Sio Hon Aupito WilliamAupito WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): There are a number of clauses that I would like to raise and ask questions of in Part 2. Like my colleague Damien O'Connor I have not been part of this select committee so forgive me Minister Dunne if I am asking questions that have already been asked but none the less they are important questions.I note that in clauses 35 36 37 38 39 and 40 there are significant powers being given to an authorised person". I am not quite clear: how does an authorised person become an authorised person on this particular emergency? That is the first question. The second question is—when I look at the powers that have been given to this authorised person they are significant powers. In fact they are powers to tear down buildings adjacent to a fire and powers to remove vegetation or trees adjacent to such an emergency and I am asking how that relates to rural fires. I also ask in respect of clause 30 or 40—I have lost my clause now—how it relates to rural fires. One of the clauses—clause 39 I believe—states that Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) is able to access water for free but my understanding of rural fire authorities is that they can reclaim the cost of putting down a fire. If Fire and Emergency New Zealand is using water for free are they including that cost when they are recovering the cost of putting down a fire? I do not know.But the one thing that concerns me about the significant powers—I will tell you what happened in Samoa a few years ago and I am relating this to the rural area—is that there was a fire there and the fire department decided to water down the houses next to it to prevent the fire from spreading. Well it caused some problems because the people did not understand why they were watering their houses which were not on fire instead of watering the exact fire itself. Secondly in another situation when the fire department did tear down the adjacent building the question was asked: how do the people recover the cost of the property that has been destroyed as a result of the fire and emergency services attempting to put down that particular emergency?We have cases in South Auckland where the police department has gone in and has broken into a garage and left it in search of a party and the families are left wondering how they recover the cost of the damage that has been caused. So whilst that may not necessarily directly relate to this I foresee a situation where if there is a fire and the fire department believes that in order to put that fire out they either must enter a building or force entry into it or tear it down so it does not spread how does the family that has been affected then recover the cost of the damage that has been caused in order for the department to carry out its work?There it is—clause 45(1)—"All FENZ personnel may free of charge—(a) use all hydrants and control …". So in the case of the rural fire authority are the costs of the water part of the calculation when they are recovering the cost of putting down that fire?In clause 49—this is the open-air fire situation that my colleague Damien O'Connor used—currently we have a situation where families in South Auckland if they wanted to cook some food in an open rock oven which we would call an umu would just do it. It used to be the past practice that you called the council and the council simply said that as long as you had a hose there it was fine. From reading the legislation there is a licensing or permit regime that would now undertake—"