even better than it was, and I think our committee achieved that. I want to acknowledge, also, that the Committee of the whole House did good work on this bill.

This is a long overdue piece of legislation and I was delighted, having witnessed several other attempts to achieve amalgamation of the various parts of our Fire Service, to have the opportunity to chair the committee that looked at it. We had over 100 submissions on the bill, many of which were from people who had a lot of experience in the firefighting business, either as professionals or as volunteers. I think they made one of the most valuable contributions that I have heard. So I want to acknowledge them.

The levy system, which the Minister of Internal Affairs acknowledged was one of the most contentious issues, and I will mention it later on—I do not think we have got it right. I would not be as dismissive of the people who are concerned about it as the Minister was, but I certainly hope that their fears are not realised. I certainly hope that they are wrong in the description of the concerns they have, because they think they are genuine. They raised them with the committee, and we were unable to progress that.

Paul Foster-Bell mentioned museums, and we had good assurance from the officials that the concerns they raised would not be realised. It was one of the frustrations that the committee had, in that a lot of the detail is going to be in regulations, but we made our views very clear. We have got on the record the assurances we received at various points of the deliberations, so that we can say: “No, no, you told us this, and now you’re going to deliver it.” So I will just remind the people who are responsible for that that we have got it on the record and we will be keeping a close eye on it. But I do have confidence that they will deliver in the way that they said.

The Committee of the whole House accepted the recommendations from our committee and made what I think were good amendments. The local committees are now called local advisory committees, and we thought that was pretty appropriate because that is going to be their job. They are going to be advising. We excluded the insurance of aircraft that fly scheduled international services. We included some additional anti-avoidance provisions. We got a lot of help from the insurance industry. Despite the fact that it has a fundamental opposition to the levy regime, it still gave us a lot of assistance in working through some of the insurance details, which is not the expertise of any of the members of the committee. I just want to put on the record that we appreciate that, and the consideration of the use of fires as a land management tool, which was something that I guess, for a lot of the city slickers who were advising the committee, was not a familiar use. But, again, we came to a really sensible decision, based on the contributions that we had from submitters.

This is a really big and significant change, and it is coming into effect on 1 July. I just want to say that I am frustrated that it has been delayed so long. We made the offer. We worked hard at the committee, we got the bill back before it was due, we made the offer to work in our overtime hours to perhaps get this bill progressed, but I think—probably I would not say it was the obstinacy; I would probably say it was the incompetence of the former Leader of the House, as to why that offer was not taken up. So it is now May, and this bill is coming into effect on 1 July. I can give the Minister the assurance that it was despite our efforts, which is not the usual case in Opposition, actually, that this bill has been delayed.

I want to say that we as a Parliament have made a big and difficult job more difficult because of the time pressures that we have now put on the people implementing it. That was not the intention of our committee, it was not the intention of Labour, and if you want more details on who to blame, I am happy to provide them at a suitable opportunity.

Labour wants this bill to be delivered. We support it, and we want it to be delivered well. We want our firefighters to go into the new regime knowing their place. We want them to know their chain of command, and also to know that they are valued and valuable. They need to feel this is their organisation, wherever they come from in their current life, whatever part of the Fire Service they come from. We want New Zealand citizens to continue to hold our firefighters on the pedestal of respect that they currently do.

It is quite funny, when you look at the regular surveys of what professions are highly regarded. It struck me a number of times how ironic it was that we as politicians, who are usually on the other end of the scale, were determining the structure for the profession that is held in the highest regard, but I hope we got it right.

It is a grand and fortuitous situation, hopefully, that we are passing this bill on International Firefighters’ Day, and I guess that is a real tribute for Parliament to give firefighters. So I certainly hope it will go through by 6 o’clock. Minister Dunne, you do not have to get anxious about that, because we cannot extend it past the time we have got.

I want to finish with some acknowledgments. I want to acknowledge firefighters throughout the country, particularly those who have worked tirelessly recently in my electorate on the Port Hills fires. I want to especially acknowledge Steve Askin, who died fighting those fires, but also all the firefighters who worked so hard to keep people and property safe, often, I guess, in more dangerous circumstances than we have seen in New Zealand before—very similar to what has been seen in Australia, but pretty horrific for us. I certainly do not want to have a repeat of that anywhere in the country.

