Uffindell SamSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's good to be able to rise and speak on the Emergency Management Bill at the first reading. This bill will replace the two-decades-old Civil Defence Management Emergency Management Act from 2002 and it is good that we are looking to upgrade this piece of legislation or replace it as we are in this case. I just want to take a moment to recognise everyone who's been impacted across New Zealand by the terrible weather events that we have suffered this year—in particular the Auckland floods that occurred in January and floods that also hit my home city of Tauranga and took out several houses down a bank in Todd Muller's electorate of Bay of Plenty—and also everyone else that was impacted. There was some terrible flooding events and slips and loss of life. Then of course we move to Cyclone Gabrielle in February and the catastrophic impacts that that had across Tairāwhiti across Hawke's Bay and across other areas of the country but in particular those two regions. The devastation that occurred there was astronomical to see in person. The levels of silt that had built up were simply something that you that you wouldn't have expected was possible but it was really significant and completely wiped out areas there. So we do need to make sure that we do have a robust legislative framework in place to make sure that we are equipped and ready. Being prepared is really essential but then we also have the mechanisms in place to manage any roll-out of assistance that will inevitably come forward. The key changes in this are to clarify the roles and responsibilities which is always a critical step in anything that one does. The bill is requiring civil defence and emergency management plans to identify and engage with community groups that are disproportionately impacted—obviously very important too—and it recognises the important role that Māori play and they absolutely do. I recall that when Cyclone Gabrielle hit I heard that there was an effort going on at the Tauranga Aero Club. I was driving with my wife and I said Let's go and have a look in there" and what we saw was simply an incredible demonstration of community efforts to help out those in need. There was a whole hangar. People from the community were pouring in one after the other dropping off the critical goods that were needed and there must have been up to 10 planes on the tarmac being filled with goods and then being sent off to a lot of remote communities that had been cut off by roads which had been destroyed. A lot of them on the ground there were managed by marae and the reports from the pilots coming back was that the people in the marae—the Māori there—were doing an absolutely incredible job looking after the needs of the local communities where Government officials and authorities were unable to get to providing all of the necessities from food water and sanitation products to everything that is required in the everyday course of one's life. So I'm just acknowledging the superb role that the Māori played on the marae there and also what groups such as the Aero Club did in that space. I also want acknowledge the comments when we come back to the legislation here as it stands in the first reading from the member from Te Paati Māori who said that the Government in her opinion has not learnt from the events of this year. There have been quite a few comments that have come along that this bill does not really deal with the preparedness and the response and is quite bureaucratic in nature. It does introduce new bureaucratic requirements. The Government has gone beyond the recommendations of the technical advisory group and while it does enhance Māori participation—which is fantastic—I will also reiterate the comments that have been made about other groups who stand up and do an incredible job. I think it's important to recognise all of those and there is a funding mechanism that is built in to this to deliver reimbursements of costs. I think we should probably go a little bit further and not just pin that to one group and say that those involved—and we've heard the example about helicopter fuel. We heard it when I was down in the Hawke's Bay. There were some stories—and it was raised again today—about people on private choppers coming in and rescuing people off their roofs. Helicopter fuel is expensive and it would seem a bit unfair if we didn't also have the opportunity to reimburse people who have gone out of their way taken significant risks and costs on board and in the process saved people's lives. Now I want to come to a few comments that were made. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) in particular has been quite critical of the process here. The officials there consider that vital changes weren't considered and that there were flaws in this. They're opposed to certain parts of it and they want to see removed or dealt with and what wasn't immediately clear—there was no one agency being held responsible for critical infrastructure systems. We have been unable to set national risk tolerances and standards and that should have been built into it. A number of critical sectors are not subject to regulation and there are many critical services—obviously you have your transport and you have your ambulance services which is being brought in here which is good. But in the modern technological age that we live in we didn't see cloud services involved we didn't see data-storage centres and we didn't see supply chains addressed. They did also note that New Zealand is a bit behind some of our contemporaries who have got more developed systems so there was the opportunity there to go and learn what other countries were doing in their emergency management response plans and to then incorporate that as much as possible into obviously a uniquely New Zealand setting. They saw that telcos were not prioritised as critical infrastructure during the recent events and that's quite astounding given that that is what a huge part of our life does revolve around. People are on their phones and obviously there's the emotional trepidation and angst that everyone would face—and did face—as communities were cut off people were evacuated and there were just reports coming in and out of catastrophic situations and people being unable to account for loved ones. We do also note MBIE's deep concerns about the two-wave approach. They wanted to launch one big wave of reform instead of the two parts that this is doing. They said that there are significant risks in the proposals in the paper that they may not lead to all the outcomes the National Emergency Management Agency is seeking and some of the proposals could lead to compliance costs without any real general benefit to New Zealanders. What we don't want to be doing is burdening people in red tape and costs unnecessarily. The focus should always be on what the outcomes and benefits will be and on driving those as hard as possible. So as we move forward I'd also note that the electricity telecommunications and port companies are also opposed to this and they did reiterate the point I have just made around red tape and costs. Officials have also advised the Government that they need new powers to gather information on risks and vulnerabilities—I mean this is just the first reading so we will move to a select committee stage and there will be the opportunity there for the Government to take on board the submissions which will inevitably come in from a range of key stakeholders. It's really important that those are listened to and that we get this right because we will have further emergencies and disasters in New Zealand. We need to learn from what has happened. We have had a terrible start to this year and we need to make sure that when the next event happens we are best placed as possible. I would like to think that we can get to a stage where we have widespread bipartisan support because disasters don't choose when they come. They don't care whether it's National or whether it's Labour in power so we need to make sure that we are all on the same page on this and we can get to a place that ultimately looks after those communities that are impacted when natural disasters and emergencies hit. So we oppose this bill at the first reading. Thank you Madam Speaker."