Emergency Management Bill (No 2)

Committee of the whole House

I just, again, want to acknowledge the member. I lived through that with her, in my own electorate, with the Auckland flooding, and mentioned the community in Māngere, particularly where I visited when I became Minister and who had responded with community pop-ups and providing a lot of support into the community.

With animals and livestock, there has been a gap there—without a doubt. That’s why we’ve closed the gap in this legislation to make sure the powers are there to be able to get in there, look after family pets, and also make sure the welfare of livestock is cared for as well. In terms of the term “humanely”, when it comes to, sadly, an animal that has to be destroyed, I would say that the assumption is always that that is done humanely, and I would expect that it was probably captured in other legislation. But I’m just going to ask the officials to clarify that for me and I’ll come back to you on it.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Minister. I just want to jump ahead to clause 163, “Power to close roads and public places”. Just noting that colleagues might have contributions before this—

Which one, sorry?

💬 DAN ROSEWARNE: Clause 163. What interests me here is the move from response to recovery. The emergency may be over, but the recovery phase can involve competing pressures. You know, communities want roads reopened, businesses want customers back—the Minister used the Kaikōura quake example earlier, and that’s actually quite a good one for this scenario—infrastructure providers want access for repairs, residents want to return home. At the same time, recovery managers may have legitimate safety concerns about damaged roads, unstable land, and contaminated sites and things like that. What I find interesting is that the same power to close roads exists during the emergency phase under clause 30, but here, it continues into the recovery under clause 163, and that raises a concern about the decision-making thresholds.

I suppose, at what point does an emergency management decision become a transport or infrastructure or local government decision instead? So I suppose with my question here, if we have a real-life example, after a major landslip has cleared, who, ultimately, decides when a road is safe to reopen? Is it the recovery manager, the road controlling authority, a geotechnical engineer, or a combination of all three? I suppose the point with that question, Minister, is this: we want to make sure that the bill works when agencies might disagree because we want to be able to provide that certainty for communities. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just seeking to take a quick call on clause 113 and the idea of having potential emergency declarations that are smaller than ward level. This is an idea that has been put forward by a number of submitters, including the Gisborne District Council and the Auckland City Council. Because of course it would be really useful to actually have emergency declarations that are smaller than wards because, at the moment, it seems like when you have to declare an emergency, it applies across the whole district when, of course, some of these districts are actually quite far apart. This was also a point that New Zealand First made in their different view, that we do agree with, around the need to have emergency declarations that are able to just be on a sub-ward level. We’ve drafted an amendment paper in my name, clause 113—under the tranche that the 36 tabled amendments that we lodged at 9.45 p.m., Thursday, 27 August 2026.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just ask the member what clause you are referring to?

💬 FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Clause 113

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): One-one-three?

💬 FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: One-one-three. The draught that we have authorises a sub-ward declarations of states of emergency. I’ll end my call there, now. I know my colleague Mike Davidson has a couple of questions that he wants to raise around clauses 120 and 133.

Mr Speaker—sorry, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Mark who? Mitchell?

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will continue as I have started, beginning at clause 109, looking at the declaration of emergencies. I want to acknowledge the attitudinal shift in New Zealanders when it comes to these; also acknowledge, however, that there has been some confusion. States of emergencies have made headlines recently. So the question is: how does the bill ensure there is no confusion about who is in charge during the first critical hours?

Moving now to clause 122, what checks are there on the Minister’s emergency powers?

Clause 128—again, reflecting on the attitudinal shifts and how our communities and whānau are responding very well when warnings are issued and states of emergency declared. How will evacuations provide for our elderly—our pakeke, kaumātua—and our disabled people? Are there any special considerations or processes when considering how they are to be evacuated safely?

Moving to clause 132, when we’re looking at requisition of property, will businesses or marae be compensated if their property is requisitioned, and, if so, what is the process and time frame for that?

Now looking at recovery and transition periods at clause 142, how will affected communities have a real say in recovery decisions? What formal role, if any, will iwi, hapū, and marae have during long-term recovery, and are there allowances in the bill to stop recovery becoming Wellington-led rather than community-led?