I want to acknowledge the Minister. It is about the 16th or 17th time an attempt has been made. He got the stars lined up, he got the right people on the job, and it has worked—so I congratulate him on doing that. I want to acknowledge all of the select committee members who worked so hard to get this right, the submitters who contributed so well to our thinking, our select committee staff, and, particularly, our officials. I think by the end of the process they were actually enjoying coming to our select committee—it may just be that they were extremely good at putting on a brave face. But, under a lot of time pressure and a lot of pretty hard scrutiny from the select committee members, they did the Public Service proud. We had a very wide range of advisers, and every single one of them did a top-quality job. I hope that their bosses are listening and that it is reflected in their next wage negotiations, because they deserve it.

This is a huge step, but for me it is still a job not finished. That is not a criticism of the Minister; I think we can just go further, after what has been a very big and important step forward. I think we can develop a fairer levy system, and we should try to do that on a cross-party basis. We have only got 11 sitting weeks left, Minister Dunne. You are pretty good at using your time well. I challenge you to get that discussion started across all parties here. Let us see who of us is left, after 23 September, and let us pick it up as a discussion that needs to be had.

I do think that we need a more common-sense approach to traffic management. If we can trust firefighters to save our lives—and we do—I think we can trust them to test fire hydrants without needing a traffic management plan, and I hope we can do that. We need an independent complaints process. Submitters raised that, and I think that in the same way as the Police do, we should look at that. And we should put “Service” into the name of the new organisation. I do not know why, really, it is not in there, but we all know that what firefighters do, whether they are in rural and forest or are professional or volunteers. They are there because of their commitment to service, and even if the word is not there, none of us will ever forget that.

This is a good and positive step forward, and I am delighted to see its progress this evening.

It is an honour and a privilege to rise in wholehearted support of the third reading of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill. Now, you will have to indulge me; this is the first time I have spoken on this bill. In fact, I am a new member of the Government Administration Committee. I am a new MP; I am here to learn from the best, so clearly that is why they have put me in that select committee.

Can I just acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson for all the work she has done on this in leading the committee; in fact, can I acknowledge all the committee members as well. One of the important parts of the legislative process is to take a bill through the public submission stage, consult the public, and, based on its feedback, kick this bill around and bring it back in a good shape. I think that is exactly what the committee has done. There were around 105 submissions, and I think we bring a very good bill back here in its third reading.

I just want to acknowledge the Hon Peter Dunne—very passionate, very dedicated and committed to this bill. I think that came out in his call today, so I just want to acknowledge all his work. It is the biggest reform since the 1940s. We are following up from the Swain recommendations. It will be replacing outdated legislation from the 1970s and, pretty much, future-proofing and modernising the service going forward in the 21st century.

Like others, I do want to acknowledge Steve Askin, who lost his life fighting the fires in the Port Hills. Steve was from Waimakariri. But I also want to acknowledge our firefighters—firemen and women, volunteer and career firefighters—who give up so much time, have so much commitment, and have the ultimate professionalism.

A good example of that is I recently attended a Gold Star presentation for Rodney Foster, a fireman from the Kaiapoi Volunteer Fire Brigade in my electorate. Rodney has committed over 33 years of service to the volunteer fire brigades of not only Kaiapoi and Waimakariri but several fire brigades up and down the country. I think it is right that we are supporting our very hard-working firemen and women with this legislation going forward.

One of the biggest tasks, when you look to gather all this together in an integrated system, is how you deal with the natural tensions. We see this playing out between the tensions of urban and rural, of big and small towns, and of volunteer and career firefighters. I think this legislation lands in the right place of dealing with those natural tensions by bringing everyone together in an integrated system that will ultimately provide a better response for the safety of New Zealanders, our local communities, and our families. So I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to take a call on this, the third reading of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill. I too, on behalf of the Green Party, want to offer congratulations and acknowledgment to the Minister on getting us to this point. It has been said by others, but I think it is worth each of us repeating, that this is a very significant piece of legislation. It is legislation that supports the people who are protecting us and our property, and those who at times lose their lives in that process, and so there is not much more important business. This is reform that has been tried before and has not been able to be done, so I really do want to acknowledge what it has taken to get us to this point.

