Emergency Management Bill (No 2)

Committee of the whole House

Kia ora, Madam Chair. As I have with Part 1 and Part 2, I will ask my questions as a cluster, but I note that I’m still waiting for responses to questions I asked on Part 2, ranging from clauses 43 to 76—thank you, Minister.

Moving to Part 3, these questions will range between clauses 80 to 96. Starting at clause 80, where does the bill require mātauranga Māori and local iwi knowledge to inform emergency planning? I’m thinking of the likes of Māhaki Tiaki Tangata in Te Karaka, who have innate knowledge of their rivers, etc., and were actually key to the response and to liaising with their council in recent weather events, so I’d like to know when that will be required. Why does the bill rely on consultation rather than requiring Māori to be involved in co-designing emergency plans?

In terms of clause 94(b), what counts as meaningful engagement with iwi and Māori? Must councils show how Māori input actually changed the final plan? How will isolated rural communities and marae be included? And, in clause 96, if the Minister overrides a regional plan, must affected communities be consulted first?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, just very quickly, the member Cushla Tangaere-Manuel is right. I hadn’t addressed some of the questions she asked on Part 2, so if I could just take the opportunity now, Madam Chair, to address those?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes, although we are on Part 3. Just carry on with those answers.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you. Do you want me to carry on?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): You can if you need to.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Just very quickly—how will the bill ensure it is locally led, specifically including the role of iwi and the marae? I fully agree that we need stronger recovery plans and that this should be locally led. I draw the member’s attention to the definition of “recovery activities” in clause 8, which include measures to enable community participation. This includes participation by iwi and Māori. I’ll leave it here because that does cover off some of the other substantive questions that were put to me on Part 2.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery for his really constructive and fulsome engagement in this process so far.

My questions are around clauses 77(2) and 79(2)(ba). Of course, we are the Green Party, so we’d always like some tighter integration between climate change adaptation objectives and the national emergency management strategy, but I do note that clause 77(2)(a) potentially provides the power for a future Government to just issue that. [Interruption] A bit of a conversation with the Minister here. I’m just going back to the point I wanted to make around the national emergency management strategy. Is there power in either clause 77(2)(a) or (b) for a future Government, if they were so inclined, to have climate change adaptation be the objective set by that secondary legislation? That is my first question.

My second question is around clause 79(2)(ba), “consult representatives of the following groups regarding the proposed replacement strategy or the proposed amendments to the strategy:”. I really wanted to recognise that it’s good to see explicit mentions of iwi and Māori under subparagraph (ii) and rural communities under subparagraph (iii). Was any consideration given to expanding that list to include, for example, the disability community, the ethnic community, people who we do know are disproportionately impacted?

I do recognise that is, potentially, covered by paragraph (ba)(i), but why is it that those categories of people are not explicitly mentioned compared to subparagraphs (ii) and (iii), and would the Minister potentially consider expanding the list of communities that are explicitly named in clause 79(2)(ba)?

Committee of the whole House

That’s a really good question. I’ll get some further advice on it, but I think, primarily that reason why iwi and Māori and rural communities are specifically listed is because this is where we see the majority of the gaps that we really need to fill, and I think you are right too when you draw attention to subparagraph (i) of clause 79(2)(ba), as it states, “any community that the Director-General considers to be a disproportionately affected community:” can be included, and our disability community would be captured in that.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is in relation to clause 80, “Matters persons must have regard to in development of emergency management plans”. Now, throughout any emergency response, information that you get is rarely perfect and decisions are often needed to be made before all the facts are actually available.

What I’m keen to understand is how the plans developed under clause 80 balance that technical expertise, that local knowledge, that community experience, and that incomplete information, because, in the real world, planners might have modelling that suggests a particular risk is low while a community that has lived through repeated flooding might have a very different view. Equally, an agency may know that a particular road, bridge, or stopbank is vulnerable long before any formal evidence base is complete.

