Henare PeeniPEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe otirā ki a tātou katoa. I rise to take a short call on the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill. I am encouraged to hear the collegiality across the House with regard to this bill. Clearly there are different viewpoints at the beginning of this bill but through collegiality hard work and a focus on what matters we have come to a point now where there is a wide acceptance of the bill. Despite some apprehensions—which I will cover off very shortly—with regard to particular clauses that have been removed from the bill and some that we on this side of the House believe certainly lack a bit of clarity we have come to a point now where we are supporting this bill. We think it is a step in the right direction.We note the contributions of the House and of course the report that says that is the first part of the process. There is a second part of the process which is a broader wider review. However we do want to express our concern that there does not seem to be any clear time line around that particular review and we would hate for a civil emergency to take place before we realise that actually perhaps we should have had a time line in place so that these things could be avoided.There is always an argument between recovery and response readiness. In August 2014 leading into the election there were significant floods in the Far North. Major chunks of State Highway 1 were taken out. Infrastructure was affected. But I think one of the things—having been a resident in the Far North at that particular time and having a lot of family members up there—was around that response readiness. I often wonder when we deliberate on bills such as these how they do actually translate into how whānau—people on the ground—are able to mobilise and respond effectively and in a timely manner to ensure that they do not suffer the ill effects of such emergencies.When I read through this particular bill I think there are some good steps forward around some clear appointments around the particular roles of people in an emergency so that there is not that confusion on the ground. But I do want to pick up the point made by several members of the House on this side that actually talks about that imbalance of power and making sure that local responses are not lost in the debate in the response and also in the recovery of areas as a result of states of emergency. It is important that those voices on the ground are heard because far too often we see Big Brother come in with all of the right intentions then we see them sweep out and nothing has changed at home. Nothing has changed on the ground. Are we after one event more responsive and more prepared for the next one? The answer too often sadly is no we are not. And we see that quite often because what was once a one-in-50-year occurrence is now happening three to four times in a decade and we just cannot pick when those times are but it is important that we learn from the lessons of the past and we are able to prepare for any future event. Section 57A has been removed. This does cause some concern around the recovery plans and strategic recovery plans meaning that there is not much direction there for those people in the regions who are on the ground and who for many are volunteering their time to actually do the work to make sure that communities are looked after that they are able to respond to emergencies and also that they are able to recover. Without those clear defined parameters that legislation often allows us to put in place without that framework I am afraid that we could potentially see a lack of recovery from and response to future emergencies. Just in closing I too want to support the sentiments made across the House for the speedy recovery of our colleague the Hon Nikki Kaye. I want to conclude by saying that we support this bill.