Emergency Management Bill (No 2)

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Turning now to clause 15 and the suggestions that were made throughout the submissions process by groups like the Student Volunteer Army, they suggested that clauses 14 and 15 be amended to include sections in there that would, in effect, give the director-general the responsibility to make sure that the volunteer capacity and the volunteer functions of emergency management were being looked after in a systemic way. We’ve drafted an amendment on clause 15(4)(c) to that effect, to insert the development of a strategic plan to integrate volunteer emergency management capacity within the overall framework of emergency management in Aotearoa New Zealand. Also, I just remind the Minister of the previous questions that I asked in my previous intervention, as well.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Minister. Just in relation to clause 27, throughout the bill there has rightly been a reoccurring theme that emergency management works best when local knowledge is able to reach the decision makers from the centre. We can have all the plans we like but, if decision makers are not hearing what’s happening on the ground, they are, effectively, operating blind. We’ve got many examples in New Zealand, as we’ve learnt, about how that can derail a response. The regulatory impact statement also recognises that local authorities and communities often hold that information and that expertise, which is not always available at the centre. I have an amendment tabled for clause 27, and it requires—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can you give us the number or the timing of the Amendment Paper? You carry on with your speech, and one of your colleagues might be able to let me know.

💬 DAN ROSEWARNE: Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment essentially requires emergency management committees to establish and maintain arrangements to receive information from communities before, during, and after emergencies. It doesn’t create a new bureaucracy or reporting regime, but it tightens up the fact that people closest to an event are often the first to know when things are changing. This amendment is, essentially, making the system more responsive.

I suppose the question there, Minister, is: if a community identifies a significant emerging risk or unmet need during an emergency, where in clause 27 is the mechanism for receiving and considering that information, and would you be open to considering that amendment? Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, and thank you for that answer to my previous question. I just wanted to talk to clause 25, the “Multi-member and unitary authority Emergency Management Committees”, and in relation to clause 22(5).

Obviously, we know that local government is going through reorganisation and regional councils will no longer exist, and so, when we look through, we’re probably going to be faced with lots of unitary councils. The way this bill works is that, technically, you could have two unitary councils work together to create that multi-member emergency management committee, and then, when you refer over to clause 26, it talks about the representation on those committees; that each local authority member can have one person on the committee. Therefore, we’re looking at an emergency management committee that could potentially have only two elected members on it that have voting rights. Then, actually, they have the ability to co-op associated members on there for skills and that, but, potentially, only two members on the committee are going to have voting rights.

Then, through into clause 25(7), it refers to, obviously, clause 31 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act, which talks about joint committees and committees. One of the things to note in clause 31(6) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act is that the minimum number of members for a committee is three. So, potentially, we’re creating a bill—legislation—that provides for a committee that will be made up of two members, which is actually contradictory to the Local Government Act, which says a minimum of three. I do wonder how well a committee would work if you have only two people with voting rights on that committee.

I’m just wondering if the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery has had advice around this, especially with the reorganisation and how that will impact the bill as it currently stands, and the potential of having a multi-member emergency management committee with only two members on it that actually have voting rights. I potentially feel that it could create issues, and I would think if you’re in that situation, you would want to have to co-opt people and you’d need to, because I don’t feel that a two-member committee, as well as not being compliant with another Act, would actually be that effective. I feel like you might not get a great outcome if you’ve got two members who have voting rights and maybe another three that do not have voting rights. That has obviously been traversed before. I do have an amendment to ensure those associated members do have voting rights.

The other thing I just wanted to touch on—it’d be good to get the answer on that and I’ll just ask one more question, seeing as I still have time, in relation to the same topic but in 2026. It is slightly different. It obviously refers to the councils, which can appoint one person—obviously, the first one is the mayor or chairperson, and then by delegation they could just do an elected member from their local authority.

Now, my only concern around that is—because I do agree that it should be an elected member that actually is the person that’s delegated from the authority—that if the Minister of Local Government puts in commissioners, for example, you should have a chairperson, but you would not actually have an elected person as well. So, therefore, clause 26(b) itself becomes impossible to achieve because there are no elected persons on a local authority that has a set of commissioners in charge of that organisation.

