Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare o te rā. Tēnā tātou katoa. It is a great pleasure to stand and make a contribution to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill. I live in a flood zone just south of the Whangaehu River that has flooded five times in the last 11 years. All of my neighbours north of me get flooded. I am very lucky that I have not yet been flooded. What I have learned over that period of time is that our communities are very resilient. In 2004 we had a one-in-100-year flood. In 2006 we had a one in 50-year flood. In 2009 I think it was they stopped putting a time frame on it and we have had two more since then.I think that the response from the House has been similar to how our communities work together in these emergency situations. I think it is very important that the transition from response to recovery is one that includes the community. Maybe what is within this bill does not quite do exactly what we would have hoped for but overall we will continue to support this bill and through the Committee stage hopefully try to come to some amendments through Supplementary Order Papers to make it a better bill. We must strive to make it better.The removal of the new section 57A—of the strategic recovery plan—the Rangitīkei District Council basically said in its submission that it accepted the new section 57A. What it did say was that it would impose further costs on the council but they were costs that it was willing to accept. Now that it is removed—and I was not actually on the select committee for this bill though I am not fully informed about why it was removed—it would occur to me that like the old saying goes if you fail to plan you plan to fail". I think that the removal of a section that requires planning is something that ought to be returned in there. If there are problems with the wording of what was the then section 57A then we should work together to try to make it better so that we can plan to make the transition from response to recovery much better.There are also other new powers that are given to the likes of police. I am reminded of 2004 when my 90-something-year-old neighbour refused to leave her house. She was knee high in water the river was going through her house the helicopter was flying above her home—and she would not leave without her dogs all three of them. So the dogs got rescued first and then she left as well. But under the new powers given to police they will be able to direct the evacuation of any premises—so she would have been breaking the law. Obviously in 2004 she was not because they allowed her to have the dogs rescued first and then she left as well.I want to follow up on my colleague's kōrero about what is not in this bill and the lack of a time frame to address some pretty important issues. As I said when an area has had five floods over a period of just over a decade you can imagine the impact and the trauma that is carried by the people who actually live in those areas. After each flood our community loses at least one of our neighbours because they move—they go somewhere else and then we get new neighbours. From my calculation in a little settlement of about 12 houses there are probably only two of the original people who lived in our community in 2004. I remember going down to help out with my neighbours and helping them set up in the local hall. One husband turned to his wife and she obviously was thinking: "Please this must be the last time." and I remember his words: "Maybe one more time." And they are still there.My point is that in areas that have these occurrences a number of times surely for the local authorities and the Government it is time that we sit down—and I acknowledge the kōrero from the Greens on climate change because in my personal opinion we are dealing with these issues specifically because of the ongoing effects of climate change. I just think that some of our citizens of New Zealand deserve a better deal over the long-term effect of continually being flooded. I am going to leave it there. That is what is not in the bill but I support what is in the bill notwithstanding some concerns over some of the clauses. Nō reira tēnā tatou."