O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Although I was not a member of the Government Administration Committee I certainly have a passion and commitment to rural fire services. There is always unease with change. I accept that different people who have spoken to me about this have not always been enthusiastically supportive of it for I think justifiable reasons.The question of why this has been done is something that we should ask. I have been very suspicious of most of the changes that the National Government has undertaken. The question of why" usually comes back to one of saving money and that does not always bode well for the people who have to carry on with the service responsibility—so too in this case here. We have a huge voluntary component in the fire service in this country. I think the select committee acknowledged that and we in the Labour Party certainly acknowledge that. It is huge. In fact without them we would not have a properly functioning fire service. The issue of funding is one that we are attempting to address in this legislation and there will be levies imposed. I know that there was some pushback from the forestry companies which have a lot of assets and other organisations—museums for example—where they think the asset value is overvalued and the levy may be excessive.I come back to the point: the question of why we are doing this and whether we are indeed going to end up with a more effective fire service or emergency service. Indeed in the rural areas more particularly on the West Coast we do not have a lot of rural fires. We have a few but the weather given the last summer probably has prevented most of that. Unfortunately we have seen the tragic circumstances in the Port Hills. I too want to acknowledge the terrible loss that we have seen over there. I guess the Askin family has to take that on board. We want to say thank you for the sacrifice that although not willingly has been made.There is another issue there around the ongoing risk and risk management. If I can intervene in a slight segue it is to the Pike River families meeting with the Prime Minister today who were effectively told that we cannot put anyone at risk to go in and recover their loved ones. The idea of zero risk is completely unrealistic. Just as those helicopter pilots in the Port Hills have continued with their risky task of trying to put out those fires in spite of the terrible tragedy that we have seen they have taken on board the risk and have gone forward managing it in a way that we hope will prevent any further tragedy.We have to remember that in all emergency services there will always be an element of risk and although we might be dealing with the administrative structure through this piece of legislation we can never forget the objective and the reality of what happens here. We have volunteers and paid members regardless of the funding—and it now hopefully will be more secure—going into risky situations every single day of this year to protect property in New Zealand protect lives and in some cases recover people who have tragically lost their lives.I think we have not quite got it right in this country and I think the Prime Minister today displayed another case of misjudged calculation in terms of risk management and said: "No risk at Pike River but we'll accept risk in the ongoing management of fires in the Port Hills and we'll accept risk through this fire service and emergency service in the ongoing protection of New Zealanders and their property into the future." That is the reality we must face. But in doing so Parliament has an obligation firstly to acknowledge the risk that volunteers and others undertake and also to not be unrealistic and say that we have no zero-risk and there is a liability issue and someone has to carry the can—Brett Hudson: Actually there is.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Oh the member over there gets a bit touchy about this. He knows full well that everyone working in the Fire Service moves into risky situations every single day of their situation. This legislation hopes to bring together the structural unity of the organisation. Let us not forget the reality for the people—the volunteers and the paid people—who undertake these services. They take on a big challenge. They take on risks on behalf of us all. They should be acknowledged and they should be funded properly but we have got to be realistic across our whole economy."