So just a couple of questions, really, around the technicalities of having a multi-member Emergency Management Committee that only has two members on it. In fact, that actually contradicts what’s allowed under Schedule 7 clause 31 of the Local Government Act, which says that memberships of committees need to be a minimum of three. Obviously, clause 26(b) would not be possible if commissioners were in place.

Committee of the whole House

Yeah, I’ll address the member Mike Davidson’s questions first. So we already have a joint committee of two unitary authorities; that would be Nelson and Tasman, with its combined civil defence and emergency management group, that actually work very effectively together. Any consequential changes required through the simplifying of the local government reforms, they’ll be able to address the issues that you’ve raised through those reforms.

In relation to the member Francisco Hernandez’s issue that he raised, the amendment is not appropriate for the powers of the director-general, and the role of volunteers is recognised in other ways, namely through regional plans which must state how offers of assistance will be managed, and coordinated executive groups may appoint additional members who could include representatives of volunteer groups.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to briefly speak to my tabled amendment on clause 29(2)(e) of Part 2, tabled on 27 August at 2.28 p.m. The amendment requests that in clause 29(2)(e), which states “provide communications, equipment, accommodation, and facilities”—my proposed amendment is that after the words “and facilities”, we include “including marae”. It has been lauded across this committee the value that marae have, not just for the whānau and hapū of the areas affected, but for everyone who happens to be in the community at that time. I think that marae deserve the respect of actually being specifically named in this bill.

Committee of the whole House

I just have a couple of questions around clause 27(1)(a)(iii) and also it’s identical in clause 28(2)(a)(iii). This clause is obviously part of the functions of both the multi-member Emergency Management Committee and a unitary authority management committee—they have to identify and implement cost-effective risk reduction. This is actually a really important part of emergency management response. I know we focused a lot on being prepared and the recovery of emergencies, but sometimes not enough effort actually goes into risk reduction. We know that the associated costs once an event has happened is huge. Actually, if we invest more at the start, then we could make it a lot better in the long run.

So my question is: when we have a look at that in the bill—to identify and implement cost-effective risk reduction—what is the analysis done to actually determine what is cost-effective risk reduction when we look at the costs that we’re seeing from the natural disasters that are happening time and time again? We’ve had so many states of emergencies this year alone. The cost of that obviously runs into the billions. Then, if we’re looking at the risk reduction, how do we determine, and what was the analysis done to determine, what the cost-effective risk reduction of that is? Then how does it work to implement that? If the Emergency Management Committee identifies these areas where that would be cost-effective because in the long run it saves councils more money, over a longer period of time, how do they then go to implement that? What is the mechanism for them to implement that risk reduction? Also, how would that then tie into a rates cap if actually there may be significant outlay, but, ultimately, the cost to society, to local government, to the local authorities actually turns out to be a much better position?

I struggled, through this bill, to actually work out what happens from that point. Once they have identified it, where to from there? Because I actually think it’s a really, really important part of emergency management to try and mitigate and remove that risk right from the very start. So it’d be great if I could get answer on that.

Just while we’re there, I’ve just got another quick question on clause 27, and this is clause 27(1)(a)(iv)(B). It talks about consulting and communicating with communities. Once again, this is a committee that’s basically delegated the ability to create costs, and this is throughout this bill. So I’ll just use this and won’t speak to this again; it is the cost aspect of some of the set up and running and management of these committees. But obviously it’s the local authorities that pay for this—the set up and the administration of these committees—at a time when the Government has said that they’re putting downward pressure to reduce rates and they’re implementing rates caps.

So my question is: is this something that needs to be exempt from the rates cap so that we can ensure that local government is set up in a way that does not risk Emergency Management Committees taking shortcuts to sit within local government caps? Because it’s really important that when we create something like that, local government are set up to succeed. There’s potential with the rates cap that they actually look to take shortcuts. So my question is: has the Minister had any conversations with the local government Minister to actually exclude a lot of this work from the rates cap to ensure that local government can do this properly?

Committee of the whole House

Sorry, just going back to Dan Rosewarne first. Dan, you raised a really good point. Is—centralising information, especially during an event—that information actually getting to the right people so they’ve got all the data and all the information they need to make good and better informed decisions? That is definitely dealt with in the bill, because that was a big gap that was identified in the Auckland flooding events, in Cyclone Gabrielle in the report that I received from Sir Jerry Mateparae. That is why we’ve made sure that it is codified and people can understand—whether you be a community organisation with a pop-up right through to our first responders—where the information is going, how it’s flying, and what they can expect to come back.

