Mitchell ClaytonCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to Part 3 of the proposed Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill being rushed through at some pace to make sure that it is implemented by 1 July this year. It gives me a certain amount of pride if you like to be part of the only party that is actually opposing it. I have to say it is a bit of a surprise particularly because after 17 reviews in 24 years that this is the best that we can actually come up with as a Government to make changes to what is very widely considered outdated clunky and not fit for purpose legislation. The amalgamation of the fire and emergency rural volunteers and urban fire service is one thing but the funding model that was implemented in 1993 to implement a levy charge was only ever introduced as a temporary measure. Yet here we are now in 2017 and where the world has moved away from levy charges we have put levy charges in on steroids. I can see the Minister checking to see whether it was actually implemented in 1993. It looks like he is getting the nod of approval; it was in fact 1993.The first of a number of questions we have for the Minister asks what consideration the Minister and the department have actually given to the 96 percent of submissions that have come out strongly opposing this levy the way it has been proposed in this bill. Question No. 2 asks what other funding models were actually considered as opposed to a levy on the Fire Service other than collecting a levy on insurers themselves. Question 3 asks why the Minister did not opt out for funding from the general fund as strongly proposed by a number of those submissions because that makes more sense than what is actually being proposed currently.The Fire Service plays an incredibly important role in our communities for the volunteer sectors and for the goodwill that it does but as part of this bill as I turn to page 60 and clause 75 it is now intended that the Fire Service will be a collection agency. If it is a collection agency that is trying to collect money from people and resources are being taken away from the operation that it is designed to do for public service and public good—to put out fires to go to car crashes and to attend emergencies—why is it now being imposed upon to collect funds? We have a department called Inland Revenue to collect funds. Why are we not putting the ownership of collection into the organisation that has been set up purely to collect those funds? It does not make any sense that we are putting a charge on to a public good organisation to collect those funds. If time money and resource have to be put into collecting funds from some of those people and they do not pay up what is its alternative? Will it not give the service? It does not make sense to make the Fire Service a collection agency for those people who refuse to pay those levies. That is point No. 1.The major point is: how is charging a levy unrestricted on certain sectors—and I am talking about the commercial sector—going to be a fair and equitable approach when it comes to funding the Fire Service model? There are clearly a number of areas within our communities and society that will not be paying insurance and will underfund themselves for insurance for the purposes of negating or minimising their input of costs to the fire levy department. Where does that leave the Fire Service if you have got situations where buildings are underfunded? How is the Minister justifying a fire levy uncapped for the commercial sector for an example that is going to benefit the service and the businesses themselves?In Part 3 clause 69 the purpose of this part is (a) a stable source of funding". If you are expecting people to pay a levy and call that stable in so far as they will be doing everything that they possibly can to minimise the payments that they have then surely that would create some instability with the very thing that they are trying to achieve in clause 69(a): "a stable source of funding to support FENZ". That undermines the very first statement. In 69(b) the "universal so that FENZ's costs are generally shared among all" but we know there are a number of people who will use the services of the Fire Service and particularly—I mean we have seen it right now in Edgecumbe where the Fire Service is still pumping out water looking after the streets. Who is paying for its services? What happens when we have a weather system come through and we have got trees that fall on to power lines and of course we have got to send in the Fire Service to sort it out? We have got people who need to be picked up and put in the back of ambulances who are over 150 kilograms. Of course we call the Fire Service. Who is paying for that? This absolutely undermines the universal approach that they are trying to create. Of course in clause 69(c) we talk about equitability "so that policyholders should generally pay a levy at a level commensurate with their use of" the service. Part 3 also goes on to talk about predictability and in paragraph (d) of clause 69 it says "so that policyholders and levy payers are able to predict the amounts that they will need to pay" to Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ). With the property prices skyrocketing at the moment those property prices are going through the roof and insurances uncapped in the commercial sector will obviously follow the same suit and will be expected to be passed on without any cap. If you look at the funding model which is completely flawed in this it comes back to why we are not funding out of the general pool. Why are we going down this levy user-pays—some users pay because not all users will pay of course—way of thinking? If you look at the commercial sector that will pay over half of the entire amount that will be collected with a 40 percent increase in the total income coming in from the levy service this does not make any sense and we are very stunned to be the only party that is strongly opposing this. Many of the parties are generally and genuinely giving lip service to a policy that is absolutely flawed.We at New Zealand First were very excited at the prospect of an overhaul of the Fire Service in New Zealand and we are extremely disappointed in a number of aspects of this bill—these are just two that we have pointed out. In recap if we could get some questions answered in regard to the amount of effort and energy that the Minister of Internal Affairs gave to the submitters with their strong opposition to this funding model—that is point No. 1; what other funding models were considered and why the general fund for the funding of this Fire Service was not put as a priority because it does not look like it ever was in any readings that we have done; and why the Minister did not opt for that fund as a priority for this. If we could get some answers on that and give some clarity to New Zealanders who are paying close attention to this bill then that might actually allay some of our fears. However where it sits at the moment we are very concerned as this moves through the House. We are very concerned that it is being fully supported by all parties in this House except for New Zealand First and unless something can change drastically we would have some opposition to it.We have put a Supplementary Order Paper in to make some amendments. With this going through we hope that they get some support. They are very minor and slightly technical but they will make a difference to some of those people who are captured in this levy service. This is in particular to Supplementary Order Paper 265 and clause 70 and it is talking about removing the liability insurance the bailee insurance and the contract of travel insurance. In the event that you get some travel insurance and you are going off overseas the only very small window in which you may require the Fire Service is while catching a taxi from your house to the airport because the rest of the time your travel insurance is covering you while you are overseas. To be paying the levy in that period does not make any sense; neither does it make sense with the bailee insurance or with the liability insurance. We would hope that that would get the support in the Committee to go through. Thank you."