Parliamentary debates: Friday, 28 August 2026

09:00

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m interested in the way that the joint management agreements and iwi participation agreements work together. There are a number of questions that I have about them in this part, but I’ll start with clause 236, on page 181. I hope the member in the chair will be able to flip back and forth on this, but this is sort of the centre of it, so I’ll start here.

The first question is, really: under clause 236, the formulation of joint management agreements is similar to the one in the Resource Management Act, but obviously the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements are very, very different—can an iwi enter into a joint management agreement with a local authority?

09:01

Joint management agreements are provided for in Treaty settlements, and where they are provided for in settlements, this is the process set out in clause 236.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That’s right, and we canvassed a little bit of that in the committee last night, and the reason why I raise it again is because “joint management agreements” are the words that are used in some Treaty settlements, but, obviously, the ordinary words “joint management agreement”—I can enter into that with the member in the chair, Simon Court. There are no protected words for what a “joint management agreement” means. For the sake of this Act, it’s set out what a joint management agreement can do in the Act, but there’s no restriction on what you can call a “joint management agreement”. I want the member in the chair to clarify: is there a protection for use of public power in that kind of joint management agreement? It also goes to the question of whether you can enter into a joint management with, say, a group of developers, which, on the natural reading of this, you can; it’s just that no authorities have.

I guess, when you get down into the points around how you can use a joint management agreement and how it’s different from the iwi participation agreements, that becomes really relevant for a lot of the groups of iwi that already have established arrangements with councils to enter into what they already have, essentially, with councils and not to go through the iwi participation agreement process. A joint management agreement could allow a vehicle for new groups of iwi to be able to do that. It doesn’t seem to be connected in the legislation to someone who has been granted by the Crown a legitimate public interest in having a joint management agreement with a local authority. It just seems to be, on this formulation, anyone who can enter into that.

My other question about the iwi participation agreements, just to start this off, is the way that clause 237 applies. This also seems to support the reading that a local authority could exercise some of its functions before entering into a joint management agreement with iwi on its own. The way that clause 237 is formulated seems to suggest that we’ve got this use of public power, so it’s appropriate that a local authority would be able to exercise that on its own and therefore make sure that it’s a sort of special formulation of how you use the joint management agreement in a planning context. It would be good to start there.

09:03

I’ll attempt to answer fulsomely. I’ve been advised that there is no interaction whatsoever between joint management agreements provided for as part of specific Treaty settlements and iwi participation agreements, which are set out in clause 237A.

If I intimate what the member Arena Williams is getting at around joint management agreements and other public agencies, that is provided for not as a joint management agreement but, in clause 232, as “Transfer of powers”. It’s been described to me during the policy development process that if, for example, a regional council had a small area of reserve near the Department of Conservation estate, potentially the responsibility for managing that could be transferred, say, to the Department of Conservation.

09:04

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one more question on how these powers work together. That was what I was asking: would it be illegal or unlawful for the council to enter into a joint management agreement with an iwi that had a schedule that said they were to enter into a joint management agreement in their Treaty settlement? I think the answer was no, but you would have to comply with clause 232, which is the “Transfer of powers” provision.

If you could transfer the powers to a body that could deal with public powers, you would be able to do that. This is for local authorities to transfer a power fully, and I assume that’s also delegations—delegations is at clause 233. But, if you’ve got the local authority still overseeing the exercise of that power and signing it off, you don’t have a transfer, you don’t have a delegation; you have something in the middle, which is what I’m asking about with joint participation agreements.

09:06

Joint management agreements are provided in specific Treaty settlements. Clause 236 sets out the local authority’s role if they are required by provisions in a Treaty settlement to enter into a joint management agreement. There’s no anticipation that joint management agreements are available to others—only as it relates to specific provisions in specific Treaty settlements.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the member Simon Court: I also have a question about delegations but in relation to a different clause, clause 232, “Transfer of powers”. This is where a regional council can transfer its powers to, essentially, any other public authority, in accordance with that clause. Clauses 232, 233, and 234 all refer to that delegation of power to others, essentially, the effect of that, and that being the same as if the regional council were effecting those powers itself. There’s no statement about a residual duty that exists with the regional council itself.

I’m just wondering whether there was consideration of that overarching governance statement that, ultimately, the duty still lies with the regional council. There is the power to revoke or alter the delegation, but, really, my view is that it would be useful to state that explicitly. In clause 232(3), it talks about the revocation of duty, and subclause (4) talks about the delegated authority or delegated individual being able to relinquish the transfer, but there’s no statement about the regional council automatically assuming that function again. It’s just, really, a question of being crystal clear about who holds the duty, the residual powers, and what happens when that duty is relinquished.

09:08

The member Vanushi Walters is absolutely correct. “Transfer of powers”, clause 232, does allow regional council to “transfer any of its functions, powers, or duties under this Act to another public authority in accordance with this section.” I think, if they’re not specifically transferred, if it’s not explicit what has been transferred, it should be safely assumed that the regional council retains responsibility for all the matters, apart from what is specifically transferred or delegated in the clauses that she’s described.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m really pleased to pick up on the iwi participation agreements as well, noting that this is an entirely new clause and was a significant change even from where the select committee had got to. When the report back from committee came, Mana Whakahono ā Rohe were still going to be upheld; they were going to be transitioned into the new system. Then it was announced within hours that they would be scrapped and these iwi participation agreements would be in place. I’m really interested to hear from the member Simon Court how many Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements were in place and how many were initiated. Then, also, the rationale behind this is that they can transfer into this new system. But I’m particularly interested in the Crown’s obligations when it comes to not only Te Tiriti but particularly under Treaty settlements, how, I guess, reliable and what does the member see the value of these being? Because I’m noting, particularly in clause 237D, when it comes to the termination or renegotiation of iwi participation agreements, iwi can give written notice at any time, wanting to withdraw, but the same goes for local authorities seeking to renegotiate their own involvement in an iwi participation agreement at any time. Now, what is the difference between the relative stability or a framework around Mana Whakahono ā Rohe compared to this new section?

