Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I was really interested in the member Ian McKelvie's contribution and then it suddenly stopped. I would have thought given his extensive experience in civil defence matters that the House could really value his contribution but perhaps he will have another go at another time. He will not be able to on this bill because this is the third reading.I am really pleased to continue Labour's support for this bill and also to acknowledge that right up to the Committee of the whole House stage Parliament seemed to be working collaboratively to the point where Supplementary Order Paper 237 by my colleague Clare Curran who is Labour's spokesperson in this area was accepted and adopted. That was really the final improvement to the bill. Our committee the Government Administration Committee I think worked really hard and thoughtfully.We had some high-quality submissions. Poto Williams my colleague from Christchurch East acknowledged the submission from the Christchurch City Council and that was an excellent submission but it was actually one of many that really helped us think not about the theory of the bill but—of course as is really important with civil defence—about how that theory was going to be turned into practice and about what happens on the ground.We learned a lot from the Canterbury situation and that is why I was keen to hear from Ian McKelvie because I have not heard quite so much about the Manawatū and Whanganui flooding issues and I am sure that they learned a lot from that. One of the big issues that we learned in Canterbury was that people want to put their hands up to help. When they see other people in trouble New Zealanders' first instinct—and it was certainly the case in Canterbury—is to ask: What can we do to help?".Admittedly the February 2011 quake was so serious and severe that civil defence was really pushed to get it right but it did not know what to do with volunteers—it had no idea of how to engage with volunteers. I remember Sam Johnson who at that time was heading the Student Volunteer Army. I remember Sam being so frustrated because as he said: "We have hundreds of students who can't go to lectures during the day because our buildings need checking to make sure they are safe. We are young fit and able and we want to help. We want to do something." And civil defence said: "Go away. We do not know what to do with you."Sam fortunately did not take that as the last response. He said: "We know that people particularly in the east have silt up and down their driveway. They can't get out. They can't move around their streets. The streets are covered in silt." And the silt was a metre high at that stage. They just got on and did it. The volunteer farming army—Farmy Army as it is called—did the same. It did not wait to be organised and approached; it just got on and did it. It is a fantastic New Zealand attitude.What we do have to ensure is that people who do put up their hand to help are connected with a proper civil defence response so that we get the best out of everyone and so that we never put any volunteers into a situation that would do more harm either to themselves or to anyone else. Of course they would not do that intentionally but if they did not know what was going on they might do it. Communication between the formal civil defence organisation and volunteers is critical. I do not think that we have got it right yet. It involves a culture change. It involves ongoing communication between the various sectors that respond to an emergency situation.Even through the last stages of the select committee we were still waging a bit of a battle with the Hon Gerry Brownlee about how much engagement would be directed as part of the legislation. The select committee in the end was successful in its negotiations with the Minister. I want to acknowledge the fact that the Hon Gerry Brownlee has shepherded this bill through the last stages but I also want to particularly acknowledge the Hon Nikki Kaye who is on sick leave at the moment and I really hope that she is back soon. She did an excellent job in preparing this bill not just in working with the officials but also in working with people from other parties and territorial local authorities which are critically involved in this. She listened to people on the ground as well. Throughout this entire process the Hon Nikki Kaye has really responded to the submissions that the select committee heard—the voices of people inside and outside Parliament—and worked in a very open way to give us the best bill possible and I want to commend her for that.I noted that the Government Administration Committee had worked hard on this but I also want to particularly acknowledge the officials. They got a lot of hard questions. They were asked to do a lot of additional work: to contact people who had submitted to see what they would think of the committee's initial response to their submissions. They did a fine job. They are a credit to the Public Service and this bill is better for their work as well as for the way that the Minister and the select committee worked and for the quality of the submissions. And so it should be.I want to echo the words from my New Zealand First colleague Clayton Mitchell who noted how good it was that all of Parliament had contributed to and felt part of this process and that we have got a very good bill as a result. When you are talking about civil defence and emergency management responses that is exactly the way that Parliament should respond. We should not have grenade throwing or cheap petty comments as part of that; we should do the best job possible—Hon Simon Bridges: That's right.Hon RUTH DYSON: The Hon Simon Bridges has just agreed with me; I might change my mind! He is the expert at cheeky petty comments. The only time actually that the Minister Simon Bridges is praising is when he is looking in the mirror and then he is highly praising. I said to him the other day in the corridor: "I've heard a rumour that you're going to be the Minister of Education. Is that right?". He said: "I haven't heard that but I'd make a very very good job of it."Hon Simon Bridges: To be fair that is what I said.Hon RUTH DYSON: It is too. It is exactly. That is word for word.Hon Simon Bridges: Truth hurts.Hon RUTH DYSON: No no. I am sure you could not do worse actually. That is what I would say but that is not particularly high praise. Just going back to some of the concerns that were raised and that I think have been mentioned in previous contributions to this bill—this bill is only part one of parts two and three. We were keen to hear about what might be comparable in this bill in terms of the structure of civil defence and the way it liaises with local authorities. The way it liaises with volunteers is the next stage which deals with much bigger events. It is going to be on a parallel path to this in terms of the structure.The officials could not really answer that so I assumed from their response that the policy work has not yet been done or signed off by Cabinet. That was a bit frustrating because we want to know that the work and effort that we put into this is passed on to the next stage so that that structure is as robust as possible. We were not given a time frame for that next bit of work either and that was immensely frustrating to the committee. We felt that if this was going to be a path of quite significant change in the way we respond to civil defence emergencies the least we could expect was to have a timetable from Minister Brownlee. But we were not able to get that either.I would also like—I do not usually praise these guys—to acknowledge the insurance companies.Grant Robertson: What?Hon RUTH DYSON: Oh I acknowledge them rather than praise them. They bear the financial brunt of these situations. Of course in some of the more significant ones—the Manawatū and Whanganui floods that we discussed earlier and the Canterbury series of quakes—we have had a lot of financial costs. The insurance companies when speaking to mitigate the risks that they were exposed to—and so they should as that is their role; that is their business—also I think made a very thoughtful contribution to a much broader range of policy issues than just the narrow business focus of mitigating their risks. I want to acknowledge and thank them for their contribution to that.As I said this is a really important bill. I think the way that Parliament responded to it is to our credit and that is not always the case in the way we respond to legislation. The submitters and the thought that went on right through to the Committee of the whole House have made this a bill that I am really proud to support. Thank you."