Coming back to Cushla, look, I take your point, but there is absolutely no intent to offend anyone in the generic use of “facilities”. Quite simply, it would come back to, as you know, when we get out on the ground you’ll have faith groups that will make their facilities open, you’ve got community halls, councils themselves—you’ve got multiple facilities and groups that come forward and provide support and help depending on the scale and size of the event that we’re dealing with. Therefore, “facilities” does cover everyone off. If you went down and started to try and have an exhaustive list, it’s inevitable that you’re going to leave someone out.

Coming back to Mike Davidson’s comments, yes, I agree with you. Reduction is a huge part of the four Rs in emergency management, without a doubt. The way that our country approaches it is multifaceted from central, regional, district government. Obviously, the plans and the risk management plans have to be put together to identify what our risks are and then how we mitigate those. A big part of it is we’ve put billions of dollars into reduction-type work around the country in terms of physical infrastructure to protect communities. There are some really tough issues that councils have to deal with around managed retreat. Are people actually in safe locations, and, of course, around the planning of new developments and infrastructure as well.

The third part of that—and it’s hard to quantify; it’s hard to actually measure, but a change in being far more proactive and better organised around these events I think has a significant cost saving for us as well. They’re all good points that you’ve raised. The question of the rates cap, that quite simply is going to sit with local government to decide what their priorities are and how they’re going to use the money available to them.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of quick questions from me through you to the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery. I have a question around clause 17(2) to the Minister. Could the Minister please provide a definition of what is meant by “qualified privilege”. I’d appreciate a layperson’s definition of that.

On clause 28(2)(c), there was a suggestion from the Human Rights Commission around—let me read here so I don’t misquote them. “To be consistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, clause 28(2)(c) should include a clear directive that resources must be provided in accessible formats.” I see that clause 28(2)(c) does not currently have that. We do have a tabled amendment, the one that’s in this list of 20 tabled amendments lodged by Green Party members at 8 p.m. on Thursday, 27—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

💬 FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: —August 2026 that would seek to address that issue. I believe that particular amendment is in the name of my colleague Kahurangi Carter around actualising the suggestion by the Human Rights Commission to make sure that the formats are accessible. The suggested tabled amendment we have is to replace it so that “take all steps necessary or desirable to maintain and provide, or to arrange the provision of, or to otherwise make available accessible materials, services, information.”—just to make sure to give effect to that suggestion.

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to quickly touch on clause 30A(2). I do note it was spoken to earlier around the fact that the associated members would be non-voting on the committee, so I won’t talk about that. But I do still have a question around the associated members, and, for me, are committee members subject to any potential liability for the decisions they make? I think it’s quite an important thing to know. Like, are we putting people on a committee that will not have voting rights but actually would be subject to liability for any decision that the committee makes?

That in turn leads to my next question around the difference, I guess, between being a committee member and actually being an adviser. That would actually protect those associated members and the reason, I guess, and rationale to have associated members instead of actually just appointing advisers. I was wondering if there was any advice on actually what the difference was in terms of remuneration for someone to be an associated member compared to being an adviser. I would not like to be in a situation where we create legislation and develop committees that potentially were putting people on that can’t vote, so they do not have the full entitlement of other members, but yet they’re held to the same accountabilities as the other members on that committee that can vote and do have the full rights. Yet they could just be brought in as advisers instead, and therefore not hold that same degree of accountability. I do have a question on that.

Also I just want to move forward now to clause 36. I think this is actually quite an important thing. I do ask these questions, like all my other questions, generally just to tease them out, just to make sure there are no issues that may have been missed in this space. As we all know, local government is going through significant reforms at the moment—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s actually why I’ve allowed the member to ask these questions, because normally those bills would be in another piece of legislation, but we’re in a state of change at the moment, so I’m quite happy to let the member just succinctly ask. You don’t need to acknowledge the local government thing other than a passing reference in your other questions.

💬 MIKE DAVIDSON: Thank you. Thank you for that direction. I will make sure that I keep it much more succinct.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, they’ve been good. It’s not a criticism; I’m just making it clear for the committee that that is the reason why. Normally you would rule other pieces of legislation out, but we’re in a state of movement here.