I think why I’m particularly keen in understanding that is because there was so much emphasis and there’s been so much said by iwi Māori or hapū who’ve been part of these Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements about how they finally have—or had, rather—not only transparency for the public about how they were working in the roles and responsibilities and how they were working with councils but they also felt a sense of stability and clarity about what those roles were and that they would continue in perpetuity. So I’m really interested to hear from the member about those things particularly.

09:11

Thank you. The member Lan Pham had a number of questions. In answer to the member’s question about how many Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangements had been established, that number was eight. In response to the member’s question of how many were initiated, it’s been publicly reported that Horizons Regional Council have stated that 11 were initiated in the period after the Natural Environment Bill and Planning Bill were introduced, which did not provide for new agreements in the new system, but we estimate that there are dozens more.

The member had a question around stability: how stable is an iwi participation agreement compared to Mana Whakahono ā Rohe? Well, under the Resource Management Act, which is the legislation that we will be repealing when this legislation passes, Mana Whakahono ā Rohe could be initiated at any time by any iwi. They are related to the scope of the Resource Management Act, and sometimes they went well beyond that, as in case of the Northland District Council’s Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangement with Ngāpuhi, which provided for Northland District Council agreeing with Ngāpuhi that they never ceded sovereignty to the Crown. So one of the issues with the Ngāpuhi agreements is that while they were provided for in the Resource Management Act, they were not tightly scoped and they certainly have been very difficult—the existing ones, or any initiated ones—to port into the new system, given expectations. As the member rightly point out, the expectations around Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangements enduring—because in the old system if an iwi asked for them, council could not say no. So we have been very specific about what we intend for iwi participation agreements in the new system: that they are voluntary agreements, to be entered into by iwi that seek such an agreement; councils have the ability to negotiate the terms and conditions, but they must be very tightly scoped to the scope of the legislation.

09:14

I just wanted to respond to the Minister’s answer to my earlier question on the transfer of powers in clauses 232, 233, and 234. He made the point that if a power is delegated, that power is delegated but the regional council retains all other powers. My question was more about whether there exists a residual duty—whether even if a council is delegating a particular power, given it’s the primary duty-holder under the statue, it holds a residual duty. That’s question one; the second question was whether, if it does so, that should be articulated in the legislation. My view is they do hold that residual duty and that should whoever they’ve delegated that power to not comply with the statute, they actually have the primary obligation then to revoke that delegation. So I just want to make that clear.

The second thing was on clause 235. This is about the scope of delegation to employees and the hearings commissioner. The scope of delegations are extremely broad: it is “any function, power, or duty”. My question is whether there was consideration of whether there should be a line drawn between powers that can be delegated—some sort of line drawing—and where it’s contested whether something will have a minor to a mid-level impact on the environment—for example, where there might be substantial opposition to a particular plan or plan change—whether that should more appropriately be held with the primary decision-maker under legislation.

09:16

Madam chair, if I could just respond very briefly. Thank you for the member’s question. Look, the transfer document will set out the individual arrangements, including the specificity about what each party is ultimately responsible for. So I cast forward to what might be in such an agreement, but we can safely assume that legal obligations will be set out very, very precisely.

In response to the member’s question around delegation to employees and others, and her question around whether decision making around matters that could lead to environmental effects—it’s quite clear under clause 235(3)(b) that a regional council may not delegate a decision on an application for a natural resource permit. That’s because those matters are reserved for council.

09:17

Just a follow-up on that question. To the member in the chair, Simon Court, you can cast forward because the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill, which the Government is progressing right now, would change Schedule 7 of that Act at clause 31 to make an amendment, which would mean that delegations to employees were very different from the general resource management system, and mean that employees can’t, say, serve on committees, which effectively is the problem here. Why don’t the current rules from the Natural Environment Bill set this out, when things like Auckland Council—big place—has to make 300 decisions every week, I am told, in the transport and access space. Some of these are environmental decisions, like discharge from roads into drain water of stormwater, and things like oil contaminants. They have to make so many decisions that, essentially, that committee meets every Friday—I know this from the Regulations Review Committee considering it this year. That has to be a committee of employees because I do not want for my council colleagues to have to sit through that every Friday—Mr Court, are you going to make them?

Why doesn’t this bill take the opportunity to update the delegations functions in a sensible way, to reflect that kind of decision making which is appropriately done by elected members and sometimes will be appropriately delegated to employees, in a more specified way? Because the problem is that relying on the old resource management provisions doesn’t allow for mega-councils like Auckland, and it also doesn’t serve the very small councils, which I understand the Government is trying to encourage to be more efficient. It is inefficient to have a committee of fully elected members making the sorts of environmental decisions which affect a particular street or a particular home.

The delegation functions are important, and then they’re also important to the joint management agreements, because the joint management agreements can delegate to a joint management committee. Under the old system, the other local government powers that went along with those meant that you wouldn’t have been able to enter into a joint management agreement with a group of developers, but under the new formulation, that is possible. Is it possible to enter into a joint management agreement with a group of developers and delegate functions to it?

