Emergency Management Bill (No 2)

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just start with quite a short call because I think it’s an important one. I do want to acknowledge the work that has been done on this bill. It has obviously been across parties, and the Green Party does support the bill, but it’s also really important that we try and get some improvements through this process as well.

I just want to start at clause 3. This is around the purpose of the bill. Fundamentally, we know that, when we look at emergency management, what we’re trying to do is protect life. I’m slightly concerned, actually, that when we look at the purpose—and it lists all the purposes there—the one thing that is missing is “protecting life”. I have an amendment that’s time-stamped 27 August, 9.45.30, which is basically changing clause 3(b) to saying “protecting life and property:” instead of saying “protecting property:”.

I’m sure there’s no hierarchy in these purposes, but I think it’s a little bit concerning that we start with “protecting property” at the very top. I actually think that, if we want to send a message to the people, the very first protection that we should be giving is to the life of people, not property. This is just a very minor change, but actually I think it sends a clear signal that, actually, the life of people is the priority and the life of people comes first.

I would really appreciate the Minister for Emergency Management considering that amendment and giving the committee a response, because I think it’s actually a really good way to, I guess, set the scene for this committee of the whole House stage.

Committee of the whole House

Thanks for speaking. I’ll try and address the questions as they come. I acknowledge the Green member Mike Davidson too. You guys have done some heavy lifting on this and had a lot of input into it, and I want to acknowledge you for that.

It’s a really good question, because, yes, you’re absolutely right. Really, the intent of the bill is about keeping Kiwis safe, but the reality of it is that the safety of the public is already addressed in the chapeau of the purpose clause, so it has actually already been captured in the bill.

Committee of the whole House

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Thank you, Minister. I want to, first of all, acknowledge the fact that Labour does support this bill. It’s not our intention to drag this process out; however, we will go through it thoroughly. I want to acknowledge your bipartisan approach to emergency management the whole time you’ve been the Minister. I also want to acknowledge your officials and, of course, all of us around the House, as well as acknowledging all the whānau out there who do great work, whether paid or unpaid.

I’m going to follow up on Part 1, Minister, looking at the purpose in clause 3 and simply ask: why does the purpose of this bill not explicitly recognise Te Tiriti o Waitangi? It was originally clause 4 of Part 1. Why has the Government removed the previous bill’s objective of greater recognition and participation of Māori in emergency management? After Cyclone Gabrielle, does the Minister accept that iwi, hapū, and marae were emergency management partners, not simply stakeholders to consult? That goes for all other iwi and hapū affected by recent weather events.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before I take the next call, I’m just noting that people are bringing the Chair into the debate by using “you” and “your”. I know you guys are all committed to this bill, but if you can direct comments through the Chair, that would be useful.

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Minister. Thank you for your time this morning. I’ve been involved in a number of emergency responses over the years—this is in relation to clause 3, by the way—and one of the things that you learn very quickly is that no single agency ever deals with a major emergency on its own. Whether it’s an earthquake or flood or some other event, it takes all levels of statecraft to, essentially, kind of meet the need, so I understand why this purpose clause talks about coordination and planning across different sectors. As you know, good emergency management isn’t just about what happens on the day; it’s that work that’s done beforehand to identify those risks, prepare communities, and make sure people know what their roles are when things go wrong.

What I would like to understand, though, is where the Government sees that balance between those wider objectives and the core business of emergency management. When those resources are finite, communities need confidence that agencies remain focused on being ready for the next emergency and responding effectively when it arrives. Just with this clause, Minister, it encompasses all that kind of social, economic, cultural, and environmental wellbeing alongside those wider objectives. I just want to know: how will this Government ensure those broader goals do not distract agencies from their primary responsibility of preparing for, responding to, and recovering from emergencies when New Zealanders need them the most? Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I just respond to Francisco Hernandez’s question and, again, initially, as I get around the room, can I acknowledge, Francisco, the work that you’ve done on this emergency management bill and the way in which you’ve conducted yourself and had a positive impact and effect on it.