I suppose my question there is: when those developing those emergency management plans are considering risks under clause 80, how does the bill ensure that local knowledge and practical experience are given appropriate weight alongside technical assessments, particularly when the available information is incomplete or uncertain?

Committee of the whole House

In response to Cushla’s earlier question, first of all, in relation to compelling, I’d like to see anyone that could compel any marae to engage if it is shown that it wasn’t a good idea. We don’t want to go down that road anyway, but, as noted during the debate on Part 2, the coordinating executive group oversees the regional emergency management plan. These groups will be required to include members who represent local Māori knowledge and interests, so there is actually a requirement in the legislation. It’s actually legislated that Māori and iwi will have a seat on that board, which is the board responsible for the heavy lifting and the planning for their area in emergency management.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to follow on from my colleague beside me and talk to clause 79(2). In relation to, obviously, consulting with persons that the Minister feels is appropriate, and that is found it subclause (2)(ba), about consulting with representatives, and, as previously mentioned, that could include the disability community. It is really good that the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery clarified that. I think where this is really important is that we understand from previous discussions that a lot of people in the disability community are more vulnerable than others, and we need to ensure that we take good care in that space.

I just want to talk to an amendment that my Green colleague Steve Abel has put forward. It’s timestamped 27 August, 9.45.28. It would come in after clause 79(2) and it would insert a new subclause (2A), and it says that consultation must be conducted in a manner that is accessible to disabled people, including, where appropriate, with the use of New Zealand Sign Language, Easy Read, and other accessible formats and channels.

Obviously, the rationale behind this is just to make sure that we don’t create any legislative gaps inside this bill—that, actually, we just go and do standard consultation and forget, when we’re dealing with a very significant group that’s disproportionately affected, that we don’t actually communicate with them in a way that’s easily understood. Obviously, in times of emergencies, etc., it’s quite chaotic, and, actually, the more information that we can give to people in a way that’s easily understood, the better it is for them.

As you’ll see from all of our amendments we’ve put forward, we’ve been trying to create some small improvements to the bill. We support the bill, and it’s in a good space, but we just think there are a few things that could be done to even lift it to the next level. I think this one actually creates quite a good outcome where we just make sure that, through legislation which we know is more rigid, consultation with people in the disability community is done in a way that it actually is easy for them to understand.

Committee of the whole House

I just want to acknowledge the amendment in Steve’s name and the fact that, rightly so, you’ve got to focus on our disabled community, because they are the ones that are often most vulnerable in these events. I just want to reassure the member that they have definitely been covered off right from the start of consultation on this bill. Our officials, who I acknowledge again, have been quite simply outstanding in making sure they engage with everyone that’s impacted and affected in emergency management, including our disabled community. If I come back to clause 79(2)(ba)(i), the director-general has got the ability to be able to—if we need someone or someone has come forward in terms of advancing issues in relation to the disabled community, they are able to have a seat on that group.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question around clause 79A, which is “Presentation of national emergency management strategy to House of Representatives”. Just from the way that I’m reading this section, it seems like the House of Representatives either has two choices when it gets presented with the strategy. They can either, obviously, vote to approve it or vote to not approve it. I just wanted to check with the Minister: are there any powers for the House of Representatives to amend the national emergency management strategy once it’s been presented to it, or is it a linear no and then it goes back to the Minister and the Minister having to amend it, or are there any, I guess, powers that I’ve not read here for the House of Representatives to directly amend that national emergency management strategy?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just very quickly, Francisco, I think that the plans will go to the director-general and the Minister will have oversight on that also; that will also go to the Minister. If the plans weren’t consistent or they weren’t actually meeting the requirements of the legislation, they’d be sent back for changes to be made. I don’t know whether a select committee process or a broader parliamentary oversight would be involved in that. I will get some advice on that.

Coming back to the question around national strategy, the strategy’s purpose is to set out the Crown’s long-term goals and objectives for emergency management. It can consider climate change issues, as the current strategy does, to the extent that these issues fall within the bill’s purpose.