09:19

No. In answer to the second part of the member Arena Williams’ question, joint management agreements are provided for in specific Treaty settlements. I’ve already answered that; happy to clarify. In response to the member’s question around delegation to employees and others, the member’s question—actually, a very valid question—we certainly don’t want elected members’ time taken up responding to traffic matters or trying to work out which potholes should be filled in what order. Absolutely not. That is why, in the context of the Natural Environment Bill, under clause 235, “Delegation to Employees and others”, “(1) A regional council may delegate to an employee or a hearings commissioner … any function, power, or duty under this Act except—(a) the power to approve a regional spatial plan, natural environment plan, or plan change … or (b) this power of delegation.” But it remains available to them to delegate other matters—say, to a processing planner as a council employee to carry out certain functions and duties under this legislation.

We do not want elected members having to be involved in making individual consent conditions. That might have been—

I sort of want to do that.

I think it might have been envisaged, and certainly possible, under the Resource Management Act (RMA), when it was passed in 1991. But given that New Zealand’s volume of consents has swelled from about 5,000 a year, when I first started grappling with the RMA as a young engineer in 1996, to over 40,000 consents demanded of Kiwis at the latest peak of the building boom a couple of years ago, I can’t imagine councillors around the country being able to process and get their heads around and get 40,000 consents out the door. In saying that, if we can get back to the number of consents in the 1990s of 5,000 or less, maybe elected members would be able to turn their minds to that. But that’s not envisaged here.

09:21

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take my first call—actually, my first call on the Natural Environment Bill.

Oh!

I’ve joined the party.

Where have you been?

I’ve been watching—I’ve been watching.

I have a question on clause 237A, on the iwi participation agreements and subclause (3) around the hapū. We know, obviously, that hapū vary in size across the motu. I look down to Canterbury and the mighty Ngāi Tūāhuriri, who have a hapū where their takiwā stretches, from the Hurunui down to the Ashburton River and inland to the Southern Alps.

When we look at the reorganisation that is going on, there is the potential that, actually, a unitary authority may completely sit within its takiwā by itself. So I do question why they have to sit alongside any agreement of an iwi authority and cannot, in their own right, have a participation agreement with a council.

I raise that question because we know, actually, that it’s the hapū that make iwi exist, and therefore we should actually be trying to create that mana to mana relationship from hapū to councils when, actually, there is only one hapū that sits with a council. It does concern me, that, actually, we have a clause in there that says, yep, hapū can be involved, but they have to join as party to an iwi participation agreement, so they are therefore excluded from having a direct relationship with the local authorities. I’m wondering whether you’d consider changing that to enable hapū to have the ability to have relationships that don’t sit alongside iwi authorities but that are, actually, directly with the local authorities instead.

09:23

The member raises a good point, and that is why the legislation provides, at clause 237A(3), that “Hapū may join as parties to an iwi participation agreement alongside the relevant … authorities.”

09:24

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just two brief questions following up from the member Simon Court’s responses to my last questions on iwi participation agreements. The first was just a clarification: he mentioned that the Horizons council had said there were 11 Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements that had been initiated. Is that purely for the Manawatū region?

And then, secondly, he mentioned about the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreement with, I assume, the Far North District Council, and he talked about the scope of the agreements and how Ngāpuhi have, for example, put in that that they hadn’t ceded sovereignty. Is it the member’s understanding and does he contemplate that with these iwi participation agreements, it would be entirely appropriate—and, actually, some would think, necessary—for the iwi and hapū that are involved to actually outline very key statements like that that are absolutely based on historical fact, in order to frame the iwi participation agreement? Like, if he’s saying that that kind of thing is out of scope, then what is the basis of these participation agreements?

09:25

In response to the member Lam Pham’s question around Horizons Manawatū, it has been reported—and I have read it with my very own eyes, but I can’t verify the reports, because it’s in the mainstream media—that 11-month Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangements were initiated, so I would invite the member to have a look at her media feed—there will be reports of that; I’ve seen them.

In terms of the content of iwi participation agreements under clause 237C, it is set out what should be included, but with respect to the Far North District Council entering into an agreement with a group that claims that they never ceded sovereignty to the Crown, I just need to remind all New Zealanders that the Crown is sovereign in New Zealand, and we have laws, and every New Zealander is subject to the same laws, and should expect equal treatment before the law. But if we entertain the notion that some groups haven’t ceded sovereignty and are not subject to the laws of the land, then we will descend into anarchy.

This Government will not allow New Zealand to break up into anarchic little sub-regions where people claim the Government doesn’t have sovereignty. How on earth the Far North District Council thought it was appropriate to pull into an agreement relating to the Resource Management Act—I can’t see into their minds, and it’s probably because there’s not much in there; it’s a dark space.

09:27

Thank you, Madam Chair. In response, just a quick question as follow-up. Given that the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreement has been entered into and the Far North hasn’t entered into anarchy, what evidential basis is the member actually basing those comments on?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to go back to my questioning line from before, because I do not feel the member in the chair, Simon Court, actually answered my question.

The member addressed your question, so if you’re going to ask the question, I’d advise against it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question on liability and, specifically, shared duties and how that translates into shared liability or not—this is clause 236, the joint management agreements. Under subclause (2), it says “A decision made under a joint management agreement has legal effect as a decision of a regional council.” I’m just wondering about where liability sits if anything under those agreements is challenged in law. Is it treated as a breach of duty by the regional council according to subclause (2)? If the management agreement itself says that liability will be shared because the duties are shared, then does that alter where liability sits? If the management agreement is silent as to whether the duty stands, does that mean that subclause (2) takes effect or that there is an automatic split so anyone raising a complaint could raise it against both? Thank you.

09:29

The agreements can only be entered into in the context of law. I urge the member to refer, again, to clause 237C, “Content of iwi participation agreements”. If councils are not following the law, of course they are open to challenge.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to Amendment Paper 710 deleting clause 219(1)(f) set out on Amendment Paper 752 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 5 set out on Amendment Paper 710 be agreed to.

