Emergency Management Bill (No 2)

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?

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)?

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.

Thank you. Just another—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No? Yes?

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.

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.