Mark RonRON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to make comment on this third reading and also to speak on behalf of my colleague Clayton Mitchell who is unable to present here today. I want to start by saying that at the outset of the first reading my colleague Clayton Mitchell made it clear that New Zealand First members would support the legislation through its first reading in the hope that we would see some reforms that we could live with; that we thought we could have confidence in; that would make the Fire Service truly more efficient across the board and hopefully less costly; and that any reforms would not unduly and unfairly hit people with levies while at the same time allowing others to sit on the sidelines and contribute nothing.I have to say also right from the outset that I am one of those gentlemen—I am a father-in-law of a man whom I am very very proud of by the name of Scott Shadbolt who is the highest-decorated firefighter in New Zealand. He is a recipient of the Valour Medal was the first to receive it in 106 years and is one of only three people to have been awarded it. Through him and other members of my family who are professional firefighters and volunteer firefighters I am fortunate to have a pretty good understanding of some of the issues within the fire service and so too does Clayton Mitchell.I am also privileged as a former mayor to have some very good friends in the Carterton volunteer fire service who did our district and our people proud during the awful balloon tragedy that happened in the rohe of Hurunui-ō-Rangi which resulted in the deaths of 11 people. I can say to this House that I see those firefighters on a day-to-day basis and I can assure you that those firefighters still have some pretty vivid and horrific memories burned into their brains as a result of the unfortunate work that they were required to do in the service of our community. I am immensely proud of them and will always be so grateful to them.New Zealand First is not blind and has never been blind to some of the issues that have plagued our Fire Service internally. We all know well the difference between professional firefighters and volunteer firefighters just like in army where you had the same issue between regular soldiers and territorial force soldiers—some called some trogs" and other names; that is just the way the culture had evolved over the years. We know that there are clear professional differences. We know that there are some skill set differences between rural firefighters and urban firefighters. We know that there are differentials in competencies The issues around command have long been known where some commanders have been roundly scathingly attacked by professional and volunteer firefighters alike. We are not blind to the issues and the challenges and we supported the first reading in the hope that we might be able to address some of these things and support it.Come to the second reading and again Clayton Mitchell pointed out his concerns about the levy with the weight of it falling mainly on commercial building owners and residential people through their insurance. He had already raised in the first reading questions around why we could not look at compulsory third-party insurance for motor vehicles and tack the levy in there. We would also solve another problem out there which is related to vehicle accidents. That clearly was not something that the Government Administration Committee or Minister Dunne wanted to accept. I think we raised concerns about the many people who would be paying—business people and residence owners in particular—and the number of people who would remain untouched outside of the levy regime.He said that in the committee stage—I am reading from his Hansard—96 percent of the submissions opposed the levy proposals. Not opposing a levy at all but this levy proposal—the way that it was purported it would work and their belief of how it was actually going to work at the end of the day. The issue around the Fire Service being made responsible for and required to divert resources of its own in order to now become a collection agency—the question was raised by Mr Mitchell: is that not what IRD does and is that not a more appropriate way to do that? I am not sure myself having not sat on the committee as to why the committee followed this path and why all the other parties agreed to it. Mr Mitchell and New Zealand First do not.Uncapped levies are another issue and there have been concerns raised out there. Mr Dunne might consider these to be interest groups that are focused only on self-interest but I read a media release and a comment that said: "New Zealanders will have to pay an extra 40 percent in their insurance fire levy from July despite the assertions that this amalgamation of fire services is about efficiency. This Government's reform package will result in an immediate cost increase of $80 million for little or no increase in services despite the claims by the Minister that these reforms will save money." The prediction from the Taxpayers' Union is: "Total fire service costs will shoot up $80 million per year despite efficiency being the key promise by Mr Dunne of these reforms. What is worse the Government has increased the economic burden on New Zealanders without any comparable increase in the level of service."We in New Zealand First cannot help but reflect for a little moment on this Government. This Government won those Government benches and 59-odd MPs on a campaign—and I am hoping Labour is listening—that it would reduce compliance costs to business that it would be business-friendly and that it was the business people's best buddy. And yet when we look at this legislation on the backdrop of other Government legislation what do we see? We see an earthquake-prone-buildings piece of legislation being rammed through the House that is foisting upon business people massive increases in costs for no increased capability in their buildings at all despite the fact that these buildings are little wooden buildings tucked away in villages around the country which have withstood every major earthquake thus far including the last one. There is going to be no gain for them at all—an increase in business costs.Look at the occupational safety and health legislation that this Government has rammed through which is being highly criticised out there now. It is foisting upon people massive compliance costs that will give no productivity gain at all and much of what they are being required to do is just plain common sense anyway. You look at the Government's refusal to allow New Zealand First to get legislation through that would change the cost of strengthening these buildings from capital works to repairs and maintenance which would allow owners to get a tax break. This Government prevented that. There are four areas now with this bill going through—four areas alone—where this Government purporting itself to be business-friendly is foisting upon commercial operators commercial building owners and even residents who rent properties massive compliance costs.There is word for that and you cannot use it in this House but it rings in the ears and it simply says that if you truly believed that when people voted this Government in they were going to get a reduction in compliance costs in the business sector forget it. There are four big whammies that you have just got. This piece of legislation—well I can see the nodding and the shaking of the head from Mr Hudson over there so I will read out a piece by Mac Mckenna.Dr David Clark: They hate business over there.RON MARK: They hate business do they not? Mac Mckenna: "Using the government's own figures the total cost of the new entity Fire and Emergency New Zealand will shoot up by $80 million each year. The burden of these costs will fall on only those who insure for property."—not on all those people out there who do not insure. "The changes on July 1 will see a 40% increase in fire levy rates on insurance policies. For residential insurance-holders the fire levy only applies to the first $100000 of cover so the increase will be a maximum of $36.20 per annum. However because the cap does not apply to non-residential property the average levy paid will be substantially [higher]."New Zealand First would have liked to have supported this bill but the signals we gave right at the start have been ignored and the Government has gone ahead anyway. Reform is needed and we applaud that thought but this is not the way to have done it."