09:32

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a very important part of the bill because it goes to enforcement, and we know with any regulatory regime that it doesn’t work if there’s no enforcement. That’s what Part 6 is about. Yeah, I don’t believe there are any schedules related to Part 6, so it’s just Part 6.

Now, on the big Amendment Paper that we have—Amendment Paper 710—there is a lot of crossing out about the role of the EPA. The EPA is the Environmental Protection Authority. There’s lots and lots crossed out. My question is a very simple one: it is for the member in the chair, the Hon Simon Court, to explain what has happened. Is it that the crossed out parts are all put back in later on at clause 273A, and, in fact there’s no policy change, or is there a policy change? If so, can the member take us through what that is?

Whilst we’re waiting for the member, then, I’ll keep talking. I’ll keep talking if I can, if I’ve got any voice left. Let’s go through to declarations. Now, declarations have always been an important part of the resource management system because, of course, you can apply to the Environment Court for a declaration. I guess the question here is to be clear that it is only the Environment Court that can make a declaration rather than the newly formed planning tribunal. That is because the planning tribunal is there to work with more nuts and bolts issues, but a bigger issue such as a declaration needs to be from the court. We heard in another part of another related bill that there can be 10 Environment Court judges, so that is the place for the declaration.

I guess another question on declarations would be whether or not the member anticipates the need for more declarations with this new legislation and if he thinks that declarations would apply and, indeed, if they could be a useful tool. Thank you.

09:35

Just in response to the member Rachel Brooking’s questions around the deletions at the start of Part 6, from old clause 243 onwards, I’m advised that from clauses 243 to 252, those provisions have been deleted and moved to subsequent clauses from around about 237, so they are retained. It’s just making sure that we work through the process, getting the report back from the Environment Committee and identifying ways that we could make the bill more efficient if they have been moved.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask about the enforcement orders provisions. These are clauses 258 to 265. The first question is about the serial offenders provisions that are earlier in the bill. But we’ve got the old formulation of clause 258(6), which was sort of the old and only power to deal with serial offenders, which now seems a bit heavy-handed because you’ve got the other powers.

I want to ask whether that’s deliberate to keep that in there and whether it should go because, essentially, the question is why should an enforcement order relating to non-compliance in one sense then mean that the Environment Court can revoke a different permit? If you have a factory that’s discharging into the Manukau Harbour and has breached its discharge permit, why should the Environment Court also be able to take away its water take permit? Under the old system, that was kind of the only enforcement mechanism that that factory would have had if it was constantly breaching its discharge conditions, but that would, effectively, shut the factory down. Under the old system, the Environment Court didn’t have to have regard to all of the things that it now does around economic development, but it does now. That power seems to be something which needed to exist under the old system, but shouldn’t any more.

Clause 259, “Compliance with the enforcement order”: now, this is where you might update this for serial offenders, because the serial offenders provisions leave, say, abatement notices out of the scheme. If you’ve been a serial offender but you’ve had a number of abatement notices, those don’t count towards your kind of tally of being a bad guy who won’t get a new one. That doesn’t make sense any more if enforcement orders like this should also be in that zone. If you’ve had an enforcement order against you, you should need to comply with that. I just want to check with the member Simon Court whether enforcement orders go to your tally. Usually, we’re getting there from, say in the water discharge context, having done that several times, having the abatement notices, and then having the enforcement. It is at a higher level than just an abatement notice and we want to put it in there.

09:38

I appreciate the member Arena Williams’ deep and broad understanding of regulation, but at this late stage we will not be accepting any further amendments to the legislation from the Opposition.

In answer to the member Rachel Brooking’s question about can the planning tribunal make—oh, sorry, it could have been actually, forgive me, the member Arena Williams’ question about—

It was mine.

Oh, it was Rachel Brooking; thank you. Can the planning tribunal make a declaration or enforcement? No, only the Environment Court, but the planning tribunal can make a declaration on consent conditions. In response to the member Arena Williams’ question about revocation and whether, say, a permit that’s been revoked for some egregious breaches—she described a factory discharging into the Manukau Harbour. I certainly do remember as a young environmental engineer, when it was cool to be environmental, visiting premises that might have been described as having egregious discharges and monitoring those. I’m familiar with how bad that was. The legislation provides for revocation only for the most egregious offending. The member’s question was, well, if revoking the discharge permit is sufficient to stop the breach or the harm, why should the court have discretion to revoke other permits? Well, the court does have discretion to respond to facts.

09:39

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to pick up on a very substantive part of Part 6, and that is around natural resource levies. That is clauses 313 onwards, on pages 244. This was an area that, when it was first introduced, held a lot of promise, and it held a lot of promise because there is so much amazing work that is going on, particularly at the catchment scale, where groups of farmers and landowners are able to come together, often with the wider community, with iwi and hapū, and actually make progress in the areas where they live, particularly in terms of figuring out ways to improve the environment.

Now, what is really disappointing, then, are the changes that were made by the Government to limit these clauses. When we know that this whole system is moving towards a much more permissive framework—that there will be the reliance particularly on freshwater farm plans, an area which we were unable to examine even though there have been substantive changes—those are the areas where the actual changes are meant to happen. Now, unfortunately, the Government has come in and amended the natural resource levies to limit the ability for councils to use this framework to actually support and fund the administration of catchment groups.

Is there a question?

My question is: when this was the entire intent—catchment groups being able to take much more control of the situation given the hugely permissive nature of this new legislation—why did it make sense to the Government to then limit that when it comes to catchment groups?

I know from being on the select committee that there was appetite from select committee members, particularly those of the Government in the farming sector, to enable this, and yet it was limited. Why was it limited? What is actually envisaged when we have things like the rates cap on councils to actually fund and enable catchment groups to work together?

