Seymour David; McAnulty Kieran; Rurawhe AdrianDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Yes well thank you Mr Speaker. As communicated I'd like to make a few general comments ask a few questions of the Minister and have my colleague Mark Cameron—who speaks for the rural folk who've been differently often more acutely affected by recent events—say a few things as well. First and foremost this is a debate on the Minister's declaration of a national state of emergency and I want to say that ACT supports that basic action although we have some questions around its timing the logic behind it and therefore how long it will go on and what it allows the Government to do that it couldn't do previously. However I had understood and hoped that when Parliament resumed time would be set aside to acknowledge an earlier tragedy one that has had this new one of Cyclone Gabrielle layered on top of it and that is the anniversary weekend or January floods which affected Auckland. I think that they too deserve some acknowledgment because as Cyclone Gabrielle was announced and began to make its perilous way across the Tasman to New Zealand many people in Auckland—in the Epsom electorate and beyond—who had recently had their homes flooded and lost their livelihoods were viewing it through the lens of Well I know that my place is flood-prone. I question the response around protecting it. Will it now happen again?" For the most part Gabrielle in Auckland at least has been a matter of wind rather than rain and they have been spared that. But I think the House should also acknowledge the very treacherous journey that people have trodden over the past two weeks. First of all having their homes flooded their belongings soiled struggling to get rid of belongings that were a public health hazard in many cases having been affected by sewage backflowing out of their toilets. They've dealt with looting. In one case Erin a constituent of mine was burgled having already lost everything. And yet in spite of all of this difficulty we saw tremendous camaraderie tremendous community spirit and—although belatedly some would argue—a local government that swung into action and got the drains cleared to largely ameliorate the challenges of flooding when the rains came again on Tuesday. I think that needs to be acknowledged by the House and will need to be debated more fulsomely at a later time. Now in a much wider area of New Zealand from the far north of Cape Reinga right down to Hawke's Bay and everywhere in between it seems people are facing devastation on an extraordinary scale. There is a lot that could be said but I'll keep my remarks brief as ACT and our MPs are watching are listening are talking to people affected and are hearing from live reports and real reports from people every hour. Our commitment—and I say this in collaboration with two of the people who have spoken so far—is that practical measures to make sure that people are able to recover will meet with bipartisan support. We have also heard somebody attempt to politicise the issue and put it through their particular lens—very happy to do that but not in this debate. I don't think it's appropriate. I think a lot of people—and we'll just hear from rural people—in the farming community will say the idea "If only the Government made them sacrifice a few calves we'd be delivered from the storm." I don't think that helps right now but I thought that needs to be said. I want to ask the Minister about his decision making over the last 24 hours. In particular I want to ask him: what was different this morning at 8.43 a.m. that led him to declare a national state of emergency when he hadn't done so in the previous 24 hours?Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): The first request for advice on a state of national emergency was made to the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) on Sunday. Since then the agency has been providing the Prime Minister and myself with regular assessments and advice as to whether a declaration was required. It is a high bar and we needed to assess whether local civil defence groups with their resources and the resources that the Government had already provided were in a position to be able to provide the response to their communities without the benefit of a national coordinated approach.The difference between last night when the advice was that it was not required and this morning when it was that it should be declared was that a meeting was held—as it has been done every morning between NEMA and local civil defence groups. Since that stage Hawke's Bay declared and it was decided from feedback that they provided NEMA that the various responses across Northland Auckland; Bay of Plenty; Waikato including Coromandel; Tai Rāwhiti; Hawke's Bay then; and now the Tararua District would benefit from a nationally coordinated response. It is worth pointing out that a declaration of a national emergency does not necessarily mean that more resources will go into those communities because resources have been given to those communities. It is not a reflection of a lack of confidence in the local community responses. It is simply that given the level of destruction and disruption to the communities and the number of local emergencies they felt and NEMA felt that they would benefit from national coordination here at the national coordination centre.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): In light of that answer what conditions would the Minister need to see to cease the state of national emergency? Can he tell people what to look for to know when he will end this?Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Well there are obviously two phases at least in a response. One is the immediate emergency response and one is the recovery phase. As I mentioned in my ministerial statement the recovery phase of this event is likely to be long it is likely to be expensive—and it will need to be in order to make sure that people receive the welfare needs that they have. There are two phases in a national state of emergency: one is focused on the response and another is the recovery. So we will be continuing to coordinate nationally with those regions as long as they feel that that is required. I'm not in a position to be able to give a direct answer to that now but we won't keep this in place for any longer than it needs to be—but we will keep it in place as long as they need it.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): There was an incident last night where the old Colonial Ammunition Company Shot Tower was in danger of falling over—or judged to be. Around 50 homes were evacuated. People were re-accommodated with the community or in an emergency centre. It seemed that Auckland was able to get the job done there. What sort of things could national Government have done in that case to achieve a different outcome? Or are there other circumstances where you believe that the national state of emergency would make a difference?Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Well of course without wanting to appear flippant this is more than about Auckland. There are some regions in this response that have the resources and are able to do what is needed; there are others that would benefit from a national response. There was mixed feedback given to NEMA officials today when they consulted civil defence groups. Some said they needed it; some said they didn't—but there's a significant difference between saying that they didn't need it but they didn't think that it was warranted. The clear message with engagement with civil defence groups is that the broader response across various regions including some very rural areas that require assistance is that they would benefit from the national coordination that comes with the declaration of a state of national emergency.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker?SPEAKER: It's an ACT Party call. National didn't use all of its time so this is their call; so once they've finished if you seek leave I'll come to you—Mark Cameron."