Can't be Mr Faafoi because he has all his calls. It better
be Iain
shown like it is a shame, Mr Chair.
responses to the questions that other colleagues have raised and
I wonder if the
minister could address at least one more issue in Part
2. It is an
at least one more issue in Part 2. It is an issue relating to
54 that was actually raised at the select committee by
54 that was actually raised at the
they called, the Legislation
Advisory Committee with the Dee in it that
it that I can't recall what the D stands for. Anyway the people
stands for. Anyway the people who offer us advice on how
the craft good legislation to make
good legislation to make sure that legislation
legislation says what we intend it to
to say. The issue that was raised with Clause 54
was that Clause 54(1) says a person must not
light, or allow another person to
light, a fire in open air in an area that
is in
in a prohibited fire season. The issue that was raised was,
what exactly
issue that was raised was, what
that was raised by the committee, the legislation drafting
and advisory committee, raised
the question,
question, what relationship does the other person, who
allows someone to light
light a fire, have to have with that person. The penalties
for allowing someone to light a fire
lighting the fire yourself. A term of imprisonment not
exceeding two years or a fine
not exceeding 300,000 or both.
And I note that a person
300,000 or both. And I note that a
offence, if they knowingly or recklessly
so if they knowingly or recklessly allow someone else to light
You could knowingly allow someone
else to light a fire just by happening
happening upon someone who is lighting a fire. You may not have
the means immediately available to stop that person doing it,
but you would
would knowingly be allowing them to do that. Now,
I see that the officials said that
their intention is that this
would apply in situations where the
fire is lit in a remote area and there is more
than one person present at the
not clear. I think that was the point that
and advisory committee was making as part of what was a lengthy
submission on this bill. It is the point
point that they were making that that
that policy intention is not clear in the legislation. Now
by the lengthy Supplementary Order Paper that
Paper that makes a number of amendments that has
been tabled by the Minister. Is he satisfied that
the policy
person who has no connection to someone who is committing an act
of arson or is liking a fire during
a prohibited
prohibited fire season, could potentially be captured by this
and could, therefore, also be at
risk of receiving a significant term
of imprisonment or a significant fine.
organisation that has no particular axe to grind, that
is purely here to ensure, to assist
parliamentarians to craft legislation that does what
we think it should do, has raised a
fairly straightfonNard issue that would be
easy to deal with yet the
easy to deal with yet the minister has chosen not to address
that in his
wonder if he
on record as
why he is comfortable with the wording as it is currently done.
from Poto Williams. There is a number
number of clauses that I'd like to raise and ask questions of in
Part 2.
2. Like my colleague, Damien O'Connor I have not
2. Like my colleague, Damien O'Connor! have not been part
O'Connorl have not been part of this committee so forgive me if
O'Connorl have not been part of this committee so forgive me if! am
asking questions
been asked but nonetheless they are important questions. I
note in Clause 35, 36,
important questions. I note in Clause 35,36,
important questions. I note in Clause 35, 36, 37, 38,
important questions. I note in Clause 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
important questions. I note in Clause 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,40
Clause 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 that there is significant
powers being given to what I quote as
does an authorised person become an authorised person on this particular
question. The second question is, when I look at the powers
that have been given to this authorised
person, they
person, they are significant powers. In
In fact, powers to tear down buildings adjacent to
a fire, powers to remove vegetation or trees
adjacent to such an emergency. I'm asking, sir, how does that relate to
to rural fires. In one of the Clauses,
Clauses, 39, I believe, that the fire
fire and emergency New Zealand services
services are able to access water for free but my understanding with
rural fire authorities is they can reclaim the cost
of putting down a fire if the
fire and merge New Zealand
Zealand services are using water for free, are they including that cost
when they
putting down a
The one thing that concerns me about the
you what happened in Samoa a few years
years ago, and I am relating it to the rural area
is that there was a fire there
fire there and the fire department decided to water
down the houses next
next to it to prevent the fire from spreading. Well, it
their houses, which were not on fire instead of watering the exact
fire itself.
itself. Secondly, when the fire department did tear down,
in another situation,
situation, the adjacent fire, the question is
people recover the cost of the property
property that has been destroyed as a
services attempting to put down that particular
services attempting to put down that
have cases in south Auckland where the police
the police department have gone in, have broken into a garage and
left it there
it there in search of a party and
the families are left wondering how
do they recover the cost of the damage
damage that has been caused. So whilst
whilst that may not necessarily
directly relate to this, I'm wondering
directly relate to this, I'm
there is a fire and the fire department believes that in
order to put
put that fire out they either must enter
enter a building or force entry into it, or tear
it down so it doesn't spread,
spread, how does the family that have
have been affected then recover the cost of the damage
that has been caused in order for the department
to carry out the
caused in order for the department
case of rural fire Authority are the cost of
calculation when they are recovering the cost of putting
calculation when they are recovering
In Section 49, this is the open fire situation that
situation that my colleague Damien O'Connell used. Currently we
have a situation where
situation where families in south Auckland, if they wanted to put
down
oven, which we call an umu. They just
just do it. The past practise was you
you called the council and they simply say,
reading the legislation, sir, there is a licensing
or permit regime that we would now have to
undertake. BELL
BELL RUNG Ruth Dyson. I'm pleased to
take a
call on this part because I missed a large chunk of
the earlier debate on this bill due to the fires in
electorate in Christchurch. The combination
recently and the