Emergency Management Bill (No 2)

Committee of the whole House

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Before I proceed, I seek your advice. I’ve got a series of questions starting from clause 24 to 41. I don’t want to preclude anyone else asking questions that may be in other clauses of that part, but I think it makes sense for me to ask them as a cluster.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): That’s fine. We have another Chair who will be coming in to replace me who will also have noted that as well.

Ka pai, thank you. Right. Moving on to Emergency Management Committees, looking at clause 24, “Members of Emergency Management Committees”. Minister, you have acknowledged the unique skills of iwi and hapū, and, having experience being on the ground with you, I believe that acknowledgment to be genuine. The question is: why does the bill not guarantee Māori representation on every Emergency Management Committee?

Moving to clause 26, how does the Minister guarantee mana whenua have a genuine decision-making voice on multi-member Emergency Management Committees?

Looking at clause 30A, why can associate members participate in discussions but not exercise all the same powers as other members? Does the Minister believe that risks creating second-tier Māori representation?

This is a very specific question relating to clause 28, quote/unquote “triple hat role confusion”, and the specific example is that there is no clause that resolves the Tairāwhiti Gisborne District Council’s sitting simultaneously as civil defence emergency management group, local authority, and administering authority. How will this be fixed?

Moving to clauses 39 to 41, coordinating executive groups. Relating to clause 39, does the Minister consider iwi and Māori organisations as operational partners during emergencies? Clause 41: who pays for iwi and Māori representatives to participate effectively? What happens if the resources or support promised under clause 41 are not provided? Kia ora.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I would just like to acknowledge that member and the benchmark of the way she asked those questions during the committee stage.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. We will try and live up to that benchmark. My question is around clause 14(a) and clause 14(b). Now, of course, there was a suggestion from Engineering New Zealand around the potential for one of the functions of the Director-General of Emergency Management to be the lead agency and to be the one that would be responsible for a nationwide programme of national hazards mapping. We’ve got an amendment to that effect. One of the other suggestions of Engineering New Zealand that we’ve sought to actualise in our amendments is to have that list of scarce technical capacity and have that be a function of the Director-General of—[Member coughs] Excuse me, Madam Chair—Emergency Management.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Feel free to have a drink.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We do know that these scarce technical skills are really essential in the emergency management space, and we do know that, like many other skill sets in New Zealand, that is something that we do have shortages in. So would the Minister consider, I guess, the idea of giving the function of national hazards mapping to the role of the Director-General of Emergency Management? And would the Minister consider, in clause 14, also the idea of having that director-general maintain the stewardship function—of having those technical skills be something that they are in charge of, making sure that Aotearoa has a map or roadway as part of that skill?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question on clause 15. I do have some questions, further on, that are a little bit more complex, but this one, I hope, is just a simple question, and it relates to clause 15(2)(a)(iv)—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): What was that clause, sorry?

Clause 15(2)(a)(iv). I guess I’m just trying to work out, and I guess it’s quite a serious question, where the line sits when it talks about “relieving human distress and suffering”.

Obviously, above that, in subparagraph (iii), it talks about “providing medical care and attention to casualties”—this is, obviously, in a disaster. I just want to know, like, where does the line sit when it gives power to relieve human suffering? I think it’s a really important question, because, when I’m looking at that, is this saying they have the right to actually euthanise people? I would hope not, but I just kind of want to know where that line sits.

Committee of the whole House

Coming back to the list of original questions—yes, look, absolutely; there’s no doubt about it: we know that iwi and hapū are very good at emergency management. I’ve already stated that in the House, so I won’t relitigate it or go over it. Quite simply, the limitations on what the additional members can vote on are focused on ensuring non-elected members do not have access to extraordinary powers which affect the rights of the public. That relates to non-elected members on emergency management committees. It’s as simple as that. It’s a simple matter of democracy and a demarcation between non-elected and elected members, and the powers and the rights that they have in that decision making.