This is the most significant reform since the 1940s. While it is an updating of the Fire Service Act of 1975 and the Forest and Rural Fires Act of 1977, in some ways those separate pieces of legislation represented a point in progress that had not moved us very far from what we knew we needed at an even much earlier time, and we have got to it now at a much more significant point. We acknowledge that this is the result of a huge amount of very significant thinking—there were reviews in 2012 and 2015—that considered what was needed in this reform, and then we had 104 submissions, 47 of which were oral submissions, through the select committee process.

Those submissions, as others have mentioned, came from a very wide range of people, from people who would be levied and insurance companies that are involved in that process, to those who are on the front lines. I too want to give my thanks to, particularly, those on the front line who shared their experiences and challenged us to think about some of the practicalities involved in this degree of reform.

I do want to note that one of the things I am most encouraged by in this legislation is actually a very, very small point in it, but it is the implementation of a 3-year review of the legislation. We have known we needed significant reform since the 1940s and it has taken us until 2017, and when it comes to this kind of civil defence, we know that we have got increasing demand on these services. This is a massive reform that we are undertaking at the moment and we know that we are not going to have it right in its entirety. I think there is trust from most in Parliament that we are moving forward and in the right direction but that we are not going to have got all the details right, so that 3-year review is critically important. It points us towards ensuring that the systems in the meantime are reflecting on what is working and what is not, so that we can be in a mode of constant improvement, and I hope that is the will of everyone. It was certainly the mood in the Government Administration Committee.

I do want to acknowledge that since this bill was introduced we have had the Kaikōura earthquakes, the Wellington earthquakes; we have had the flooding in Wellington and Kāpiti and Porirua; and we have had the fires in Christchurch—on the night of the second reading, which made this so poignant—and in Hanmer, and the floods in Coromandel, and those were just within the time of the consideration of this bill. To me, it just brings home how critically important this legislation is, because we are seeing more and more need for emergency services in responses to floods, quakes, and cyclones, and this is going to be increasing as the already-locked-in impacts of climate change escalate.

I do want to speak to some of the points of content of the bill while noting that, obviously, we are supporting this bill. We understand and acknowledge that there are 14,000 people whom this bill is covering, 80 percent of whom are volunteers. I particularly want to acknowledge that this is a bringing together of two cultures, from the urban force and the rural forces, and that volunteers are primarily in the rural areas. Volunteers are a heart of our rural communities, and it would not work—well, in some people’s heads, I guess, in the city we assume many positions should be paid and we expect that, and that is appropriate in an urban setting, but within a rural setting the context is different, and I think it really is quite an exceptional undertaking to try to bring these two very distinct cultures into one organisation.

I do think it will make the local advisory committees critically important, and it will also make important the fact that the legislation enables an independent advocacy and support service to be set up—because there is likely to be a time when the needs of the paid force and the volunteers could come into conflict, and when the trust in the institution of Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ), which would more likely be representing paid interests, may be seen to have a conflict. So to have that agency or support or service set up in consultation with the volunteers so that there would be that avenue for independence is, I think, a very wise provision in this bill. We certainly heard that sometimes those relationships have not been easy, and we want to make sure that the legislation supports a positive pathway forward of recognising those different interests at times, and protecting people in that process.

Also, I would like to again reiterate our hope and understanding and assurances that are on record around the levy process. I do hope that we will see a very simple and transparent system set up via regulation. My preference is always for us to have worked these things out before the legislation passes and for it to be part of that public consultation within the legislation. I am not a fan of this thing—which we seem to be having quite commonly through Parliament—of having the enabling legislation with detail that is so absolutely significant being done outside the parliamentary process. However, it is good to have the assurances, and we will certainly be keen to be involved in any discussions about the establishment of that levy system.

I do hope that there will be a levy waiver system for our public institutions. I would acknowledge Paul Foster-Bell’s contributions in the committee, particularly around protection of our art galleries and museums, which are dear to all of us, and I did hear a particular interest from that member in the process of doing that.

Another aspect in terms of the bill that we will certainly be looking for feedback on is acknowledging that the title has “services” taken out, and that that is a point where some people feel as if their reason for being engaged in this work has been made invisible. I do think that that is a shame. The acronym “FENZ”, to me, is not so pretty that it could not have been “FESNZ”. I do not know—I think we could have come up with something a bit better.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Public policy by acronym.