Can I just come back to Dan. Balancing technical experts and local views is critically important, because you don’t just want an academic lens across things; you want to actually have a practical lens across things, from people that are on the ground and actually involved in this work. This is what the bill’s planning process is intended to achieve, and we want these arrangements to be figured out ahead of the emergency itself.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s—

Francisco Hernandez: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Oh. You’ll have to be quicker than that, Francisco. Francisco Hernandez—very lucky.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the enthusiasm that you greeted my call with. Just a question around clause 80(2)(c) around the matters that persons must have regard to in the development of the emergency management plans. Under clause 80(2)(c), “The person must have regard to … New Zealand’s international obligations (to the extent relevant).” I was wondering whether the Minister had considered the submission from the Human Rights Commission and Deaf Aotearoa to potentially specify a non-exhaustive list of New Zealand’s international obligations that might be considered, particularly considering things like the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Would there be potential to list those in (2)(c) in a non-exhaustive way?

Of course, we do have an amendment that actualises that, under the grouping that was submitted as “20 tabled amendments lodged by Green Party members at 8 p.m. on Thursday, 27 August 2026” under my colleague Celia Wade-Brown. It currently doesn’t have anything on it—it just says “New Zealand’s international obligations”—but we do agree with the recommendation by the Human Rights Commission that potentially illustrating what legislation might come into that would be a potentially good way to flesh out this legislation.

Committee of the whole House

The question that was put to me by the member Francisco Hernandez in relation to House approval of strategy—the House may either approve or not approve, but the House can’t directly make amendments. It’s a given that the House would give its reasons, and these should be taken into account, though.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I didn’t actually intend to take a call on this, but having gone through it and listening to the Minister’s response, specifically around clause 79A and the presentation of the strategy to the House, I am keen to further understand this. As a former Minister, having gone through Cyclone Gabrielle, I have particular interest in this part here. The Minister will know that I think it’s fair to say that there’s been a large amount of collaboration on this. This bill has been a long time in the making, and we’ve got a real opportunity as a House to send to the country a message that this is one of those areas that there’s really no room for politics, frankly. I think, in fairness to the Minister, he has taken that on in his time in this role.

Your response then, Minister, to that question around the option available to the House—whether to approve it or not—I’m just keen to flesh that out for the understanding of the committee. Does that mean that there will be a debate on this, like there was for the National Infrastructure Plan, for example—another area where there was widespread support? Frankly, the way that that was gone about—where there was a debate that was done in a collaborative way; the Minister, Chris Bishop, accepted my offer to have a foreword by the Labour Party, and then he extended that to the Green Party—I think that’s really set the scene amongst the infrastructure sector around how Parliament is actually taking this quite seriously now. If there is going to be a debate on this strategy so that the House can then decide whether to endorse it or not, would that be something the Minister would be interested in—to have a foreword from the Opposition to sort of demonstrate the areas in the strategy that we have broad support for?

Committee of the whole House

Firstly, can I acknowledge the Hon Kieran McAnulty, because I took over from him. He was the Minister for Emergency Management under the previous Government, and they had already done a lot of the heavy lifting on this bill. There were some changes that we wanted to make to it, and the reality of it was it was a bit far out of scope, so we had to actually have it discharged so we could do that. But I want to acknowledge that there had already been a significant amount of work done on this bill under him as Minister, so it’s important for me to be able to do that publicly, and thank you for giving me the opportunity.

In terms of emergency management, we’ve all agreed that this is cross-party. There are two things that should be bipartisan: one is national security and one is emergency management. So I’d be very open to that. I’d have to get some advice on it, but I’d be very open to that, because in the spirit—it’s easy to talk about it, but, actually, we’ve just got to keep doing it.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is around moving on now to Subpart 4, which I believe is still in Part 3, and clause 93(c). We do have a proposal on the Table here, and we have been really consistent throughout the select committee process and throughout the committee of the whole House process on the need to tighten the integration between climate change adaptation and emergency management.

