Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): 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."