09:42

I appreciate the member Lan Pham understands well the role of catchment groups and the benefits that they bring to communities. I’ve been and visited farms where catchment groups have delivered some fantastic improvements to the natural environment. They are some of our best people: farmers and growers who get together voluntarily, using their own resources and time, to restore the natural environment, in a complementary way to primary production activities. It’s a wonderful example of how pioneering New Zealanders can organise themselves to achieve both economic and environmental objectives.

To the member’s question—“Why have the levy arrangements been changed?”—well, the changes respond to concerns that levies could be used to fund wider resource management costs than what was originally intended, and we don’t want to charge resource users to pay someone to tell them how to do their job.

To the question around why levies can’t fund catchment groups, well, catchment groups are not a defined term under the Natural Environment Bill, so enabling levies to fund catchment groups could allow a wide and potentially poorly controlled use of funds. Levies must be to fund specific functions or objectives set out in legislation and subsequent instruments. Catchment groups are not restricted to functions or objectives set out in legislation, and we have no wish to define what a catchment group is or can or can’t do; that would potentially impact on their grassroots nature and the good work they do. We are being very careful to make sure that this is a narrow levy to fund specific costs, rather than a tax.

09:44

Thank you. I have just two very little questions—one is just thinking about what the member Simon Court was saying about the levies, then, and what they can be used for, and that they are narrow and not a tax. I noticed that he emphasised that point. Where does he see the levy-setting fit with the comments he was making last night about environmental limits and the cost benefit and the costs and the community paying? We had an exchange last night, and I was more focused on ratepayers, because, of course, we all know that this Government loves putting more work on rates on councils, but if he can comment on where he sees levies fitting with it, that would be useful.

Then my second question, which is a very small question, but is, I think, quite delightful, is whether the member can confirm for me, in Subpart 3, “Regulations”—clause 307 is “Regulations”, and if you turn over to page 234, at paragraph (f) it says, “specifying the offences under this Act (including offences prescribed under paragraph (x)) …”. I thought, when I first looked at this, “Oh, my goodness, what has happened to PCO? Why are they just putting Xs everywhere? Is that something that they need to come back for?” But in fact—in fact—there is a paragraph (x). If he can just confirm that it is just a delight that we don’t normally often see Xs in legislation, but here we go—here we are.

09:46

I thank the member the Hon Rachel Brooking for her diligence as a parliamentarian for having detected what may well be a drafting error. I’m sure I will get advice from officials on that.

Before I get to the member’s question around the use of levies in relation to limits, I just want to advise the committee—if the committee hasn’t been advised prior and in good faith, with regard to Minister Bishop’s commitment to tell the committee when an amendment is tabled—an amendment was tabled at what appears to be 9.05.00 a.m. on—well, the date says “28 August 2026”, but in the Doctor Who / Hogwarts environment of Parliament, it still says “25 August” on the wall.

There is a proposed amendment to Amendment Paper 710: “The Hon Chris Bishop in committee to move the following amendments: clause 2, ‘delete 243, 252, and’”—that was an incorrect cross-reference—“and, in clause 30, ‘replace “all coastal permits” with “coastal permits or land use permits”’”. That was an omission and corrects an error, because land use permits are referred to elsewhere in the bill.

Who picked it up!

I can see the member Arena Williams taking credit for that. She is an incredibly diligent parliamentarian and is always focused on the details.

If I could just come back to the “x”, it turns out that that was not an error; it is a reference to a paragraph number.

That’s right—that is the delight. It is a delight.

And the member is delighted. Potentially, she’ll be delighted to help us move through the rest of the committee stage.

I will attempt to be brief in my response. Levies versus limits: there’s two different types of levies in the bill, one to fund the cost of a specified list of activities involved in managing a resource, and the other one is to fund activities to resolve over-allocation issues and provide efficient resource-use within management units. I think that addresses the member’s question. If environmental limits—ecological limits—are exceeded and there needs to be funding to resolve over-allocation issues, levies can be used for that purpose.

09:48

Thank you, Madam Chair. This will be a brief question about the enforcement functions of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) that begins at new clause 273A. It’s just a lift and shift situation that’s going on here in the Minister’s Amendment Paper. I just want to ask specifically about the thing that I care most about, which is the new power for the EPA to take enforcement action against regional councils itself. Has that remained from that deletion and the reinsertion here?

09:49

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is in relation to the scope of awards that can be made if a case is moved from the Environment Court to the District Court, which is permitted under clause 253(5). Clause 252(1) sets out what an Environment Court can do and the awards that they can make, and that includes the cost of investigating the offence and any associated costs, and that being payable to the EPA.

Now, if the case was transferred then to the District Court, there’s a question about the scope and the scale of awards that can be made. On first view, one would assume that there’s a broader mandate in terms of the ability to make those awards, but the language isn’t specific in relation to the District Court that that power is available. I’m just confirming with the member in the chair that indeed, if a case was shifted between those two courts, that explicit power in clause 252(1) with the Environment Court would also exist with the district court under clause 253(5).

Then in relation to the scope and effect of a declaration, which is in clause 254, my first question was just about the potential to have an injunction if there’s a sense that something is likely to contravene the current rules and potentially have quite detrimental impacts. So, presumably, that injunction can’t still exist. If an omission is found, is there a direction power as well or is this purely a declarative power—would be my other part of that?

09:51

In response to the member Vanushi Walters’ questions, I found it confusing to try to understand what clause and provisions the member is referring to. She referred to clause 251. This is struck out, and I would just have to confirm whether that’s been moved to another part of the legislation, so if you could bear with me for one moment. The provisions deleted from clause 251 are moved to clause 273G. All of these provisions the member referred to still exist. They have just been moved. In response to the member Arena Williams’ question on clause 273A, the answer is yes.

