SpeechHon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic Development): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I'm a little bit surprised that I've just heard that ACT member Simon Court talk about the recovery and response—certainly the initial response—in a way that is quite disparaging to a vast number of Hawke's Bay people that did it really tough. There are areas of heroism there. There were people who went over and above there were people who put their own lives at risk and it's actually quite astounding that there weren't more people who died—thank goodness. But to say that Labour Ministers gaslighted I find quite offensive because he's talking about me who's one of the local MPs; he's talking about Anna Lorck one of the local MPs; he's talking about the Hon Kieran McAnulty who's one of the local MPs; and talking about the Hon Meka Whaitiri one of the local MPs. To say that we gaslighted the people of Hawke's Bay is wrong and it's quite offensive because all four of the MPs that I've mentioned—and Kiri Allan of course is the local MP for Tai Rāwhiti—were out there working with our local communities understanding what they needed helping them advocating for them in front of Cabinet advocating for them in front of our caucus and letting New Zealand know that in fact this was serious. The devastation to Hawke's Bay was significant and I think that—I was going to take personal offence but I thought no I won't do that. But I just think that the ACT member needs to be a little bit careful in his use of language because it belittles the efforts that some very good people who are working very hard for their constituents actually did on the day. Members let me tell you a story. On 10 December myself and James Palmer who was then the CEO of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council—he's now the head of the Ministry for the Environment—turned a sod on a stopbank behind the Pettigrew Green Arena. For those who know Hawke's Bay this is in Taradale near the Eastern Institute of Technology. I remember looking at the stopbank and I said to James No way—look how high this is. The river is never going to come this high." and he said "We built this for the one-in-500-year flood." I said "Well OK that's pretty significant." and he said "What we did is we also built it a metre higher than the engineers wanted." Wow you know that's pretty big and the only way they could build that was through the COVID relief funds. So it was paid for by central government. Well that stopbank that was built for the one-in-500-year flood and that was built a metre higher—the water came within 30 centimetres of the top of that stopbank and if that stopbank had broken or if that stopbank hadn't been there then the conversations we'd be having today would be significantly different than the conversations we are now having because the whole of the Taradale suburb in Napier—and no doubt others—would have been completely devastated. So again to say that the regional council were negligent in the way that they maintained their stopbanks is I think just simply incorrect and the reason I say that is because the amount of rain that fell during that 24-hour period was so far outside the parameters within the models of the regional council that it just could not have been predicted. Now of course we're going to have to change all the models and the stopbanks are going to have to be rebuilt and we're going to have to assess how we look at risk but the bottom line is the regional council was not negligent in the way that it treated the people of Hawke's Bay. Hawke's Bay members did not gaslight their communities and their local electorates. People worked incredibly hard and are continuing to and it's what this bill is about.I also remember being in the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 22 February 2011 when Amy Adams received a call informing her of the most severe of the aftershocks that killed 185 people in the Canterbury earthquakes. We were—right across the House—devastated that one of our most beautiful cities could have become home to one of the most deadly events in New Zealand's history but the House came together in the case of the Canterbury earthquakes and passed legislation that allowed the rebuild to progress in a way that was outside the laws of the time but was necessary given the unique circumstances and the Christchurch community's requirements. While the loss of life from these recent weather events doesn't match the scale of the Christchurch earthquakes the trail of destruction is significant.As Kiri Allan pointed out up and down the East Coast the soils were already sodden from a summer of very very heavy rain. If anyone manages to fly between Napier and Gisborne or go and have a look on any one of our Instagram accounts or social media you will see hillsides absolutely devastated and the people say to me "Where did all the silt come from?" Well it came from so many slips up and down the Coast that you'll just look at these photos and you'll think "OK that's where the 2 metres of silt in the Esk Valley came from." The events of the rainfall on 14 February were significant to the point where once again our Government knows that in order to recover and rebuild we need to once again come together in a bipartisan way in order to allow us to move forward. This is what the Severe Weather Emergency Relief Legislation Bill does. It's pragmatic. Farmers don't have to seek resource consent in order to repair their roads shore up their infrastructure and do what farming folk do in order to address the issues immediately facing them. It allows the application of retrospective resource consents where they're absolutely necessary in terms of emergency work. It allows local officials to meet remotely. I mean you wouldn't think you'd need to pass legislation in this day and age to enact that but you do. Up and down our electorates people who are elected officials on bodies—like for example the Wairoa people can't come down to Hawke's Bay Regional Council meetings or people in Napier and Hastings and central Hawke's Bay can't travel to Wairoa for regional council meetings so it allows them to meet remotely. It ensures civil defence and emergency management quick access to emergency powers. In essence it empowers key decision-makers to move with speed and clarity where perfect is sometimes the enemy of good and good is vital in order to get stock off land and communities reconnected and key infrastructure up and running so that at least people can move around. It's not perfect at this point in time. Bailey bridges aren't permanent but we need to be able to do this sort of stuff in order to allow communities to connect and move forward. In terms of Simon Court talking about roading resilience well I think one of the first announcements we made was $250 million in terms of emergency roading infrastructure. It's not all—it's going to cost significantly more than that. But we got money out the door really really quickly because we understood that those who had been devastated—whether it was a lack of access or whether their orchards had been wiped out or whether the crops were devastated or whether they'd lost their homes or their livelihood or their business had been impacted—needed immediate assistance. The Minister of Finance always said that this wasn't the endgame but that there was more to come as we reassessed the situation and we continue to reassess the situation. In fact we had the extreme weather events Cabinet committee tonight. There are many many decisions that are going to have to be made to allow Hawke's Bay Tai Rāwhiti Auckland Coromandel and parts of central Hawke's Bay to recover in a way that allows us to build forward and allows people to build forward with a level of certainty that's required. But this piece of legislation is a start because as mentioned it's pragmatic. It allows things to happen in a way that things need to happen and in a way things probably couldn't happen under current legislation and we don't take this sort of legislation lightly—we absolutely don't. In fact—and I could be wrong and no doubt some member will correct me if I am wrong. But I do think the last time we did pass this sort of legislation was actually the Christchurch earthquakes. As the member Eugenie Sage mentioned—and because I've been in the House all during this time I don't think there is any incident where people abused the legislation because we all knew the necessity of getting it right. I think the social licence—well no not social licence. The credibility the integrity of anyone who sought to deliberately abuse this sort of legislation would have been held to account in a way that meant they probably could not live in the community that they had been part of.This legislation also allows local authorities an alternative way of providing notice of entry for emergency activities and solutions where the landowner or the occupier isn't present. I've been down to the Esk Valley about four or five times. There's an avocado orchard there that used to belong to friends of my parents. I used to play there when I was young. The trees must be at least 50—so they're about 10 years older than I am—and they're completely devastated. I mean avocado trees aren't the most robust trees but these are 50-year-old trees. Every single one of those trees is gone. In fact Esk Valley is one of those scenes—I know a lot of people know Esk Valley. It's where you drive through to go from Napier at the beginning of the Napier to Taupō road and it is one of those scenes literally where artists paint because it's sort of quintessential New Zealand. You've got your orchards as mentioned—your avocado orchards—and you've got your vines you've got your poplars you've got your willows you've got your beautiful scenes you've got some nice houses on the hills you've got houses on the flat. It's completely wiped out. So this legislation is necessary to allow us to move forward in a way that will get Hawke's Bay up and running. It's not the last—there's a lot more that needs to be done—but it's a good start. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon Louise Upston—five minutes."