💬 MIKE DAVIDSON: Thank you. Thank you for that clarification as well. My question around clause 36—and it also does touch on clause 37 as well. Obviously, in there, there’s the six-month clause that they have to create these committees through a re-organisation. I just want to know what happens through the re-organisation when a current local government is basically discharged and no longer exists. In 2028, when we have new unitary authorities and we don’t have regional councils and we don’t have territorial councils, city councils, or district councils, we just have unitary authorities, at what point does it say, right, those older councils that are current at the moment have been discharged and no longer exist, or any committees are also discharged and then there’s a six-month period where the new unitary authority can establish this committee. Now, what happens within that six-month period?

Now, I have some amendments just to make sure that if there are any loopholes then there is actually the ability to ensure that the previous council committees are actually held on to through that six-month period. I’m just a little bit concerned that because things are moving at pace within reorganisation that probably wasn’t happening when this was drafted, there is the potential of a legislative gap in there for that six-month period when the existing council no longer exists and has been discharged and these new councils actually have a six-month window to create a committee, and the impact of what would happen if there was, say, an earthquake and a state of emergency was declared. So it would be great if there was a response on that.

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Minister. So this is just in relation to clause 39. I have an amendment for this clause as well. Now, the Defence Force routinely provides a wide range of support during major emergencies. With that in mind, I had an amendment tabled on 27 August, and that’s timestamped at 9.46.03 p.m. That will require within clause 39 a member of the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) assigned by the Chief of Defence Force to be a member of each Emergency Management Co-ordinating Executive Group. Now, the point of this is not to militarise emergency management. Some hold the view that the NZDF should not be as involved in emergency responses like they have in the past, but emergency management is an opportunity for the NZDF to build social licence within the communities that they serve. So I think that’s very important.

So my question is, given the significant role of the New Zealand Defence Force and what they regularly do in a major emergency response, I’m wondering if we could get your thoughts on the requirement for Defence Force representation within the Emergency Management Co-ordinating Executive Group or groups. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

First of all, Dan, I acknowledge your service too with the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF). Can I just say that our New Zealand Defence Forces, in my view, have got a critical role to play in emergency management in our country. Yes, without a doubt, they are our war fighters, but if they have got the personnel, the resources, and the time to be able to support our own country during these events, then the expectation is that they do that. When I see them deploy, it is literally the communities that see them, they immediately bring a sense of safety, and it literally feels like the cavalry is coming over the hill.

If I just use a very personal example, they’ve got special capability. When we had the state of emergency in Kaikōura, we had one person who had been critically injured. A bridge had been washed out, and it was the middle of the night and they hadn’t seen that, and they drove into the bottom of the riverbed. All access was cut off. We were dealing with floodwaters. And the Defence Force was mobilised immediately to have special capable vehicles that could navigate those floodwaters safely. We had a young woman there too who was very, very ill, and the medical staff at Kaikōura felt like she needed to have proper support at the hospital. That is where our Defence Forces step in to fill a gap that no one else can.

On that same event, I would definitely not recommend flying in an NH90 with two broken ribs.

💬 Tim Costley: I always recommend flying an NH90!

💬 Hon MARK MITCHELL: Ha, ha! Yeah.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Maybe the recommendation is to give up rugby!

💬 Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah, and Madam Chair’s right; maybe I should think about hanging up my rugby boots. But, anyway, I just wanted to highlight the importance of the NZDF in the past, in the present, and in the future in terms of emergency management.

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Are you going to vote for the amendment?

💬 Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’m talking to your colleague. If you respect him, then let me address the issues that he’s raised, right. I don’t know why, you’re an outgoing member, but you seem to have this real sense of entitlement that you can interrupt everyone.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, no, no. Minister, stop and address the question to the member who asked you the question.

💬 Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, maybe a little bit of decorum from—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, we don’t attack members from the chair. I’ll deal with that if I need to—I’ll deal with Mr Webb if the need arises.

💬 Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish you the best of luck.

Yeah, so the New Zealand Defence Force obviously has got a big role to play in emergency management in New Zealand and will continue to have that role. Of course, they have a seat around the table—a critical seat around the table—at any event that we have, whether it’s a local state of emergency where you’ll have a defence liaison officers in the emergency operations centre (EOC), coordinating and working with the mayor, with the controller, with the entire EOC team. At a national state of emergency, we have a dedicated facility, obviously, in our bunker, where the New Zealand Defence Force will be making decisions, advising the Prime Minister, the Minister, and working with our emergency management leadership.