09:52

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to move to clause 323A, and this is the—

Can you repeat that, please?

Clause 323A. This is in Part 6 and it’s about contaminated land. This is a very important area around the contaminated land framework, and what struck me about it and what I’m interested to hear from the member is about its relation to the rest of the natural environment domain. What is really clear in this contaminated land area is that it spells out that the entirety of this provision is based on the principle that those who actually produce the pollution should bear the cost of managing it both to prevent damage to human health and the environment. There is a really clear obligation as we go through this part of the bill, and it touches on how also the polluters must be liable for cost recovery.

Why I’m really interested in this clause and its application to the rest of the domains within the bill is: why have we been so clear when it comes to contaminated land about the “polluter pays” principle but we are not applying that to the rest of the domains when it comes to particularly water but it could also be biodiversity destruction? Why is it that the Government has picked up specifically on contaminated land in this space?

I want to acknowledge that this has been a real area of incredible work that has gone on, particularly with councils picking up responsibility for polluters who have often either left the country or simply just left a mess for the public to clean up. I understand why we and the Government have a focus of clarity on the “polluter pays” principle here. Why does it not have the same application outside of the contaminated land framework?

09:54

I understand at an intimate level the problem that the member describes. Before I was a member of Parliament I worked as a civil environmental engineer cleaning up some of New Zealand’s most hazardous sites, some of which were orphan sites where the person who polluted could not be held liable. So it’s important that we do have a regime for that. The purpose of the contaminated land framework as set out in clause 323A and clause 323B is that it provides for obligations when land is contaminated and used for hazardous activity, and clause 323C provides that the polluter may be liable for cost recovery.

Last night in the debate on procedural principles I think it might have been the member the Hon Rachel Brooking who proposed that a “polluter pays” principle be added to the procedural principles. The reason that we haven’t elected to do that and the reason it sits specifically here under “contaminated land” is because there are many other matters covered in the Natural Environment Bill. The member mentioned one—indigenous biodiversity. Clearing vegetation is not pollution and so it would be unhelpful to have a “polluter pays” principle throughout the Act that needed to be applied to many other different circumstances. We’re really focusing on discharges to land and making sure that those who are responsible for those discharges are responsible for managing them.

09:56

Thank you, Madam Chair. In Amendment Paper 710 “at the start, on page 6—I think I flipped over this explanatory note at the start—it says, about the changes to Part 6, that they “amend provisions relating to infringement offences to—align more closely with the approach under the RMA; and avoid disturbing the position under Down v R12] NZSC 21:”—that is the New Zealand Supreme Court.

So I’m interested in what changes have been made to infringement offences, because when you go to clauses 288 to 297, they look to be dealing with infringement offences. On the face of it, it doesn’t look like there have been too many changes to the infringement offences, so I’m wondering if the member can explain what the changes are that are referred to in the explanatory note.

When it says, “to—align more closely with the approach under the RMA;” what does that mean in a policy sense? Infringement offences normally rely on some secondary legislation and it can be the most useful tool, but often regulators don’t have access to infringement offences because the regulations don’t exist or something else happens. My recollection of discussion of this bill as it was progressing through was that we had stronger enforcement provisions, that the Minister in charge is very interested in good compliance monitoring and enforcement, that we want better data and we want better information to do that monitoring but also to actually do the enforcement when it’s needed.

And whilst infringement offences are a small part of an enforcement regime, they are often an important part of it, and they are quick. They are stealthy. They are stealthy in terms of offences. So can the member tell me what the changes are and if the consequence of the changes is to make it more difficult for a regulator to use an infringement offence or if it’s going in the other direction and it will be easier to use an infringement offence.

09:59

The changes in clause 289 is that subclause (3) is deleted and replaced with clause 296(b) to preserve the position of the Supreme Court decision on Down v R.

That doesn’t answer my question about what direction it’s going in. Can he tell us what that position is that is being preserved? We don’t have the court case in front of us.

It will make it easier for enforcement operators, regulators, to provide infringements rather than having to rely on the tedious process under the Resource Management Act leading to abatement, which often meant that pollution and contamination went unresolved before a high threshold for action was taken.

10:00

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on the member’s responses to my questions on the contaminated land framework. He’s made it very specific that they’re focused on discharges to land, and I think that absolutely makes sense. He also picked up on the fact that the clearance of biodiversity is not pollution. It is entirely possible to provide for that very thing, so if the concern is how does a “polluter pays” principle apply to biodiversity clearance, you can make up a rule around that, and a principle around that.

What I’m interested in hearing from the member when he talked about discharges to land is why does that not apply to other domains, because we know, for example, that the costs of discharges to land in areas that are outside the contaminated land framework are making communities face costs right now. We know that in Ashburton, for example, Tinwald is looking at millions of dollars to seek new drinking water sources; Selwyn District Council is looking at hundreds of millions of dollars for treating their drinking water; Christchurch City Council, from land discharges just north of their drinking water sources in the Waimakariri is looking at hundreds of millions, if not billions; so why is that same principle not applying to those costs when they are discharges to land, but they’re outside of the contaminated land framework?

10:02

The member may recall that the member and I discussed this extensively last night in a previous part of the debate, so what I will say, again, is that this provision provides specifically for contaminated land—the “polluter pays” principle—and that the matters that the member referred to are covered by other parts of the Natural Environment Bill legislation, including national policy direction, national standards providing for discharges through the effects management regime, through rules and plans, and through consenting and conditioning of consents.