The amendment that I have drafted in this space—which is on the 36th tabled amendment lodged by Green Party members at 9.45 a.m. on Thursday, 27 August 2026—specifically borrows the language that the Government has drafted around the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill, which brings in the adaptation objectives in an upcoming bill. It’s been introduced to the House, but it hasn’t had its first reading yet. I’ve borrowed, literally, the drafting in that section and adapted it to new clause 93(d), because what the current draft of the Government’s Climate Change Response Amendment Bill legislation will do is that, if it passes—because of the sequencing of this bill passing first—it will amend a piece of legislation that will no longer exist. What I’ve done is draft the equivalent clause from it in this clause, which would move it to the emergency management committees from the groups. It’s basically saying that it must have regard to any current climate change adaptation plans within the committees’ area, and for any aspects of that plan that relate to strategic recovery to give effect to any current adaptation plan adopted that is within the committees’ area.

We do know that, currently, there is no legislative duty for any councils to prepare local adaptation plans. That is coming up in the legislation that the Government has introduced, but we do know that some councils have already prepared local adaptation plans within their area. It would be good for any emergency management committees to have the power to be able to give effect to any adaptation plans that have already been developed in their area, even though they’re not currently required to be doing so. I’m really keen to have that be put forward and adopted by the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery because, as I’ve said, this is already in a draft of Government legislation that’s before the House.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just with the advice I’ve received from officials for the Hon Kieran McAnulty, the House will determine how the strategy will be debated. This will be addressed in the Standing Orders, and clause 79A exists to make sure the House has a role in emergency management in peacetime.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I think we’re very close, but I think the Greens may have a further contribution.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. Just another—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No? Yes?

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Sorry, I just fell down. I have another couple of contributions on clause 102. One of the things that came up during the submissions process was that, when it came to developing regional emergency management planning standards, there’s actually, maybe ironically, no requirement for the Minister to consult the emergency management committees, or to consult the emergency management coordination groups that this legislation establishes, during the development of the regional emergency management planning standards. One of the submitters made that point, so we thought it was a good idea to actually require consultation within the legislation, because, obviously, these people who are in the emergency management committees and the emergency management coordination groups will be at the coalface of what’s going on. Obviously, it would be really good for them to be required to be consulted.

I appreciate that the current legislation as drafted enables them to be consulted if the Minister wishes, and most Ministers, or all Ministers, will probably choose to consult people with grassroots expertise, but it would be really good to have that be as a legislative requirement rather than potentially leaving it to the whims of the Minister.

Committee of the whole House

I thought the member was practising his drop, cover, and hold for a minute! Coming back to the member Francisco Hernandez’s question around climate change response, when the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill is passed, it will refer to the Emergency Management Act, not the Civil Defence Management Act.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 750 be agreed to.

Amendments to the amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment inserting clause 77(2)(c) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 79(2)(b) inserting new subparagraph (ia) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 79(2) inserting new paragraph (bb) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 79 inserting new subclause (2A) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to clause 80(2) inserting new paragraphs (ba) and (bb) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment replacing clause 80(2)(c) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 86(2) inserting new paragraph (ab) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Cushla Tangaere-Manuel’s tabled amendment to clause 86(2)(b) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 86(2) inserting new paragraph (d) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 90(3) inserting new paragraph (d) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Chlöe Swarbrick’s tabled amendment to clause 91(1) inserting new paragraphs (ba) and (bb) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Scott Willis’s tabled amendment to clause 91(1) inserting new paragraph (o) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment inserting clause 101(2)(aa) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 2

Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 4 Emergency response and recovery: states of emergency and transition periods, and Schedule 4

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 108 to 169, “Emergency response and recovery: states of emergency and transition periods”, and Schedule 4. The question is that Part 4 stand part.