The reality of it is that you bring up a good point around drought, and I sort of thought, “Well, practically, could we get that in?” We’d have to go back to the Parliamentary Counsel Office. The reality of it is that it is a list of happenings; it illustrates the “all hazards” scope of the bill. If we started to try to capture every single hazard, that would just not be feasible, so that is why it’s not in there.

Coming back to Dan’s question, I think that—just really quickly, when I came into the role of Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery, the only working knowledge I had was, really, operational, because I was part of a swiftwater rescue team in my own electorate up in Whangaparāoa. Of course, I was a local MP in Opposition when we got hit with the Auckland floods, and I saw on the ground very quickly that there was no cavalry coming over the hill. The one thing that I have tried to do as Minister is I’ve tried to effect operational change in the way that we approach weather events and our risks and hazards by being far more proactive, pre-positioning, making decisions early, and getting lots of communication out to the public.

That has been a shift for us, because, when I became the Minister, there was a thing they said sort of existed, and that was “the boy that cried wolf”. What it did is it kind of paralysed decision-making a bit for fear that you were going to have some noisy voices out in the community that said, “You’re the boy that cried wolf. Why are you doing this? We don’t need to do it.” I said that we don’t have the luxury of doing that any more. We’ve actually got to make decisions early, we’ve got to get people pre-positioned, and we’ve got to get as much information out to the community. The community can make their own value judgment on how important they take it or how seriously they take things.

I’ve always been really clear that someone doesn’t take it seriously and is cavalier and doesn’t care—don’t expect our first responders to put themselves in harm’s way when you put yourself in a bad situation, although they will do that because they’re first responders and that’s how they’re programmed and that’s what they do. They’re in their job because they want to protect lives and save lives. But there’s nothing that will get me angry quicker than someone that’s ignored warnings and put themselves in a bad situation and therefore puts our first responders or other members of the public at risk.

I think the business as usual (BAU) now—that is BAU. That is how we’re operating. I want to acknowledge our mayors. I want to acknowledge our civil defence and emergency management groups and our controllers. We have world-class first responders. We have iwi and hapū. We have community groups. We have rural trusts. Everyone comes together, and I actually feel that for the amount of events we have to deal with—and someone gave me a statistic the other day that we’re dealing with a weather event around the country about every six days—we are actually doing really well and I’m really proud of the work that’s being done, and, of course, this bill is going to enhance that.

One of the issues that really emerged was the fact that community groups and iwi and hapū and rural trusts and everyone that’s doing amazing work on the ground and isn’t inside that formalised information system didn’t know how to get information and didn’t know where to go to get it and actually deliver it. Those are the sorts of changes that we’re making to make sure that we’re far more joined up and that our communities, when they need that help and want to see the cavalry coming over the hill, know the cavalry is going to be there for them.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity. I do want to acknowledge the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery and the work that has taken place. As a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, we had priorities, particularly viewing the stewardship of the emergency management system. I want to acknowledge the officials and also the submissions. We had 74 in total. We had a huge amount of Māori, iwi, and hapū who wanted to have their contribution recognised formally. So I want to acknowledge all in that work and also members of the select committee.

Periodically we had questions and officials provided replies. It was important in the select committee work to recognise the work that had been led by the Minister but also the officials. It was important to put across the contributions of our community, who wanted everything strengthened. It was important to have very clear systems in place and clear language in the legislation.

Minister, in reference to the purpose clause, can you just explain in terms of the work that the select committee did. We heard from the submitters who were specifically wanting to have very clear provisions, and the recognition of iwi and hapū was really important. One of the things that iwi and hapū advised us through the submission process was that they just do it—they just get out there in their communities. When something happens, emergency management don’t wait for the formality of the national controller, the formal communications. They just get out to their communities that are affected and they just set up. They feed people and they have people come through the doors.

Can the Minister explain to the committee and for those listening at home that we have got it right in terms of the language in terms of improving the management systems.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you for the question. Again, I want to acknowledge the member. Not only has she been a very strong voice in highlighting the pop-up community efforts that go on during these events but she has actually turned up to workshops that have been set up in Auckland. So I want to acknowledge the member and her leadership in that space, and it has been captured inside the bill so I hope she feels that she can take some credit for that.