Yeah. I don’t know—I think we could have come up with something a bit better that did acknowledge the importance of people’s service and the reasons that they are doing this, and made that visible in the title of the bill and the organisation. But that is where we are at at the moment, and there will always be a chance for progress in that 3-yearly review.

In the final moments, I do, again, just want to offer the Green Party’s absolute, heartfelt thanks for all those paid and volunteer firefighters who put their bodies and their mental well-being on the line for us on a daily basis.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to make comment on this third reading, and also to speak on behalf of my colleague Clayton Mitchell, who is unable to present here today. I want to start by saying that at the outset of the first reading, my colleague Clayton Mitchell made it clear that New Zealand First members would support the legislation through its first reading in the hope that we would see some reforms that we could live with; that we thought we could have confidence in; that would make the Fire Service truly more efficient across the board and, hopefully, less costly; and that any reforms would not unduly and unfairly hit people with levies while at the same time allowing others to sit on the sidelines and contribute nothing.

I have to say also, right from the outset, that I am one of those gentlemen—I am a father-in-law of a man whom I am very, very proud of, by the name of Scott Shadbolt, who is the highest-decorated firefighter in New Zealand. He is a recipient of the Valour Medal, was the first to receive it in 106 years, and is one of only three people to have been awarded it. Through him and other members of my family who are professional firefighters and volunteer firefighters, I am fortunate to have a pretty good understanding of some of the issues within the fire service, and so too does Clayton Mitchell.

I am also privileged, as a former mayor, to have some very good friends in the Carterton volunteer fire service, who did our district and our people proud during the awful balloon tragedy that happened in the rohe of Hurunui-ō-Rangi, which resulted in the deaths of 11 people. I can say to this House that I see those firefighters on a day-to-day basis, and I can assure you that those firefighters still have some pretty vivid and horrific memories burned into their brains as a result of the unfortunate work that they were required to do in the service of our community. I am immensely proud of them, and will always be so grateful to them.

New Zealand First is not blind, and has never been blind, to some of the issues that have plagued our Fire Service internally. We all know well the difference between professional firefighters and volunteer firefighters, just like in army, where you had the same issue between regular soldiers and territorial force soldiers—some called some “trogs” and other names; that is just the way the culture had evolved over the years. We know that there are clear professional differences. We know that there are some skill set differences between rural firefighters and urban firefighters. We know that there are differentials in competencies The issues around command have long been known, where some commanders have been roundly, scathingly attacked by professional and volunteer firefighters alike. We are not blind to the issues and the challenges, and we supported the first reading in the hope that we might be able to address some of these things and support it.

Come to the second reading, and, again, Clayton Mitchell pointed out his concerns about the levy, with the weight of it falling mainly on commercial building owners and residential people through their insurance. He had already raised, in the first reading, questions around why we could not look at compulsory third-party insurance for motor vehicles and tack the levy in there. We would also solve another problem out there, which is related to vehicle accidents. That, clearly, was not something that the Government Administration Committee or Minister Dunne wanted to accept. I think we raised concerns about the many people who would be paying—business people and residence owners in particular—and the number of people who would remain untouched, outside of the levy regime.

He said that in the committee stage—I am reading from his Hansard—96 percent of the submissions opposed the levy proposals. Not opposing a levy at all, but this levy proposal—the way that it was purported it would work and their belief of how it was actually going to work, at the end of the day. The issue around the Fire Service being made responsible for and required to divert resources of its own, in order to now become a collection agency—the question was raised by Mr Mitchell: is that not what IRD does, and is that not a more appropriate way to do that? I am not sure myself, having not sat on the committee, as to why the committee followed this path and why all the other parties agreed to it. Mr Mitchell and New Zealand First do not.

Uncapped levies are another issue, and there have been concerns raised out there. Mr Dunne might consider these to be interest groups that are focused only on self-interest, but I read a media release and a comment that said: “New Zealanders will have to pay an extra 40 percent in their insurance fire levy from July, despite the assertions that this amalgamation of fire services is about efficiency. This Government’s reform package will result in an immediate cost increase of $80 million for little or no increase in services, despite the claims by the Minister that these reforms will save money.” The prediction from the Taxpayers’ Union is: “Total fire service costs will shoot up $80 million per year despite efficiency being the key promise by Mr Dunne of these reforms. What is worse, the Government has increased the economic burden on New Zealanders without any comparable increase in the level of service.”