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Firstly, I just want to make a quick clarification that in terms of members that are eligible to be remunerated, they are eligible, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they will be; they’re just eligible. So I just wanted to clear that matter up for the member.

So just coming to your last point first, in relation to people with disabilities. In a state of emergency, they are our most vulnerable. I just want to assure the member that whether it be our first responders, whether it be our controllers, the people in their emergency operations centres, our communities, iwi, hapū, everyone’s focus will go to identifying and responding to the most vulnerable. That is basically the core of our responses in this country.

Just going back to the issue that you raised about reorganisation, the bill’s reorganisations provisions are carried over from the current Act, and the six-month time line for the formation of an Emergency Management Committee begins once the local government reorganisation is effective. So that addresses directly the issue that the member raised.

Just coming back to Francisco’s question around qualified privilege. So the definition is: this is qualified immunity from liability or defamation if the statement is made in good faith and in the public interest.

Committee of the whole House

Kia ora, Madam Chair. I will continue the way I started, and I would like to ask the remaining questions I have for Part 2, which range between clauses 43 and 76.

So my first question to the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery is, in clause 43, we know the pressure that a lot of councils are under at this time, with infrastructure expenses, rates rises, etc., that they’ve got to deal with, so how will small and rural councils meet the responsibilities in clause 43 when they have limited staff and small rating bases? Is there additional funding being provided to councils with high disaster risk but limited resources? Clause 43—how quickly will councils be reimbursed for emergency spending?

Moving to clause 52(2)—what minimum training and experience will controllers be required to have?

Clause 59—what happens when national priorities conflict with what local communities urgently need?

Moving now to clauses 65 to 68, recovery managers—how does the bill ensure recovery is locally led and what role specifically will iwi, hapū, and marae have in making recovery decisions?

Moving to clause 74(a)—what minimum resilience standards will power, telecommunications, and other essential infrastructure providers have to meet? What has changed to prevent communities again losing power, phones, and communications, as happened quite dramatically during Cyclone Gabrielle and, of course, other weather events across Aotearoa?

Clause 76—why can the Minister exempt an essential infrastructure provider from requirements, and will every exemption and the reason for granting it be made public? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just also moving to clause 45, but before I do that, I just had a quick question around clause 39(2)(f), (g), and (2A). Just following on from the point that my colleague Mike Davidson made around the potential for appointing someone with lived experience of disability within these Emergency Management Co-ordinating Executive Groups. Is it the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery’s expectation that subclause (2A) provides the ability for the Emergency Management Co-ordinating Executive Group to be able to co-opt people from the disabled communities or with lived experience of disability into these Co-ordinating Executive Groups?

I’ll move on to clause 45 as well. Now, this was a big issue that came up during the select committee discussions. That’s my understanding from my colleague Mike Davidson, who actually participated in these discussions. Sadly, I was in my other select committee, the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Clause 45(1)(a) provides the potential for costs to be reimbursed of costs that have been incurred by local authorities or water organisations. We do know that this is really one of the most frequent points that was made by submitters: why it was just those two categories that are eligible for direct reimbursement. We do know, of course, Minister, that emergency management is an all-of-society function that people all across the motu do participate in emergency management. So why is it that just local authorities and water organisations are eligible for direct reimbursement from the central government?

We do know that there are pathways and mechanisms in place for these groups to be able to seek costs from local government. But we are worried that these pathways are potentially constrained. We do know that local government is undergoing a significant period of disruption and reorganisation. We do know that local governments are being told to tighten their belts, and we do feel that direct reimbursements coming from central government could potentially be a better way rather than requiring people to go through local government. Because we do know that central government does have a greater level of capacity to be able to reimburse people, and we do know that sometimes where costs that are incurred across and between different local government boundaries, it might be more efficient to actually have them handled in a more centralised way.

