SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I will join with the Minister and other colleagues in acknowledging and thanking the brave men and women of Fire and Emergency New Zealand for the work that they do to keep Kiwis safe every single day. And no more pertinent a reflection than right now as they are up and down the North Island responding to the several major issues that persist in the wake of the floodings in Auckland and the cyclone that hit. That came at a very high cost for two brave volunteer firefighters in Muriwai and we mourn their loss and thank them and their families for their service and sacrifice.I also want to join in congratulating the Minister on her promotion in the latest reshuffle. Barbara Edmonds is someone for whom I have a very high regard for reasons that are traversed. She is intelligent hard-working articulate and I really hope one who will be able to take the department and Fire and Emergency New Zealand to a place where they're not quite there.An opportunity has been lost within this bill. The Minister acknowledged the issues with the levy framework. Where she and I differ is the degree to which those issues are being addressed through this bill because when the new framework was introduced in 2017 by the previous Government and under Minister Dunne it was acknowledged that there were challenges with the way in which the fire service raised its revenue and the degree to which that matched the work that they did.Five years down the track we have kicked the can down the road because we have not addressed those issues. We have made minor amendments to a levy framework and to a service that deserved a much greater level of reform. I think this is emblematic of a Government that talks big but does little. There was a real opportunity here to create a levy framework that reflected the work that Fire and Emergency New Zealand did and it was lost. I talked about that at first reading. I sat on the Governance and Administration Committee and listened to the submissions and it was very very disappointing that that opportunity was not taken. Not only was it not taken but the very small changes that we are making won't come into effect for another four years. That's nine years since Fire and Emergency New Zealand was put in place before the tinkering that we are doing will even take effect and that is very disappointing.It's disappointing for a few reasons. Firstly the revenue that is raised has gone from about $450 million to over $661 million but if you ask any of the brave men and women of the New Zealand fire service whether they have seen the benefit of that increased revenue the answer would be no. It's no in most fire stations. It's certainly no in respect of the appliances engines and other assets that they need to do their job. And it's definitely no in respect of the remuneration that remains below the value that they provide to New Zealanders. So where did the money go? Goodness only knows. A significant increase in the money spent on the fire service but nobody feels as though the service has improved in the way that it should. These people are working on this literally on the sniff of an oily rag.If we look at the work that they do the more than 85000 incidents that are attended by Fire and Emergency New Zealand every year a big chunk of that work is not related to the framework where the levy is collected. The biggest example of that is in the 1400 medical emergencies that they attend for which there was an opportunity to amend the levy framework to make sure that there was a source of revenue so that Fire and Emergency New Zealand could discharge those obligations and that opportunity wasn't taken.Now that's relevant because the levies fall in the view of the owners of both residential and non-residential properties in a disproportionate manner. They believe that they're paying more than they should and that's a valid argument—particularly when those 14500 callouts don't have any revenue attached to them. So what that does is they engage in behaviours that reduce their liability to pay the revenue—within the framework I'm sure but insurance consultants and the property owners themselves do whatever they can to reduce the burden on them that is disproportionate to the risk. Was that opportunity taken to provide a remedy? No. Five years down the track and we had no answers to those fundamental questions about how to provide a levy framework for the 14500 medical emergencies and the 14000—according to the annual report of Fire and Emergency New Zealand—other incidents whatever they might be that don't involve fire or false alarms. That is a huge opportunity lost. The Minister says that COVID had an impact. Well we're in a nine-year hiatus between the establishment of the framework and the changes to the levy and one cannot—cannot—sheet that unacceptable delay at the feet of COVID. I put it at the feet of a Government that talks big but cannot deliver. The impact of that is an unhappy fire service with appliances dating back to the 1980s which do not do the job. We had a situation last year—I'm not sure if it persists—where there wasn't a single ladder appliance for high-rise buildings in a workable condition south of Hamilton. That's a disgrace. It's certainly a disgrace when one thinks of the nearly $200 million more that Fire and Emergency is spending but can't account for certainly in respect of assets. Now Ms Boyack talked about museums and galleries. That was a significant issue but it wasn't one that this bill will address; in fact it makes it worse. The exemption that's provided and was provided in the 2017 legislation on the expectation that in answer to the question of how to levy museums and galleries and the several hundred million dollars' worth of artworks and other historic artefacts—has not been addressed. The can's been kicked down the road yet again.So when supporting this bill the National Party does so with a great deal of disappointment at an opportunity lost. We have a number of levy frameworks in public policy that are quite complicated—probably the most obvious one is ACC where they collect billions of dollars a year and they are easily able to attribute the risk and levy accordingly. Why can't we do that with Fire and Emergency? The answer is: there is no good reason why we can't.We've got a situation here where Fire and Emergency New Zealand themselves don't support this bill. They don't support the changes that are being made to the manner in which the assessment of the levy is being made. It's a slightly ridiculous situation when you think that they're the apparent beneficiaries of it.So we do support this bill but we do place on record our disappointment at a huge opportunity lost and one that will only be remedied by a Government that supports Fire and Emergency in a way that will enable them to collect the revenue according to the work that they do and then spend it on them not bureaucrats but the front line—and that will come in October.