We in New Zealand First cannot help but reflect for a little moment on this Government. This Government won those Government benches and 59-odd MPs on a campaign—and I am hoping Labour is listening—that it would reduce compliance costs to business, that it would be business-friendly, and that it was the business people’s best buddy. And yet when we look at this legislation on the backdrop of other Government legislation, what do we see? We see an earthquake-prone-buildings piece of legislation being rammed through the House that is foisting upon business people massive increases in costs for no increased capability in their buildings at all, despite the fact that these buildings are little wooden buildings tucked away in villages around the country, which have withstood every major earthquake thus far, including the last one. There is going to be no gain for them at all—an increase in business costs.

Look at the occupational safety and health legislation that this Government has rammed through, which is being highly criticised out there now. It is foisting upon people massive compliance costs that will give no productivity gain at all, and much of what they are being required to do is just plain common sense anyway. You look at the Government’s refusal to allow New Zealand First to get legislation through that would change the cost of strengthening these buildings from capital works to repairs and maintenance, which would allow owners to get a tax break. This Government prevented that. There are four areas now, with this bill going through—four areas alone—where this Government, purporting itself to be business-friendly, is foisting upon commercial operators, commercial building owners, and even residents who rent properties, massive compliance costs.

There is word for that, and you cannot use it in this House, but it rings in the ears and it simply says that if you truly believed that when people voted this Government in, they were going to get a reduction in compliance costs in the business sector, forget it. There are four big whammies that you have just got. This piece of legislation—well, I can see the nodding and the shaking of the head from Mr Hudson over there, so I will read out a piece by Mac Mckenna.

💬 Dr David Clark: They hate business over there.

They hate business, do they not? Mac Mckenna: “Using the government’s own figures, the total cost of the new entity, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, will shoot up by $80 million each year. The burden of these costs will fall on only those who insure for property.”—not on all those people out there who do not insure. “The changes on July 1 will see a 40% increase in fire levy rates on insurance policies. For residential insurance-holders the fire levy only applies to the first $100,000 of cover, so the increase will be a maximum of $36.20 per annum. However, because the cap does not apply to non-residential property the average levy paid will be substantially [higher].”

New Zealand First would have liked to have supported this bill, but the signals we gave right at the start have been ignored and the Government has gone ahead anyway. Reform is needed and we applaud that thought, but this is not the way to have done it.

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak briefly on this bill—a most important bill. In my time in public life I have seen three goes at reforming this sector—this very valuable sector—of our community, and I congratulate Minister Dunne on getting there on the third go that I have seen.

I just want to quantify, I guess, the significance of this part of our community to an electorate like mine. I have some 26 volunteer fire brigades, which include over 500 volunteers, and that is just in the Rangitīkei electorate. That is pretty significant. We have three defence force brigades, six council rural fire brigades, and those are supplemented by a couple of full-time Fire Service stations out of Palmerston North. It is a very significant sector of our community. It is a community that, for a long time, has operated in different manners in different parts of New Zealand, and I think this is a very good initiative to try to standardise this around New Zealand. I think it will make quite a difference to the way the service operates. It will particularly make a difference to the way our volunteers operate.

In the early part of this latest reform, as was the case with the previous two that failed to get off the ground, there was a lot of nervousness amongst our volunteers and amongst many in the Fire Service about how this might work. I think it has been largely overcome as the bill has gone through the process in the House, and I think the sector has, by and large, accepted the changes. I think they will be successful.

The Fire Service, our volunteer fire brigades particularly, have seen a massive change in the last 30 or 40 years in the way they operate. Whereas originally they were set up as fire brigades, they have now become the first responders to almost everything that goes on in our community. Some of the things they have to deal with are pretty significant and pretty difficult, and I think that they should be congratulated on the work they do in our communities. I think the Minister should be congratulated on getting this bill to the post. As with any legislative change, there is always some nervousness around how it will play out, there are always some teething problems, but I am sure this will get wide acceptance in our community, and I am sure it will be successful. Thank you.

The next call is a split call. Denise Roche—5 minutes.

