Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. In October of each year I conduct a heritage tour around the streets of my community of Three Kings in the electorate of Mt Roskill walking around sites of certain built and cultural heritage significance. One of the buildings that is a highlight of that tour is the old Mount Roskill fire station and what is notable about that is that it was one of the earliest and first public buildings in the growing community of Three Kings. It was built in about 1930 and at that time there really weren't any other public buildings around. What that points to is the fact that fire and emergency services are totally central to the safe operation of our communities. In the case of my community it was the first building you built because your community was vulnerable until you had that service. It's something that I think about a bit. My family has many roots in the community of Thames and the Kenney side of my family has about seven or eight generations of voluntary firefighters going back in that community and that's something that my family has been immensely proud of. So along with other members of this House I'm very pleased to be supporting the bill this evening. The work that we in this House have gone through over a number of years and it was primarily led—let's acknowledge him—by the Hon Peter Dunne in bringing together the fire and emergency services was a pretty monumental piece of work actually but probably a necessary one and what we're doing in this bill really is ensuring that we get the implementation right. There are a couple of issues which have popped up. The first one is around the setting of levies and the ability of insurers and brokers to adapt to the new regime and I don't think there's any particular reason that I'm aware of that we would look to hold anyone to account for the fact that we're not able to get those set as quickly as possible. That was envisaged to happen in 2019. This bill looks to extend that out to 2020 or 2021 depending on the circumstances and it seems that there are just pretty fair reasons for that. It's simply very difficult to get the systems in place to have levies set appropriately by insurers and brokers. I'm quite interested in the second major change in the bill and that is the change to have an exemption in respect of the collections of public museums and public art galleries and whare taonga. I think this is a really important one. It's interesting to look back to when the original legislation first took effect. I think Te Papa's insurance levy jumped from something like $3 million per year to $4.5 million per year—it was a 50 percent increase. Of course if you think about it the collections of many of these cultural institutions are incredibly valuable so that has a flow-on effect to how much the levy increase might be but at the same time as having a stock of incredibly valuable goods these are institutions that don't necessarily have a commensurate amount of revenue coming in to support those kinds of increases. So I think the change within this bill—and this is in new clause 25A in schedule 1 to be inserted by clause 8 which effectively exempts the collections of museums public art galleries and whare taonga—is an important one just to make sure that while we are getting this regime right we're not unfairly penalising cultural institutions that are very very important. So I think those two small changes are very sensible. They're about making sure that this legislation which has wide support continues to be supported by being responsive to those needs that have been identified. Because of that along with my colleagues and I think everyone else in the House I'm very happy to commend the bill to the House. Thank you.