Dunne Peter; Mallard TrevorHon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs): I will take a call to deal with some of the issues that have been raised to date. My starting point is to just observe that this bill is essentially a permissive piece of legislation. It replaces an Act that is extraordinarily prescriptive and therefore very inflexible. As situations change under the current legislation it is almost impossible to change actions unless one changes the legislation. So the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill has been crafted deliberately to be permissive—to enable the new board of Fire and Emergency New Zealand and Fire and Emergency New Zealand itself to respond more flexibly to situations that arise. That is a principle that really underpins a lot of the things that people have been talking about this evening. Let me just comment on some of the matters that have been raised.I reassure Mr O'Connor that the reference to industry brigades in the bill does include airport fire services. They will still be under the direct control of their relevant airport company but they are covered by that provision in the legislation.With regard to the issue of permits for fire in open-air pits a member to my left observed that there would be mayhem in certain parts of the country if every hangi pit required a permit but there is the capacity for Fire and Emergency New Zealand to authorise various things or places or areas if you like as not being a fire in open air so that that can be dealt with again by the—Hon Ruth Dyson: It's never dry enough to be a problem on the West Coast.Hon PETER DUNNE: It seems a bit ironic to be talking about it right at this time but that can include the fire pits the member was talking about and can address the situation he was referring to.With regard to Mr Faafoi's comments regarding traffic management plans I know that the Plimmerton brigade made a submission to the select committee about this particular point. I need to just make a couple of comments in response. Again I go back to my comments about permissive rather than prescriptive legislation.The issue here is driven largely by workplace health and safety requirements. It is not my view that we need to incorporate an amendment into this bill but the Fire Service as it stands and the Transport Agency are currently working to deal with some of the issues regarding traffic management plans and how they might be applied to ensure the safety of road users and firefighters who might be involved in the situations that the member described. It is not the intention of Fire and Emergency New Zealand to move away from using traffic management plans but we do want to see developed a better code of practice if one likes—and I say that not capitalising those letters—between the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and Fire and Emergency New Zealand. We also want to make sure that in doing that we lessen the administrative burden that there currently is on volunteer brigades. I note that the amendment that was proposed would not actually prevent the use of traffic management plans. I think the point the member raises is a valid one. I do not see it as being appropriate to deal with under the legislation but it is something that is being dealt with as part of the transition work right now in discussions between Fire and Emergency New Zealand and the NZTA.Let me turn to Mr Clayton Mitchell's comments regarding firebreaks particularly clause 58. I apologise to the member because I came in halfway through his speech so may not have heard all of it correctly but as I understand him the point that he was expressing concern about was the removal of the specific reference to forestry land and the replacement of that with a more general reference to land. I would make two comments in response. The first is that the reference to forestry land in the current legislation is largely a historical reference. It does not take account of other land areas for instance other forms of vegetation than a forest of trees that might be the subject of contention. So what again we are trying to do here is create an overall situation within which there can be flexibility rather than legislate for the highly specific which then becomes irrelevant once there is a minor change to the circumstance. I just draw the member's attention to clause 6 the interpretation clause of the bill. The member will see there that there is a broader definition included of a firebreak which I think covers a much wider range of possibilities. So I understand again the concern that he is raising—that we may potentially leave forestry land exposed as a result of these changes. My point in response is to say that when anyone looks at the breadth of the amendment and looks at it alongside the provision in the interpretation clause there is protection for that.Kris Faafoi: Mr Chair.Iain Lees-Galloway: Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I cannot give Mr Faafoi the call because he has had all his calls so it had better be Iain Lees-Galloway.