Are Māori represented at the elected level, in my view, around the country—yes, they are. If I look at Northland Regional Council with Pita Tipene, the chair up there, I’ve been on the ground with him several times and he’s quite simply outstanding in the leadership that he provides up North, and he is making those decisions, without a doubt. In terms of funding back to the iwi, the Prime Minister was on the ground with me, again, in Northland and this Government has made sure that we expedite and we cut the red tape and compliance that iwi—that marae—have to go through to replenish. From what I understand, that has been working very well in terms of iwi being able to replenish and prepare themselves for the next event that they have to deal with.

In relation to the triple-hatting for Tairāwhiti, as the member knows, Gisborne District Council is a unitary authority with its own emergency management committees. This means it only has one set of functions. It does not need to have an administrative authority. The ambiguity the member referenced as a problem in the current Act will be fixed in this bill.

Committee of the whole House

I’m going to come back to Mike Davidson’s one. No, the bill does not give the power to euthanise people. That is not in the bill. And the director-general’s powers are for the purposes of the Act, which is to fundamentally support the wellbeing and safety of the public. I haven’t forgotten about yours, Francisco; I’m coming back to it.

Committee of the whole House

Just on the first point around qualified privilege and a definition for that, I’m going to get that for you.

In relation to the second point around disabilities and our disabled community, from my experience, the plans around the country respond and anyone in the communities that are known with disabilities or need or require assistance or support gets that. We’ve had incidents, obviously, with people in renal failure where it’s critical that they have power. There’s actually quite a bit of work being done in the bill, too, around our utilities companies, who I have to say actually do a very good job. We don’t always acknowledge them, but the contractors that are out there, whether they’re reinstating power or whether they’re clearing roads in the middle of the night, do an outstanding job for us as a country and our community.

Obviously, there’s provision in all of those risk management plans that have been done around people with disabilities and the challenges for those with disabilities and throughout the submission process as well. I also want to acknowledge the outstanding officials and team from the National Emergency Management Agency who have engaged with every part of the community around the country to make sure that all of those needs are identified and are being met through the legislation.

Committee of the whole House

So in relation to the additional members—do they have voting rights? there are some restrictions, but yes, they do have some voting rights. Do they receive any payment for that? Yes, they do. So they are actually paid.

In terms of responsibility, I’m glad the member raised that, because that was one of the things that was highlighted in the report that came back from Sir Jerry Mateparae is that there’s got to be some levels of responsibility—someone’s got to be making decisions. We decided that the best place for that at a local government level was with the chief executive. I got a little bit of pushback on that, but ultimately someone has to take responsibility. I think that’s a good place for it to sit, because obviously it brings into sharp focus emergency management and risk management as well. But they also have the ability to be able to delegate some of that responsibility.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to keep moving forward. I have a couple of questions. The first one’s in relation to clause 38(4). It says, “Unless the local authority members of the Committee agree otherwise, each local authority member of the Committee must pay an equal share of the costs”. Now, I just want to check, because obviously my interpretation of that, and I assume it’s right, is like if there were two local authorities, it’d be 50/50.

I’m just wondering if that creates a slight issue if, potentially—and you look at, say, Christchurch City, which has 400,000 people. Even if they amalgamated to include, say, Selwyn and Waimakariri and it gets bigger, and suddenly they link up with Hurunui. So it becomes there’s a Hurunui and Kaikōura unitary authority and they join up with Greater Christchurch—600,000 to 700,000 people. So suddenly you’re saying, “Right, the cost of it being a major, major area is not going to be small, but yet we’re going to divvy that up 50/50”, where Christchurch, obviously, will have a lot more resources, and the smaller one, that would be Hurunui and Kaikōura, if they did amalgamate, would obviously have a lot more pressure put on them because of that. I’m just wondering with the Minister if that’s the right way to go about that with equal share and if it should not be proportionate to, actually, the size of the local authorities and actually be population-based. I did not get an amendment done, I think, because I was just reading through it and though, “Oh, this could be a slight issue for some of those smaller councils.” So it would be great if the Minister could consider that—if there’s a potential inequity there for some of the smaller councils.

