Minister says FENZ breached levy law, loses confidence in chief
Fire and Emergency Minister Brooke van Velden says Fire and Emergency New Zealand breached its own law when it collected the levy. RNZ
She called the situation "completely unacceptable". She said it points to a "lack of accountability across the public service."
The minister said she no longer has confidence in chief executive Kerry Gregory. She linked that to what she called a serious breach of the no surprises rule. That rule requires agencies to warn ministers early about major problems.
A loss of confidence is a formal step. It does not remove Gregory. He is employed by the board, so the board must decide what happens next.
Van Velden said she was "in the dark" about FENZ spending nearly $500,000 looking into the levy issue. She said she learned about the problem about two weeks ago, when the board chair told her she needed to know.
The minister pointed to that timing. Under the no surprises convention, agencies must tell ministers early about big financial, legal or reputational risks. The minister said FENZ did not do that here.
She said FENZ has been referred to the Serious Fraud Office, on the board's advice. She did not set out what that referral covers.
The levy pays for much of FENZ's work. Van Velden has previously asked for other options to ease costs for levy payers. Beehive
In that earlier work, FENZ had sought a 5.2 per cent rise in levy revenue for 2026-2029. The minister asked for alternatives to reduce pressure on payers.
New Zealand's fire levy started in 1975. Insurance News
Van Velden has said FENZ does a wider job now than when the levy started. That change is part of the long debate about who pays, how much, and for what work.
The broader context here is how ministers and agencies share responsibility. Ministers answer to Parliament for their portfolios. Boards and chief executives must follow the law and keep ministers informed. The minister says neither happened here.
Looking at what happens next at the Beehive, three questions sit apart. The first is the alleged breach, what was collected, under what power, and whether levy payers are owed anything. The second is what happens with Gregory and the board. The third is the SFO referral, which sits outside the minister's control once made.
In practical terms for levy payers, the short-term question is money. Questions about whether the collections were lawful raise questions about past payments and future rates. The minister was already looking for ways to lower the burden before this breach came up.
In practical terms for the wider public service, the wording counts. "Completely unacceptable" is strong language. By linking one agency's failure to accountability across the service, the minister has widened the political focus. Other chief executives and boards will watch closely.
