Curran ClareIn CommitteeClauses 1 to 4 and scheduleCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): This is a very simple bill—literally two pages and one clause that is being changed. The actual provision that is being changed is the requirement that the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Strategy which took effect on 10 January 2008 unless it is earlier amended or replaced remains current until the close of 9 July 2019. That was to be closed early next year—in January next year—and the reason for the extension as we have heard is to allow for an extended consultation period following the findings of the technical advisory group (TAG) which is undertaking some very important work around the country at the moment and doing extensive discussions with a number of stakeholders on changes required to civil defence.We have heard some interesting speeches so far in this debate. I really do acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell's contribution around the contribution of iwi to the response phase and also recovery in civil defence emergencies. I think we have seen some stark examples in recent times of just how necessary that iwi response is and how competent and organised it is in contrast to the normal responses that should be undertaken. I am hoping that out of this technical advisory group process which may I reiterate did come about—and I do want to acknowledge Gerry Brownlee the former Minister responsible for initiating the advisory group. He was under enormous political pressure and community pressure to do something because there had been so many issues in how the national civil defence process was actually occurring.I am not just putting the emphasis on MCDEM as it is known—the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management—it is how the civil defence operates on the ground and how inconsistent it is around the country. Not only that but the difficulties in getting information making decisions communicating those decisions and getting actions to happen. When there is a major emergency whether it is Edgecumbe and those floods whether it is Kaikōura and that major earthquake and the tsunami alert which thankfully did not hit most of our built-up coastline our coastline where people live and that was amazing luck. But the inconsistent patchy communication that has occurred around those things as well as the Christchurch fires and the lack of communication that occurred there that potentially put homes at risk and possibly people. These things are all really important. So I want to seriously acknowledge the contribution that Minister Flavell made and also acknowledge the New Zealand First contribution around the increasing cost of civil defence events.Our ministry is a very small ministry—52 people I think in that ministry. It is a massive job. A lot of the time it is a bureaucratic job: consulting on strategies making sure local civil defence is actually doing what it is supposed to do but when an emergency happens—and we are having as was said more and more of these emergencies happening every year—there has to be an instant response and a very good response. Now 52 people and a budget of around $16 million is not enough in my view. It is not sufficient to be able to manage the extraordinary events that are happening.We have also got questions being raised about our legislative framework to declare emergencies. We have national emergencies and we have local emergencies. We have seen some local emergencies being declared in the last 12 months—a number of them; I cannot name exactly how many because they seem to be happening every month or so. But we are seeing more and more of these emergencies being declared and one of the questions that the TAG is dealing with is whether or not those two mechanisms: the declaring of a national emergency—the last one was Christchurch—and the declaring of a local emergency are sufficient to wheel into action and make the decisions that need to be made. Are the people making those decisions the right people to be making those decisions and are they making the right decisions? Are they getting the best information that they need? This is why the Labour Party released a petition immediately after the Kaikōura earthquake last year to fund Geonet 24/7 because as we discovered to our horror the agency that we depend on to provide the best-possible intelligence when there is a major earthquake does not operate on a round-the-clock basis. People have to be woken up. They have to turn their computers on. They have to analyse massive amounts of important data instantly and then communicate that information to people who then have phone conferences and make decisions about whether or not there should be a national tsunami alert issued.That is not the best process for our country in 2017. Other countries—Japan Chile Indonesia Malaysia—and all of the countries in the rim around which all those earthquakes are occurring have got much better processes. They put much more resources into this. Why do we not? Nearly 12000 people signed that petition in just over a week or within a couple of weeks. That petition is still before a select committee because the Government still has not said whether it is going to invest in a 24/7 analysis and capacity for Geonet.This is an issue that needs to be dealt with urgently for our country. This is not something that should go into the bureaucratic mire of going backwards and forwards. It is either something we do or we do not. I would like to hear from the Government as to whether it is going to fund a 24/7 round-the-clock service for Geonet because that is one of the things that we need to sort out. The other thing we need to sort out is the inconsistency of the local civil defence response around our country and the training and the capability that exists in each of our local civil defence and emergency management areas—I think there are around 16 of them. What the technical advisory group has discovered—and I have met with the technical advisory group; they have not reported yet so I am not pre-empting their recommendations—is that there is major inconsistency and so you have the ministry trying to do its best at the top with only 52 people a small budget and it is having to deal with civil defence and emergency management groups around the country that are inconsistent in their ability to respond and their willingness to respond quickly to major events. As a result you get hold-ups you get miscommunications and you get people paying patch protection. Thankfully in my region which has just had a major flooding event that affected most of my electorate the capacity and capability of civil defence and emergency management has increased by enormous magnitude in the last 2 years since the 2015 floods that affected South Dunedin where there was an appalling response or pretty much a non-response from civil defence and emergency management. Thankfully that has improved and the credit needs to go to the Dunedin City Council and the Otago Regional Council for pulling their fingers out and actually realising that they had to get their act together. But I do not know to what extent they were being told that they had to do that from the top.I think that is where our strategy which we are discussing in this legislation and the need for extended consultation is where we need to be going to as to just what are the expectations that it had of civil defence around the country because it should not depend on where you live as to what kind of response you are going to get from your local civil defence area. There is major work to be done. It needs to be done. It needs to be reported on soon. The need for this legislation is sensible and we support it.