Now, I just wanted to move forward to clause 39. I do have an amendment on this one. I’ve got so much paper; I just need to find it. It’s stamp dated 27 August 8.00.01. Clause 39 is obviously the appointment of the Emergency Management Co-ordinating Executive Group. Clearly, it lists through there the people that need to be on this group. It is a large group of people—very important people—to be on there. Through that process, obviously, there’s a few strikeouts. One of the strikeouts that was in there was the chief executive of a senior member—so this is clause 39(2)(e), where it strikes out “and disability services”, which I kind of get where that is. But when we look through that, I think it’s missing a significant person on this group, which is someone who is actually connected to the disability communities in the area. We do know that people with disabilities are very vulnerable at these times, and I think by not having someone on there, we actually miss an important voice. So my amendment is actually a very simple amendment, and it will become 39(2)(h), “one or more persons with knowledge, experience, and expertise regarding the interests and needs of the disability communities in the area”. I just feel by having that one extra person on there, we would actually be in a much better position.

It’s actually a little bit striking in the bill, the lack of times “disability” is actually mentioned in this bill. I’m not too sure why that is, because we accept that people with disabilities obviously are a lot more vulnerable when there is a disaster. We need to ensure that their needs are really well catered for, because they do have different needs from people that do not have disabilities. I think if we do not have someone with that lived experience or that knowledge of those communities, then potentially we have created a significant gap that will end up hurting some of our most vulnerable people in society. So I do urge the Minister to consider this recommendation, and I’d love to get his advice on that.

Just quickly before I—actually, I’ll let the Minister respond to that.

Committee of the whole House

It’s actually going to be really, really short, because I just want to make sure that the point I was trying to make hasn’t been missed. Also, I would like to acknowledge and thank the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery, because he’s been really responsive and engaging with this committee of the whole House stage. I just wanted to check, because I did ask a question on clause 26(b)—around what would happen if commissioners were in place—which hasn’t been answered.

The other thing I just want to quickly touch on—because I absolutely agree with the Minister when he spoke about, actually, the response during emergencies, to people with disabilities—it’s outstanding. But what I was trying to work out was actually around, I guess—and it talks about it in clause 40—the role of an emergency management committee. Was it clause 43? Sorry, I’ve lost all my things—but, around the role of the committee, where I spoke to my oversight group, which I spoke to in my amendment earlier around having someone with a disability on it.

Now, part of the role of that group—if I can find the right page—is to, obviously, oversee and implement the development, maintenance, monitoring, and evaluation of the regional emergency management plan. I guess this is why I think it’s really important that we do have someone that has a really expert knowledge with disability communities to be on that group, because it’s that group that’s obviously going to be overseeing the monitoring and the evaluation of the emergency management plan. That is why I thought, actually, there’s potentially a gap there.

I do totally agree that, when there is an emergency, people with disabilities are looked after well and are front and centre, but I just wanted to really make sure that we did not have a gap in this legislation in the make-up of those committees without someone with that expert knowledge of the disability community. I do acknowledge what you said and I totally agree with what you said. I just wanted to make sure we weren’t talking across paths and that there was actually still a gap in that committee. Unfortunately, my papers are a little bit spread out, so I can’t quite find that amendment again.

Committee of the whole House

I guess, when I look at the clause—and I’ve just found the paper—it lists the people that can go on it, which is clause 39(2)(a) to (h). That bit where they can co-opt someone has been struck out, so the list is actually limited to who’s on that list.

Committee of the whole House

Point of order. I seek leave to correct the vote on Part 2 to cast Te Pāti Māori’s vote as opposed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The member may cast the Māori Party vote.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: So Te Pāti Māori’s vote as well as Mariameno Kapa-Kingi would be one vote opposed each.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. The record will reflect that.

Members, it’s time for me to leave the Chair for the lunch break. The Chair will resume at 2 p.m., when we will begin Part 3.

Sitting suspended from 12.58 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Committee of the whole House

Part 3 Emergency Management System Planning

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Afternoon, members. The committee is resumed on the Emergency Management Bill (No 2). When we suspended for the lunch break, we had completed voting on Part 2 We come now to Part 3, which is the debate on clauses 77 to 106, “Emergency management system planning”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.