Dunne PeterHon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs): I feel I should take this opportunity to respond to a number of the questions that have been raised. Some are of considerably more substance and knowledge than others but I will endeavour to cover the full sweep.My starting point is to go back to the fact that the Fire Service as currently constituted has been funded by an insurance levy for time immemorial. When we took the proposals before Cabinet a couple of years ago I actually put three options to Cabinet at that stage: one was to continue with the current system one was to shift it to local body rates and the other was general taxation. Cabinet chose to stick with the status quo. I would just say that given that the levy that we foreshadowed a couple of weeks ago will raise about $534 million it would be a very brave Government of any stripe that would say: We are going to take another $534 million on to the taxpayer's direct account to fund fire and emergency services." I welcome anyone running that political argument.Starting from there and bearing in mind also that a couple of years ago there was a Supreme Court decision about levy avoidance and evasion and the need for some clarification in the legislation the construction of the provisions that are contained in Part 3 started to take shape. Over the period both through the select committee process and through the process leading to the setting of the levy for 2017-18 there has been a substantial range of consultation and that will continue. We have worked closely with the Insurance Council even though we have a disagreement on the policy principle but we have worked closely with it regarding the implementation.The messages that members have raised regarding the museums and galleries sector and other entities that face a substantial increase in levy payments—we are working our way through. There will be a further round of consultation when it comes to setting the levy rate beyond 2017-18. I am sure members would understand that it is not really appropriate for me tonight to go into details about what might happen while we are still working our way through a process. I do not want to give institutions unfair or false hope that somehow all this is going to be resolved for them. Because the other side of the question is that we are changing the nature of the funding arrangement. At the moment the fire service levy funds fire. This is shifting the whole basis of the funding of the operation to funding material loss because it is a fire and emergency service. So the breadth of cover is increasing and we need to work our way very carefully through that.Can I simply say that the suggestion that Fire and Emergency New Zealand will be turned into a collection agency is blatantly wrong. The levy system sees the levy collected by the insurance companies and that will continue.Can I also say with regard to Mr Clayton Mitchell's amendment Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 265 that there is actually no need for this amendment because if a contract of insurance of the type that his SOP describes does not insure property then it will not be subject to a levy therefore no exemption will be necessary. In fact the situation that he described is dealt with through clause 104 of the bill where types of insurance can be exempted through regulation if that is deemed to be appropriate. So SOP 265 is unnecessary because the provision is already contained in clause 104 of the bill.Can I indicate again to the Committee that this is a process where we are listening very carefully. We are funding a new service. We are trying to fund it as equitably as possible. I heard a suggestion earlier on with regard to the civil emergency currently occurring in the Bay of Plenty that a number of people were getting assistance that they might not be otherwise entitled to. I doubt there would be any member in this Chamber who would really be prepared to go out there and say—because effectively what was being argued was that we need to have a user-pays fire and emergency service. It works on a universal basis and that has been the principle ever since fire services were established in New Zealand on a metropolitan basis back in the 1880s and it will continue to be the principle into the future.Can I just conclude by saying that we are cognisant of the issues that have been raised. We are working our way through them. But because this is a broader service in terms of its coverage than is currently the case there will be some increases. We are seeking to mitigate the impact of those to the greatest extent possible while ensuring that we provide the range of coverage that is going to be needed."