In terms of iwi and other groups that represent Māori, they do have unique knowledge, skills, and resources to contribute to emergency management, and the bill formally recognises this by requiring emergency management committees to appoint one or more coordinating executive group members with knowledge of the interests and values of local Māori communities. And that is not just local Māori communities. That’s other communities also that can be represented on that committee, and the bill also requires representatives of iwi and Māori to be involved in the development of regional and national emergency management plans.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to talk about the birds and the bees just for a minute. In reference to clause 6(1)(b), I do have an amendment, timestamped 28 August, 10.00.00. In paragraph (b) it talks about an emergency happening that may cause loss of human life etc., and a threat to the public or property, and we know that property obviously includes livestock. One of the things that I feel is missing in there is around wildlife. We know in terms of bird flu, the potential that that could have. As time moves on, we could have something that’s even more devastating and the need to respond in a much more coordinated way, and this bill could actually enable that. But as it currently stands, wildlife is excluded as one of the things that need to be responded to.

I have an amendment that includes wildlife—the mass and rapid loss of wildlife. So we’re not talking about something that’s not big or something that’s slow. It’s about a threat to our wildlife population that is going to be significant, and we should be acting, as that is a serious emergency.

I have an additional amendment around the threat of mass and rapid loss of ecosystems. I would like the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery’s consideration of that because I think it’s really important that we acknowledge, as this bill does, protecting public property, and the fact that that also does include livestock but what we are missing in this space is our wildlife. New Zealand has unique fauna, especially with our avian population, and it would be an absolute tragic loss if we weren’t prepared for an imminent threat to that.

Committee of the whole House

This amendment has been tabled quite late, and I acknowledge that so I’m just having a look at it now. I’m completely open—if something comes forward that I think we can fold in there or there’s a gap, then let’s do it. I’ll get some advice on this. The only thing I would say is, yes, we’ve made significant changes in the bill because we wanted to recognise the importance of domestic pets and stock. If I use the Port Hills as an example, there was lots of flexibility on those roadblocks in terms of escorting people in so they could retrieve pets and check livestock and things like that. Farmers around these events are deeply sensitive—not only do they care about their livestock, their animals but it is also their livelihood. Every time I’ve seen an event, I’ve seen the outstanding officials from the Ministry of Primary Industries and the rural trusts and everyone else working to try and address these issues. That’s why it’s in the bill.

In relation to wildlife, that presents a whole different sort of situation. I’d say that it is captured within the bill but let me get some advice on it and I’ll come back to the member.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you so much to the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery for being so open to considering the amendment presented by my colleague.

My question is about clause 6(2), which lists happenings. Where does the Minister consider cyber-security fits within that bracket of happenings? There is a category of technological failure here, and there is a category of actual imminent attack or war-like attack here. Are there any gaps whereby the failure of the general infrastructure, the failure of cyber-space, has the potential to not be captured in any of those categories?

I just wanted to articulate why we feel there is a legislative gap with regard to wildlife. Clause 6(1)(b)(i) and (ii) talks about the loss of human life, injury or distress to people, or threat in any way to the safety of the public or property.

You could argue that wildlife is captured in clause 6(1)(b)(ii), but we feel like it’s actually currently a gap because there are situations where a threat to wildlife or a threat to an ecosystem doesn’t actually in any way pose a threat to the safety of the public or property, because in some of those areas, no one actually owns the wildlife, or no one owns the ecosystems. Definitionally, they’re out in the wild. We do feel like that is a gap that my colleague Mike Davidson’s amendments do potentially address.

I’ve asked the question about cyber-security, and I’ve elaborated on why we do see this as a gap, and I’m looking forward to the continuation of this debate.

Committee of the whole House

Just very quickly on cyber-security, it’s a great one to raise, because, obviously, cyber-security and artificial intelligence are real issues that we are grappling with not only as a country but globally. That is captured in the bill under “infrastructure”; infrastructure includes cybersecurity.

