Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Madam Speaker. Well if ever there is an illustration of this Government's inherent lethargy and lack of urgency it is the speech that we've just heard by the Minister Damien O'Connor on behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs relating to this bill in front of us today the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill. What essentially he is saying is that after the 2017 Act was enabled—included in that Act was a Part 3 which talked about the levy methodologies that would come into effect in 2024. Post the election there was feedback from a number of stakeholders particularly the property owners the commercial property owners of New Zealand and the insurance brokers that they felt that there were elements of that Part 3 that were not fit for purpose.On the basis of that feedback 18 months later the Government starts a consultative round with a wider group of stakeholders to reflect on whether the Part 3 levy framework as proposed in the 2017 Act was fit for purpose whether there should be a broader reset on how the levies and how Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) is funded—should it be through an insurance levy on property and motor vehicles? Are there too many free-riders? Should it be a much wider application of risk and activity bearing in mind that FENZ increasingly are the first responders to code purple" heart attacks which bear very little to the original brief of Fire and Emergency New Zealand to look after fire in our community. After that consultation process which took two years the Government then said in 2021 in Cabinet that ultimately they will not go down the path of resetting the revenue for FENZ in a more broad context but would focus instead on the particular issues with respect to the levy process which is captured by the insurance companies.Here we are 18 months further on with a relatively small and simple bill which tweaks and confirms for the Insurance Council the figure which they will use being the sum insured for their calculations with respect to the fire proportion of insurance on buildings reconfirms the current rate with respect to motor vehicle and residential insurance fire levies that are paid to FENZ says that all the exceptions which are in the current Part 3 have yet to be dealt with—"and we will get around to dealing with it as a Government"—and also confirms that the start date is four years away. I mean literally what on earth is this Government doing? What is Minister Tinetti doing? She is the Minister of Internal Affairs accountable for FENZ and the sum total of five years' effort in this space is a bill which is simple in its application and says "By the way all the hard issues all the issues around exemptions and whether the rates need to change that's going to be in regulations and that's over the next four years." Frankly it's not good enough but it is illustrative for people watching on TV now around the approach that this Government brings to these matters. They are far more comfortable lost in the sea of process than actually doing anything and actually getting stuff done and this is an example.Now as I say the bill itself being simple and being focused on clarifying how from an insurance levy perspective the fire portion is going to be charged is fine—makes sense; there's nothing particularly onerous in it so therefore as you would expect we'll support it for what it is. This is it—sum total of five years' effort. We'll support it but frankly it's a lost opportunity.Also the issue around what ultimately the rate will be set at by 2026—as I said: silent. That's a subsequent four-year effort. There's no acknowledgment of the Government that actually the levy payers of this country have funded FENZ to the extent of $220 million more than what was expected in this year of operations when FENZ was created in 2017. Who's paid for that? The Government? No; $10 million a year—motor vehicle owners residential homeowners and in particular non-residential homeowners the commercial property owners who pay 60 percent of that levy by virtue of the amount of commercial property there is and how much their properties have risen in value over the last few years.So where is the critical assessment by an accountable Minister as to whether $661 million of FENZ revenue is appropriate is being spent well is actually delivering for the front-line services? They're all silent on that. In fact there's every chance knowing this Government that the actual rates finally decided will go up because from their perspective tax revenue costs only go one way. They don't know how to wrestle back efficiencies. They don't know how to look at FENZ and say "Actually we expect more for the money not just keep spending keep spending and don't bother telling us what you spend it on. We're not really that interested. If it doesn't get to the front line we don't really care. We only contribute $10 million a year. This is really a levy payer problem not ours." Not acceptable—nowhere near acceptable.When you overlay that spend—$200 million more than expected—and put on top of it $460 million in five years for capital and you go to any fire station in this country—Hon Michael Woodhouse: And we have.TODD MULLER: —and we have—and say "Well have you seen the benefit of it?" Not at all—all lost in the wash. No accountability from the Minister. She just says "Oh that's FENZ's problem." You appoint the board Minister. They report to you. They say "Here's our budget this is what we're going to spend it on here are our statements of performance indicators. Here are our KPIs." Where is the accountability and drive and urgency to get value for money on behalf of the insurance payers of this country? You can tell there's no urgency because this bill—five years in gestation and four years subsequent to the day to fulfil the detail that sits behind it. That lack of urgency that lethargy if that was applied in the private sector you wouldn't last five minutes. You'd be out the door before you even sat down.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Some of them will be next year.TODD MULLER: They certainly will be Michael Woodhouse—they certainly will be. But they just simply don't get it that actually there are people out there trying to do the job put out our fires be the first responders under intense pressure. Their parent organisation spends more money than was expected by a factor of $200 million. They are not feeling it. A funding review that became too hard so let's just tweak the current model—two more years to get that legislation up and four more years to finally implement it. It's illustrative of a tired lethargic Government who simply doesn't have the urgency to grasp the opportunity that we need in this country; 12 more months and that'll change. Thank you Madam Speaker."