Hudson Brett: Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHudson Brett: Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 09 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8799. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]BRETT HUDSON (National): It is wonderful to be back after the summer adjournment. It is good to see you again in the Chair Mr Deputy Speaker.I am looking forward to speaking on this the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill. This is a bill that addresses better recovery from New Zealand’s most frequent emergencies which are those of a small or moderate scale. It is part of a wider review. This is the first phase. The second phase will address the legislative framework required for recovery from large-scale emergencies such as the Christchurch earthquakes. But as acknowledged this is addressing those emergencies that are most frequent in New Zealand—those emergencies that are of small-to-moderate scale. What it is doing at the heart if you will is establishing a legislative framework for recovery management providing a mandate for recovery managers and requiring high-level preparatory recovery planning.What we have seen and we have continued to see with most of the smaller or moderate emergencies that we experience in New Zealand is a very very heightened focus as you may very well expect on response. But the transition from response to recovery has not always operated as smoothly and as effectively as we and those who have suffered loss and injury and other issues may expect.So this bill will seek to address that by supporting a seamless transition from response to the initial recovery phase. It establishes a transition notice mechanism that will make some emergency powers available for a specified period of time. It is those emergency powers that will enable those recovery managers to move swiftly and effectively into that most important next stage which is when the response has been addressed but it is now time to recover and to address some of the major damage that may have happened even in only a moderate-scale emergency.We have got a really good example actually in the Manawatū-Whanganui region following the severe flooding there. It was an event that was classed as a moderate emergency but actually showed us that the clean-up and the recovery work involved a huge amount of work something that perhaps we were not quite as prepared for in the transition as we should have been.So the new law will give clarity to those leading the work. It will help ensure that it can be carried out as swiftly and effectively as possible. It will give them the appropriate authority they need to undertake works. Things that that may enable for instance are carrying out works to clear roads and other public places removing and disposing of dangerous substances and materials and actually entering into premises. One of the things that was heightened I think in that particular Manawatū-Whanganui event was the issue with seeking to have people leave their residences for their own safety and a lack of authority for those leading the recovery to actually ensure that that could happen.So these amendments will seek to address that and if it is to save life prevent injury or to rescue or remove injured or endangered persons those recovery managers and teams will have the due authority that they would require to enforce those relocations. But it is important when we are considering granting some quite considerable powers that we make sure that we have pragmatic steps to make sure that they will not be extended or abused. For instance one of the things that we will be doing is stipulating that the powers can be used only for a defined transition phase and that they must be proportionate reflecting the consequences and scale of the emergency. So they must be fitting and they can be only for a defined period of time.Another part that I see in this which has not perhaps been canvassed that strongly but I think is important as we are giving these additional authorities and powers to recovery managers is that the Act has compensation provisions for such emergencies particularly when damage is caused by emergency management officials in undertaking their actions. There was I believe a small gap in that during the transition phase the Act as it currently stands might have prevented such compensation being payable to land and property holders. That is being addressed in these amendments so that if the officials do cause loss or damage during the transition phase those property owners can be recompensed for that.So I think it is very pragmatic and sound. It is a very smart thing for us to be doing. It is part of a wider review that will also address larger-scale emergencies and I commend this bill to the House.