10:03

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 amending clause 307 be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 amending clause 307 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 6 set out on Amendment Paper 710 as amended be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 6 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori1; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 6 as amended agreed to.

We move to the Schedules.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 710 be agreed to.

Schedule 2A. The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 2A set out on Amendment Paper 710 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2A as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule 2A as amended agreed to.

Moving to Schedule 3, the question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 710 be agreed to.

Moving on to Schedule 4, the question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 710 be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 725 be agreed to.

We’re on to Schedule 5. The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 5 set out on Amendment Paper 710 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendments to Schedule 5 inserting clause 9(4) and deleting clause 13, set out on Amendment Paper 705, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 5 as amended be agreed to

Ayes 67

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

Noes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule 5 as amended agreed to.

10:17

I would like to go first to clause 2, which is “Commencement”, and make a couple of observations on it. One is that whereas the Planning Bill has some provisions having near immediate effect—or one month from commencement, which is going to be very close to the election, I presume—this bill has no such provision. Everything is coming into force either via Order in Council—so who knows when—or the default four years after the Act comes into force. That’s at subclause 2A, the default. It looks like it’s been added in. I would be interested in the Minister responsible for RMA Reform commenting on when he thinks those different provisions that are found in subclause (2) might come into effect—when those Orders in Council might happen.

Now, this is particularly relevant for the insertions of paragraphs (ca), (cb), and (cc), because those all relate to schedules that we were not able to debate during this committee stage. I know my friend Lan Pham had a lot to say on water conservation orders, and there is some real fear that there are changes there that could be regressive in terms of the relationship with land-use consents. There is some real fear about freshwater farm plans not being as robust as they might have been, but we didn’t get to test that. And who knows about coastal matters, because that was also in Schedule 3, which was not touched on. It would be useful for the Minister to set out the thinking of when these various provisions might have an Order in Council around them, and the time frames for when they might be—noting, of course, that there is that backstop of four years, which matches the backstop of the Planning Bill. That’s my question on clause 2. I’ll come back to clause 1 in a moment.

10:20

The member the Hon Rachel Brooking is not quite right. Clause 2 is the commencement, which actually brings quite a lot of stuff into force on the day after Royal assent. The default is that everything comes into effect the day after Royal assent, but then there are the exceptions at clause 2(2). Then new clause 2(2A) is the backstop, which is four years—which, the member is right, is new. I mean, at a high level, it’s basically: the law is the law once it gets signed by the Governor-General or the administrator of Government—she’s out of the country—and then there’s a bunch of exceptions in the next four years, and the backstop is the four years.

That’s relatively complicated, at some level, because it’s a complicated piece of legislation, alongside the Planning Bill/Act. The intention is that the national policy direction (NPD) standards and plan-making provisions get commenced immediately, and then the Order in Council process will commence the regulatory functions, including duties and restrictions and consenting once the proposed plans have been notified. So, you start the NPD, move down to the plans, and then we turn on the system over the next few years. That’s the intention. Exactly when that happens will be “to be determined”, obviously.

To clause 2(2)(ca), (cc), and (cb), which the member asked about, I’m advised they’re all intended to commence on the specified transition date, as will everything under clause 2(2). In the meantime, with relation to the regulatory functions, they’ll remain in force under the Resource Management Act (RMA), with amendments made to the RMA by the Planning Bill. It is complicated, but there’s a pathway to get it all into place in the next three years, and whoever ends up in possession of the RMA reform Minister portfolio—which, probably, I venture to suggest, will not exist once these bills come into effect; well, that’s not a decision for me, but—

It’s even more necessary.

Well, I think—I’m just going to throw this out there—that we’re going to end up with a Minister of Planning. I’m just going to say that: a planning Minister.

We heard it live today, right now.

I’m going to get myself in trouble now! It’s not my decision, but, I mean, personally, I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to have a—I mean, the RMA reform Minister job has been—you know, we’ve done the national direction. Well, fast track is now in the infrastructure portfolio, but we’ve done the national direction; we’ve now done this package of legislation, the two bills, and the ancillary stuff, and my own personal view is that we should just have a planning Minister, and, probably, the Minister for the Environment should be the—

Damage control.

What’s that?

Damage control.

Let’s just leave it to calls and not have a conversation across the Chamber.

That’s, I think, unfair. Oh, well, anyway, all of that’s to be determined. Those things are actually outside the remit of the debate and, actually, frankly outside my powers, so I probably shouldn’t have commented on it, but anyway, we are where we are.

Keep going—keep going.

No, no—no, no. I’ve said too much—I’ve said too much. It’s about a three- to four-year transition window, and it’s actually relatively straightforward when you think about it.

10:24

Thank you, Mr Chair. I specifically have questions on clause 2, as well. Thank you, Minister, for clearing up one of my questions, which is the insertion of new clause 2(2A) around the backstop of four years.

I am now curious, because the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has kind of opened the scope to discuss the responsible Minister, because we see that in here. I just want to check with the Minister: if it’s not what the Minister has suggested and the Resource Management Act (RMA) reform Minister may no longer be around once this finishes, who will be the appropriate responsible Minister in that case?

I want to look at a couple of specific ones relating to clause 2(2). There are a number of subclauses in here which relate to regulations or specific areas. I have two questions, the first question being: how much of this is already in existence and is simply rolled over under this new bill? A lot of these provisions we have seen already exist in the current RMA. Do they need to be in here if it’s simply being rolled over from the existing one? For example, I think clause 2(d) is something that we discussed yesterday, around section 128 provisions for wildlife approvals. That’s something that already currently exists. What’s the reason, if there’s a carry-over, to require another Order in Council in this particular instance?

