Lees-Galloway IainIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I would like to speak to clauses 35 through to 42 which deal with some of the functions duties and powers—particularly powers that an authorised person has in responding to an emergency. They cover what an authorised person may or must do if the alarm of a fire is reported in a hazardous substance emergency and in other emergencies; the duty of the authorised person to control and direct people both operational service personnel and other people; the powers of the authorised person in relation to land buildings or structures; the powers of the authorised person in relation to vegetation; other powers that the authorised person has; and the power to destroy or dispose of any by-product rendering them safe in a hazardous substance emergency.I want to raise with the Minister—and I note that the Minister in the chair Nathan Guy is a former Minister of Internal Affairs so he may have some knowledge about this and if he does it would be helpful to the Committee if he were able to respond—some of the concerns that were raised by submitters to the Government Administration Committee. I note that the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 262 does not deal with these two concerns that I want to raise and I would be interested to hear from the Minister how he is satisfied that those concerns are adequately dealt with in the legislation as it stands.The New Zealand Institute of Forestry expressed concern that only authorised personnel can control Fire and Emergency New Zealand personnel responding to emergencies and it questioned how this will affect multi-agency responses. It recommended that a lead agency be identified and an incident controller be appointed in the response to any emergency incident. I would appreciate hearing the Minister's view on that. He may want to look over his shoulder to his officials—I am sure they have a view on this—and give the Committee some assurance that he is satisfied that the roles and responsibilities and I suppose the hierarchy of roles and responsibilities are clear in an emergency incident where there are multiple agencies involved.I can think of the recent events with the fires in the Port Hills and statements that were made by the Minister of Defence who is also the Minister of Civil Defence around decision-making protocols and hierarchies and his concern about the length of time around decisions that were made. Not entirely justified I think—some of the comments that were made by that Minister.Hon Ruth Dyson: Totally inappropriate to my mind.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Totally inappropriate Ruth Dyson describes them as. That is probably a fair description of the comments made by the Minister. But given his concerns about the decision-making process in a multi-agency response it seems strange to me that we have not had a response either from the Minister through an SOP or from the Government in response to that. Maybe if the Minister in the chair cannot respond to that perhaps some Government members who were on the select committee—I see that Mark Mitchell the Minister who was previously in the chair is now sitting in his seat opposite. Maybe he would be able to take a call. I understand he used to be on the select committee. Maybe he would be able to take a call and assure the Committee that this legislation adequately provides for those situations where there is a multi-agency response.The other concern that was raised by submitters—which I would also appreciate a response from the Minister on or as I say perhaps from Government members who were on the select committee—is the concern raised by the Law Society that clauses 35 through to 37 are to use its terms not specifically constrained to being exercised in a manner that is reasonable or necessary." as other clauses in the bill are. The Law Society raised the concern that there are different thresholds. Different clauses have different thresholds for response and for powers and these may add unnecessary complexity or confusion in the bill.Further the Law Society submitted that the relationship between clauses 35 through to 37 and clauses 39 through to 42 is unclear in relation to which clauses an action may be taken under. The Law Society did give an example and if the Committee will indulge me I would like to quote from its submission: "For example if an authorised person breaks into a house that is on fire in order to control the fire would that person be acting under s 35(a)(ii) or clause 39(2)(b) or both?".The Law Society also questioned the need for clause 43. I must admit as a layperson who was not on the Government Administration Committee and who has not examined this closely that clause 43 did read strangely to me and I also question the need for that clause. Clause 43 is somewhat circular in that it says that "The performance or exercise by any person of any function duty or power under sections 35 to 42 is conclusive evidence of his or her authority to perform or exercise that function duty or power."—i.e. by performing the function that is evidence that they were authorised to perform that function. Maybe there is something more to this. I look back at the definition of "authorised person" and it seems clear that the definition of "authorised person" covers that off. I am wondering what exactly the purpose of clause 43 is. It seems odd and rather circular in its wording and I would again appreciate some clarification from the Minister.Again I think the Minister can give the Committee confidence with his explanation that the concerns raised by the Law Society about clauses 35 through to 37 and their relationship with clauses 39 through to 42—that the Minister is satisfied that those concerns are not warranted—and also perhaps explain exactly what the purpose is of clause 43 which seems strange at first reading. I have not seen anywhere in the report—I may have just missed where it is in the report—that explains what the purpose of clause 43 is and why we need it in the bill.There are a few questions there for the Minister. If the Minister because he is in fact a former Minister of Internal Affairs and not the current Minister of Internal Affairs is not able to answer those questions then perhaps members opposite who were on the select committee might be able to provide some insight as well. Certainly for those of us who were not on the committee just by reading the bill and by reading the concerns that were raised there do seem to be some issues there that warrant some explanation from the Government."