I rise to take a short call for the Greens on the third reading of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill. Like other speakers in the House, and as my colleague Jan Logie has said before, the Greens will be supporting this bill. We note that it has taken a long time to get to this point, but the process has been fairly thorough. There were consultations and reviews in both 2012 and 2015 that came up with a raft of recommendations, which have mostly been adopted in the legislation that we see being enacted before us today.

Like others have before me, I do want to acknowledge the work that our firefighters, both voluntary and professional, do for New Zealanders and the sacrifices that they make for us. If we think about the work that they actually do, we know that it is not just putting out fires but also attending car crashes, cutting people out of cars on the road, supporting the ambulance services, and also attending to things like road closures, slips, and floods. In my own community on Waiheke Island in April and in March, we had enormous weather events that resulted in the fact that, basically, our voluntary fire service attended something like 26 call outs over an 11-hour period, starting at 11.30 at night. That was on just one of the days that we had those weather events. Most of the work the firefighters were doing was clearing roads, cutting up trees so that people could get through, pumping out people’s basements and roads, and dealing with water damage.

The work that these people do is amazing. I would also like to recognise the fact that they put their lives on the line, and I think particularly of the firefighters who attended the fire several years ago in Tamahere, and also the 60 firefighters who were impacted on by the toxicity of the fire that they fought in 1984 at the ICI chemical factory, some of whom are still dealing with the consequences of that. So these are brave people—there is no doubt about that—and they deserve a service that actually treats them consistently and a service where they can progress through it. I have heard that the union has been fairly supportive of this process, and that is good to see too.

Again, I acknowledge, like my colleague Jan Logie did, that this is the merging of two cultures—the voluntary culture and the professional culture, and the urban culture and the rural firefighting scene—but we are hopeful, and I am sure that the rest of the Fire Service is too, that this will deliver consistency across all of New Zealand and consistency of resources that are available, as well. There is the potential that the kinks that may still remain—particularly in the stuff around levies, which will be contained and nutted out in the regulations—can be ironed out within the 3-year review. I commend the Government for developing legislation that allows for that, because that does mean that things that may not have been foreseen can actually be dealt with.

I also suggest that this is a model that should be watched very, very closely, because we could be looking at it for our other emergency services—in particular, I am thinking about the ambulance service, which has recently had some real issues around staffing. The Fire Service supports it in many of the incidents that it attends, and the ambulance service is a very similar type of organisation in that it is staffed by professionals and volunteers. The ability for people to access ambulances across the country is not consistent because of the availability of volunteers and the lack of a requirement for safe staffing by having two or more ambulance officers attend at one time.

So we will be supporting this bill. We look forward with interest to see how it plays out.

I call Marama Fox—5 minutes.

E Te Mana Whakawā kai te pīrangi au ki te mihi atu ki Te Minita e whakahaere nei i tēnei pire o tātau nō te mea tēnei pire e whakahaere nei i a rātau e haere tuatahi ki te ahi, ki te aituā i runga te huarahi, kai te pīrangi au ki te mihi atu ki a ia.

[Mr Assistant Speaker, I want to acknowledge the Minister responsible for this bill of ours, because it is about those who go for the first time to a fire and an accident on the road. I want to congratulate him.]

The Māori Party is very proud to support this piece of legislation, this bill that will become law. I have a few friends who are in the Fire Service and the fire department, and I have asked them along the way—because I am not part of the Government Administration Committee, I have not been able to hear the debate and the deliberations and the hearings. But I have been actively watching the report, and they have asked: “What does the Māori Party think about this?” So I have gone out to members of our whānau who I know in the Fire Service and I have asked them: “What is the effect on you from this legislation?” What they tell me is: “Well, it’s change, and we need to get used to that, but, actually, we think it is good.” So I have been buoyed by their support. I have been buoyed by the support and the work of the select committee and the report that it has brought back to the House, and the work of the honourable Minister Peter Dunne.

In Carterton, as my cousin, the member Ron Mark, pointed out, the volunteer fire brigade is in operation. If you have ever seen it, what happens is that a siren will go off in the town and people will run out of their shops and take off down the road. When I first saw that I thought: “What the heck is going on?” They were just merely responding as the volunteer fire service does. In a rural area these men and women respond to fires, they respond to accidents on the road, and they also respond, as first responders, to deaths and murders and homicides if they are the first person there. So they need to be prepared for all types of things. When I have spoken to these firemen and firewomen, who take up this duty on our behalf, they tell us that there are some times they need to just step back and take a break from the things that they witness, the things that they have to do, and that it is difficult and hard work.

