Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): 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.