Just coming back to Mike Davidson’s questions, the definition of “emergency” is fundamental to the scope of the bill, including harm to wildlife. We’ve significantly expanded the bill’s scope. Protection of wildlife is most appropriately addressed through the Wildlife Act. Regional emergency management plans include planning for animals.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair, and it’s a pleasure to be able to have my first call on this. I know we’re only early in the day, but this is a very important bill, and I appreciate the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery referring to the number of states of emergency that have already been announced. We will see more of these as the climate crisis deepens.

I’m reminded of some of my friends in France, who I’ve been in touch with recently, who have been dealing with the fires that have burnt so much of France. I was talking to the Spanish Ambassador recently, who was reflecting that their Government has ensured that the energy system now must respect the limits that we have for—because the climate crisis is happening; people are experiencing it thick and fast. I was reflecting on living in France in 2003 when there was that great heat dome across France; there were 60,000 people who suffered, and there was no place in the morgues during 2003. They were in refrigerated trucks.

That’s really just to highlight where we are placed. We’re placed in a situation where climate impacts are hitting thick and fast globally, and will increasingly continue to hit. We will be hit with more extreme weather events, more extreme temperatures, more extreme flooding, and these create emergencies that we can’t always predict. I’ve got an amendment that is after clause 6. It was submitted on 27 August at 9.45.36: after clause 6(1)(b)(ii) insert “(iii) extreme temperature events.” The reason for this insertion is simply to recognise that we want to be future focused. We can’t simply think about where we are now; we need to think about what is coming at us. We may be lucky enough, being a maritime nation, to not have those great continental heat domes, but the extreme temperature events affect people, biological systems, and they can destroy crops, animals, and constitute an emergency situation that we will have to deal with and that we will have to manage.

My suggestion to the Minister is that we really do need to think about futureproofing this legislation. We know that this is not something that is coming down the line; it is here with us now, and we need to be making sure that the legislation is fit for purpose. Essentially, that addition is recognising that there is the broader potential for disruption that will impact our ability to function, impact our biological systems, and will put us at risk of other situations. I put it to the Minister that this is simply a common-sense and, I hope, rational addition to that list that makes sense if we’re thinking about what the future holds. It’s future focused. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Firstly, to the member Scott Willis, can I just emphasise that the definition of “happening” is non-exhaustive, so an extreme heat event or a cyber event can be captured within the bill.

You’ve raised the issue of climate. By the way, I just want to take a moment to think of the people of Nepal who are dealing with the flood event at the moment, and, of course, the human tragedy that’s unfolding. We’ve had reports that we’ve got Kiwis over there that have been involved in that, so I just want to take a moment to reflect and mention that.

As with the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act, the bill is hazard agnostic. Hazards can be human made or natural, including those exacerbated by climate change. The bill does not predetermine the best way to manage specific hazards. Instead, it provides a framework for identifying, assessing, and managing hazards and risks. For relevant hazards, climate change will inform all steps in this process.

Climate change planning is also addressed through other legislation such as the Local Government Act 2002, which requires managing infrastructure risks related to natural hazards in long-term plans. The Resource Management Act 1991 incorporates the requirement for avoidance and mitigation of natural hazards in land management. Finally, the Climate Change Response Act 2002 provides the framework for New Zealand adapting to climate change and meeting international obligations. The bill identifies these Acts as legislation relevant to emergency management also. I just wanted to cover that off because, obviously, that’s a relevant question that was always going to come up today. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 3 replacing paragraph (a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 3 replacing paragraph (a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 3 replacing paragraph (b) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Cushla Tangaere-Manuel’s tabled amendments to clause 3 amending paragraph (g) and inserting new paragraph (h) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 3 inserting new paragraph (h) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 3 inserting new paragraph (h) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s amendment inserting new clause 3A set out on Amendment Paper 757 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Chlöe Swarbrick’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new paragraph (c) in the definition of “disproportionately affected community” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendments to clause 6(1) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to clause 6(2) inserting new paragraph (ba) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 6(2) inserting new paragraph (ja) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 6(2) inserting new paragraph (ka) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 6(2) inserting new paragraph (l) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; 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 1 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Emergency management system role-holders

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 14 to 76, “Emergency management system role-holders”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Committee of the whole House