It is long overdue, the review of the first responders in the fire department in this country. I commend the Minister for the efforts that he has made alongside the select committee to ensure that this is the best piece of legislation possible and that we can unify and combine the efforts of these men and women across the country who respond. I am immensely proud of the work that they do. Across the nation, we all know that when there are deaths on the roads, the people who are cutting them out are our Fire Service. We all know when there is a full-blown house fire—you can see it across a rural valley and in a heartbeat you know that the rising smoke is so black and dense and thick that that is a house on fire.

The tragedies that they have to encounter and deal with are significant. I am very proud of those people—those men and women—who put their lives at risk. In fact, we have a little joke that they put their Superman suits on when they walk into work and go out there and save lives and protect the public. So I am proud of the work that the committee has done, and I am proud of the work that the Minister has done, and I am merely rising as a representative of the Māori Party to commend this bill to the House. Thank you—that is all we have.

It is an absolute pleasure to rise in support of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill in this, its third reading—a bill that will shortly head off to become law in New Zealand. This work is going to finally address some longstanding issues, I think, around fire and emergency services in New Zealand. For years the Fire Service has dedicated itself to responding not only to fire-based emergencies but to many other incidents that it was not necessarily well funded to address, particularly things such as vehicle accidents, which are very often serious events.

So I am very pleased to have sat on the select committee for the hearing and the scrutiny of this bill. I think what has been returned and what will pass is a very sensible measure—one that is focused on delivering both a more effective and a more efficient fire and emergency response in New Zealand, and one that acknowledges that there were gaps in the previous funding model and has looked to address those. But, equally, it is one that also recognised that there could be some almost perverse distortions brought in if there was not some pragmatism applied to the funding model. I would refer to the gallery and museum sector, such as my colleague Paul Foster-Bell mentioned earlier, and also, as it happens, coverage of things like planes, particularly on international services.

So here we get to a point, I think, where we have a bill that has support across almost all of the House. It is one that will make a real difference to New Zealanders, and a real difference to the men and women who serve in our fire and emergency services. It has been an absolute privilege to play the role I have been able to in this small way, through the passage of this legislation. I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call. Kris Faafoi—5 minutes.

Can I begin by acknowledging the management of the Fire Service, some of whom are here today. I think they are here to make sure that this legislation actually goes go through today after waiting such a long time. So can I acknowledge them, especially on International Firefighters’ Day, as the Minister pointed out. Can I also acknowledge the Minister, Peter Dunne. As many contributors have said, this piece of legislation has been a long time coming. There have been many attempts and it was a heavy piece of work not only legislatively but also in trying to unravel an organisation and put a new organisation together. So can I acknowledge Peter Dunne for the work that he has done there.

Also can I acknowledge all the members of the Government Administration Committee, which I used to be a member of, and also my colleague Adrian Rurawhe who sat on the committee as well, because it was one of the best select committee processes that I think I have sat through. There were plenty of issues to get through and I think we worked around the committee pragmatically to deal with a lot of the issues, which I think a lot of the MPs had a good understanding of because, as local members of Parliament, we do work closely and liaise with our local firefighters. Many of those who have contributed have talked about the likes of levies and, obviously, the organisational change, but this is a good piece of legislation in the fact that it has been a long time since the Act was amended, and this is a good opportunity to deal with some of the practical issues in that firefighter space.

I want to acknowledge some of the firefighters and brigades in my electorate, some of whom are in the House. I acknowledge Carl Mills. I see Tāmati Kaa up there. I acknowledge you all—Gavin as well. I saw Chad O’Hara up there as well.

This is because, as well as answering the call when the sirens go off, this committee had over 110 submissions, a lot of them from brigades themselves, and what I take from that is that not only are they concerned about what they are doing day to day in volunteering but, when the opportunity—a once-in-70-years opportunity—came up to change the legislation, our volunteer firefighters, our rural firefighters, our professional firefighters were engaged in the process to make sure that the legislation was as good as it could be for their communities. I think, hats off to them, because they could have just said: “We’ll just look after our own patch. We’re OK. These issues we can deal with locally.” But they saw a probably once-in-a-generation opportunity to change when the legislation was being changed, and they took that opportunity and made a hell of a lot of submissions—a lot of them that the select committee took seriously.

