Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Can I first of all thank the Minister Tracey Martin for being so candid about what she's wishing to do. But I would like to provide just a little bit of perspective and support the Hon Jacqui Dean in her comments that have been made because a lot of this was looked at previously. One of the reasons why the former Government didn't go with some options including the rates-based option was because at the time—and I had some involvement in this—Local Government New Zealand was adamantly opposed to a rates-based system that would fund what was effectively a central government agency to deliver fire and emergency services. It also went through a process at the time where local authorities were prepared to give up their rural firefighting forces and merge them into the central fire and emergency management service on the basis that it was taken out of rates and it was all going to be funded by an insurance-based product. So my point today Minister is probably to say some of this work has been done and has been thought about. The Government at the time made a decision that they didn't think they wanted to go down that path which in my previous role I supported. I acknowledge the fairness and equity issues but if you don't use an insurance-based product there are really only two ways of forcing payment and that is through general taxation or ratepayer contributions. So we are prepared on the side of this House to support the Supplementary Order Paper. I understand the complexity involved in it but I just have a little bit of caution that if people think they're going to race off to local government and say we're going to put a rate—that is a really big call. Certainly local government in its process of working out what it does and what central government does is very resistant to taking on a funding collection role for an entity that it has no governance control over.So Minister I think—we're supporting it as has been said. You've been straight upfront about the timing issues and I appreciate that. There is enough money to keep the thing going so we're not in any imminent risk. I would challenge you just to think though about the New Zealand Defence Force option. I accept the argument you're placing—in terms of what they do for their own firefighting capacity and how they help New Zealand—but once again one of the big issues that local government finds itself facing is a whole lot of Government agencies do not fund rates—Department of Conservation a whole lot of other things do not make a contribution to society. So one of the issues I think the officials need to consider in thinking this next stage through is what is the value of the defence force's firefighting capability in terms of looking after itself but also helping the community versus what will be the lost income from a rating-based system and whether that's the right thing to do. So I think we're pretty clear on this side. We do wish to be constructive in the dialogue. I'm just trying to raise some issues from a historical perspective for the Minister's understanding to say that if you get local government over the line that this is a good thing to do then it's on the table but I wouldn't take that for granted. Thank you.