Now looking at reviews after emergencies, around clause 168, will post-emergency reports identify what went wrong, not just what agencies did, and therefore the learnings from that? Will they specifically assess how Māori, rural, and isolated communities were served? And why isn’t an independent review mandatory after every national emergency? Thank you.

💬 Hon Member: Madam Chair.

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have two quick questions to make on this part of the bill, and I appreciate the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery has actually answered a lot of questions on the disability sector and their involvement. I do have a question—and there’s an amendment to this with the timestamp 27 August 8.00.12. It’s to do with clause 121, and it’s to insert, after 121(d), “to meet the standards of accessibility and be available in New Zealand Sign Language.” It’s a simple clause, and the reason for that clause is just to give effect to New Zealand’s obligations under the disability convention by requiring publications to be accessible in New Zealand.

The other amendment I want to talk to is a different matter, and it’s for clause 133(2). It’s actually excellent that we’ve put in this bill the provision to, obviously, humanely destroy animals that are in distress. In 133, there’s just a slight addition that we want to put in there after clause 133(2), and that is: “despite (2), destroying 1(b) should only happen as a last resort.” I guess we know, like for a lot of people, animals—their pets—are like children; they’re so close. While we understand there are circumstances where animals will need to be destroyed in emergencies, I think ensuring that that is actually always going to be the last resort is actually quite important.

So that’s just a couple of amendments that we’d like to be considered. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much. Just coming back to the member Cushla Tangaere-Manuel’s questions around who is in charge. Ultimately, a state of emergency will be called by the respective mayor, of course working with his civil defence and emergency management group, advisers, first responders. They all have a role to play in assisting a mayor in declaring a state of emergency. The only real anomaly in that is immediately after a local government election where that responsibility then falls on me, and we’ve dealt with that in the bill as well. But the bill puts more emphasis on individual councils’ responsibilities in their own districts, and there is a clear chain of command through the different levels of controllers.

Coming to the point of how the bill will ensure recovery is locally led, specifically including the role of iwi, hapū, and marae, I fully agree that we need stronger recovery planning and that this should be locally led, bearing in mind, of course, our whole emergency management system is predicated around the fact that it should be locally led and centrally supported, unless, of course, we’re in a situation where we’re transitioning into a major event across multiple districts or a national state of emergency. I draw the member’s attention to the definition of recovery activities in clause 8, which includes measures to enable community participation. This includes participation by iwi and Māori.

The last one was: how will evacuation consider the elderly? Regional plans must set out the arrangements for meeting the needs of disproportionately affected communities, which includes the elderly and other members of the community.

Committee of the whole House

Yeah, thanks for your engagement, Minister Mitchell. I just have a question around clause 167—so that’s “Person exercising emergency powers to provide proof of identity”. I suppose the difficulty is that by the time we get to Part 4 of the bill, we potentially have a fairly long chain of authority. You know, powers can be exercised by controllers, you’ve got recovery managers, you’ve got people authorised by controllers, and there are others there too. I’ve been in enough emergency operations centres (EOCs) to know that confusion often occurs at the edges of the system. You know, people arrive from different organisations, their roles change quickly, they change vests within the EOC, and authority can be delegated at relatively short notice. There were times in my previous life: you’d send a convoy through a river to distribute water or fuel and things like that, and there’ll be somebody there saying that you can’t pass through.

I suppose my question here is that clause 167 requires proof of identity, but where does the bill require proof of authority, particularly where powers have been delegated or exercised by a person authorised by the controller or the recovery manager, or even a constable, for that matter. And, I suppose, how are the members within the EOC, those agencies, expected to distinguish between someone who merely has, you know, some ID or someone who’s acting on written authority by, like, a controller, for example? Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Amendment Paper 750 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 113A 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 inserting clause 120(1)(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 Lemauga Lydia Sosene’s tabled amendments to clauses 129 and 162 be agreed to.

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment inserting clause 133(3) 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.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 5 Information, enforcement, compensation, appeals, and secondary legislation

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to Part 5. This is the debate on clauses 170 to 216, “Information, enforcement, compensation, appeals, and secondary legislation”. The question is that Part 5 stand part.

Committee of the whole House