I do want to acknowledge and ask that consideration be given to one issue, which was a fly in the ointment for one of my volunteer fire brigades at Plimmerton, and ask the management of what will become Fire and Emergency New Zealand—as we did at the Committee stage—about the traffic management plans. I think, as a local representative—and all MPs in this Parliament think—that there would be an understanding in the community that all the fire hydrants in New Zealand are being checked that they are operational on a relatively regular basis. It was my understanding from some of the advocacy that came to me that that might not necessarily be the case, because of some of the traffic management plans and the onus—the uneven onus—on some of the brigades around the country.

As we said, I would like that issue—despite it not being within the legislation—to be continued to be dealt with by Fire and Emergency New Zealand, because I think it is a real issue in the community. It is something that if one day—God forbid—it became an issue when a hydrant did not work and something could have and should have been done, I think it could come back to this House, because we did not deal with it in a legislative way. So my request is—we had an assurance from the Minister that the officials and the management are aware of this issue and that it is going to get dealt with. I would ask that in the plan of work of the new entity, that does happen, to make sure that the community-minded volunteers and brigades out there can go out there and check the hydrants to make sure that they work. I think that is what every New Zealander assumes is happening at the moment, but might not be the case.

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr Assistant Speaker. During Anzac Day I had the opportunity to share my remarks, like many others would have, with our local community, and I reflected on the legacy of the Anzacs. In doing so, I not only acknowledged the original Anzacs—our servicemen and servicewomen and our police—but I also deliberately acknowledged our fire and emergency services on that particular day. I have to say that our community responded with much support and recognition of the work that our fire people do. I think that is important. I think it is important to put it out there, because what is happening today is a significant milestone in updating the legislation so it recognises, truly, the work that our firemen and firewomen, including our volunteers, are doing.

We have this traditional view that our fire department simply puts out fires or turns up to a non-fire emergency, but the reality is that it is much more than that, and the legislation has not kept up pace. Normally, you would see a police car driving down the highway with the siren on and you think: “All right, that’s not so bad.” If an ambulance follows, then you begin to worry, but if the fire department follows with the siren on full blast, then you know that it is an emergency that cannot be handled simply by our police force. So I think it is important that we recognise that this legislation is keeping pace with the work that the fire department is already doing.

Therefore, I want to acknowledge—as others have done—Minister Dunne, Ruth Dyson, and members of the Government Administration Committee, because this is change that has been a long time coming. Certainly, this House has heard from both our leaders on this legislation on why the Labour Party is proud to stand and support this bill. We have done so right from the outset, despite the fact that there have been some issues that we have raised with the Minister of Internal Affairs. One particular issue that I raise again is that of Fire and Emergency New Zealand—I still believe that the word “service” ought to be there.

The other issue I suppose I have, after seeing an emergency where a plane crashed and lit up the city that it crashed into, is that I have to wonder why we exempted the airlines, because despite the fact that they spend a major part of their time in the air, if and when an accident occurs, and God forbid it does—that the airplanes crash—the debris of that accident lands on land and can destroy property and life. Therefore, when we are talking about the service, we are talking about a public good that everybody benefits from.

The other point I want to raise is that whilst this legislation ensures that Fire and Emergency New Zealand remains a Crown entity, I would say that the Minister responsible for the Crown entity needs to ensure that this department continues to have adequate funding here and throughout, because we are not just talking about a small entity; it is bound to grow because of population growth. Also, the costs are bound to grow because of the need for us to adequately pay for the services of our fire and emergency men and women.

The final point I want to raise is the issue around levies. Prior to the change of legislation, there were a lot of sources for the fire department, but now we are depending on the increase of that levy. There are some issues there regarding the museums and the discretion that is given to the Minister, and I would just say to the Minister that he needs to sort out whether the museums—a public good—end up paying based on the value of their assets. The Minister also needs to ensure that there is confidence in the new entity and confidence about the source of funding, so that it can get on with the job without having to worry about the politics of funding.