So, for example, if I incur costs trying to help people across the Dunedin and Queenstown Lakes District Council boundaries, it’s probably more effective for the central government to just reimburse me if I’m operating at a cross-regional or even at a national scale, rather than having to hit up every single local government organisation to ask for a reimbursement. We do have amendments that we filed to that effect, which would enable direct reimbursement mechanisms of these groups in the 36 tabled amendments lodged by Green Party members at 9.45 on Thursday, 27 August 2026. We’d love for the Minister to really explain the logic of why there isn’t any direct reimbursement mechanisms that are being offered to individuals, groups, or people that do partake in the emergency management space, and why the direct reimbursement mechanism has just been limited to local governments and water authorities. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Committee of the whole House

That’s a really good question. I think that there are other mechanisms, of course. Central government does have a big role to play in making sure that funding gets out, especially around critical infrastructure and things like that, but, fundamentally, the whole premise of our emergency management system is set up on being locally led, because a council is far more plugged into its local community and has a better understanding of what they need than central government sat down here in Wellington.

The sad thing, Francisco—and Cyclone Gabrielle sort of highlighted this—is that the Government can send money out, but if there’s a separation, then, unfortunately, there are people that are out there that do try to exploit the system, without a doubt, even through a state of emergency recovery, which is sad. You’d like to think that we wouldn’t do that, but there are people that do do that. The best control mechanism is to have that controlled at a local level. Fundamentally, that is why the central governments prefer to be able to fund through the council and work with the council and support the council in the delivery of these projects.

My own personal experience as Minister is that this is by far the best mechanism to do that: to make sure that you’ve got good relationships, that you’re focused on the delivery, and that you’re allowing the people actually on the ground in the community—and some of these infrastructure projects that we’re delivering, like the stopbanks, are very complicated. It involves lots of property rights, and the best people to be able to negotiate that and work through them are actually the people on the ground themselves.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m coming very close—I’m going to let Mike Davidson just round up his questions.

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

No, no, that’s fine. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, you’re right. Sorry, I did have the information there for you around a commissioner. The Local Government Act provides that a commissioner appointed for a local authority must perform the functions, duties, and powers of the local authority and its members under any enactment, and that includes this bill as well. Sorry about that, but yes, I hope that answers your question.

In relation to the provision for our disabled community, they are accounted for through the engagement requirements and the requirement that regional plans address their needs. There’s also flexibility to add any member who has skills and knowledge that will assist. Disability is not specifically mentioned but is clearly captured in the definition of disproportionately affected communities, so yes, you can have someone appointed to that board.

Madam Chair, sorry, could I just have one quick clarification on that?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just a quick clarification.

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Apparently, it’s been replaced by clause 39(2)(a), so they should be able to co-opt whoever they want on to that board.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 750 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment replacing clause 14(a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment inserting clause 14(da) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 14 inserting new paragraph (l) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’ tabled amendment inserting clause 15(4)(ca) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s amendment inserting new clause 26(a) set out on Amendment Paper 735 be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s amendments replacing clauses 27 and 28 set out Amendment Paper 737 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment inserting clause 27(1)(a)(v) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment inserting clause 27(1)(l) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment replacing clause 28(2)(a)(iv) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment replacing clause 28(2)(c) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment inserting clause 28(2)(m) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Cushla Tangaere-Manuel’s tabled amendment to clause 29(2)(e) inserting “including marae” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 30A(2) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 36 inserting new subclause (6) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 37 inserting new subclause (8) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment inserting clause 39(2)(f) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to clause 39(2) replacing paragraph (h) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment inserting clause 39(2)(h) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment inserting clause 40(d) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 43B be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s amendments to clause 45 set out on Amendment Paper 736 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Now, those people to my right-hand side, excluding the Minister, should not need to be reminded at this late stage in the parliamentary cycle that we do not talk during voting.

Mike Davidson’s tabled amendments to the heading, to clause 45, and replacing clause 45(1)(a) are out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 45 inserting new paragraph (c) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 45(1) replacing paragraph (a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 45(2) replacing paragraph (a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 45B be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 45B be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 69(2)(aa) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 34; 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.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Ricardo Menéndez March: The noes have it—party vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’d already declared the Ayes have it. I think there’s a dispute—I’d already declared the vote.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: It’s a proxy vote - related matter.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So the Green Party’s happy, because I’d already declared the vote. If the Green Party needs to correct a vote, there is an opportunity to do that. But I’ve called the vote as it was and it was all in favour.

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House