The one I want to focus on is actually clause 2(2)(h), which relates to clause 323B, and that’s not so much in terms of a regulation but the ability for a person who’s got contaminated land or land use for hazardous activities to report. I wonder why that needs to be in the Order in Council for them to report, presumably, on something they are reporting on currently. Now, when they’re not taking effect, that requires an Order in Council for that to then take place. What happened to this sort of limbo grey area? Does that mean that people will still be reporting or there’s now suddenly no reporting requirements?

I believe, in clause 323B, there was a comparison to a previous clause in a 2023 amendment to the RMA. I wanted to know, with clause (2)(h), do they still need to report despite the Order in Council not having gone through for the enactment of that particular provision?

10:26

I inadvertently widened the scope of the debate.

I’m just curious—I am curious.

Yeah, yeah, well, so am I—so am I. I’m just taking—

“Planning Master-General”!

Eh?

Call it the “Planning Master-General”!

I’m just taking some further advice.

On that?

Definitely not on that. As I understand it, previously, Acts used to specify who the responsible Minister was, so they would say, you know, “The person responsible for this Act is X”. We don’t do that any more; responsibility for legislation is a Cabinet Office process, as I understand it, and so exactly who will be responsible for both Acts will be a decision for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. That will all be worked through.

I suppose I was just indicating that it makes sense to have a planning Minister responsible for planning and a logical place for the Environment Act would be the environment Minister, but that may also not be true. Anyway, that will all be worked out. It’s actually not that material, to be honest, for the purposes of this discussion. It’s not actually that relevant to the legislation. The point is there’s going to be an Act, and there will be a Minister responsible for the Act.

10:28

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform about clause 2(2). I understand why the Minister has opted for a system which comes in in a staged way. It is a difficult thing to transition to the new regime—we accept that—but this goes significantly further than the kind of on/off in a staged way that he has described. If that was the intention, the legislation would set out a staged way. This allows maximum flexibility for the Government to decide, by Order in Council and with very few criteria, what dates will apply, and it could all be at the end of the four-year period anyway, or even extended from there.

The problem, really, is a rule-of-law problem, where he’s now given the executive of Government even more power to turn on and off rules within areas. It could be the case that the Waikato is operating under old rules and Auckland is operating under new rules for a longer period of time, and that is, simply, a really difficult position to put any system users in, and a very beneficial one for Government to be put in. It’s particularly detrimental to those seeking to exercise Māori rights and interests in this system, because when you have system users who are already at a disadvantage because of the development difficulties with their land—where they’re already at a disadvantage because they are not yet entities that are recognised as entities which are appropriate to exist within the system, like settled iwi— you then create another barrier where they have to work their way through a myriad of rules which are not known and not knowable. That is just another way where it is harder and harder for iwi to make sure they’re at the table in decisions which this Government sees it as completely appropriate for them to be involved in. Yes, there is a legitimate debate about what those areas are, but in areas where we all agree, it should be a duty for the Crown to act honourably and to ensure that those iwi are able to participate in those things in the easiest way possible.

This sequencing provision here, where it is going to be quite unclear when an Order in Council is anticipated to become in force, is a real problem, especially for the things like freshwater farm plans, for wildlife approvals, for natural resource permits. Those are things where iwi want to be at the table, but it’s unclear when they will have to be able to do that.

If you take the system design for users with users in mind, which is what the Government should have done, then there should be criteria for those dates to be set so at least people can see what kind of improvements they need to make to their own systems, in what kind of time frames. It has been the habit of this Government to require other system participants, like local councils, to respond to it within, say, 90 days. That is a precedent which has been set. That is what will be expected. Only really the largest and most resourced participants will be able to make those deadlines. Everybody else will be screaming along behind the Government, jogging along, trying their best to keep up, for the next four years.

Then we might see the Government introducing all of the rules in four years because it’s not ready either. It should have picked a later date. There are plenty of options on the table and Amendment Papers by my very able colleagues who have participated in this debate in good faith and have been themselves jogging along behind the Government, trying to keep up with the amendments, trying to keep up with the changes that have been introduced at the last minute.

This is an incredibly difficult way of doing lawmaking for anyone who is trying to do their best, do exactly as the Government has asked them, play along by the rules, and respect their environment as well as use their economic rights. But they will get it wrong. They will get it wrong over and over again. And the Government’s response has been to up the penalties and to make it harder for them to participate in hearings, to make it harder for them to access their procedural rights. This is a design where it is very, very difficult, for whether the planning Minister is called the “Planning Minister” or the “Planning Master General” or the “Chairman of the State Planning Committee”, that person will have all of the power to introduce rules when and where, and everybody else just has to lump it.

10:32

Well, thanks for that, comrade. We’ll sing “The Internationale” together. Goodness gracious me.

A few sort of inaccuracies there. I mean, the starting point of all of this stuff is that it is difficult, OK, because we’re in a once-in-a-generation, once-in-a-30-year transition from the old to the new. That’s the sort of starting point, and there’s a number of ways you can approach that. You can do a decade, which is what the previous Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA) and Spatial Planning Act (SPA) process was going to take, which I think most people thought was too long. I would agree on that. Then you can do the kind of different regions turn on at different times approach—again, that was the NBA approach. That’s not perfect either. There was some logic to that, notwithstanding Arena Williams’ comments around how that would be silly. That is theoretically possible under this transition, but it’s not our intended approach. The member is right: it would not be good to have Auckland and Waikato with different rules at different times. That would be very complicated and confusing. That’s not the intention. It’s theoretically possible, but that’s not the Government’s approach.

We’ve gone for, again, as I think I’ve said a number of times throughout this debate, a balanced approach, which is: you’ve got the backstop of the four years; some things come into force immediately—kind of quick win - type stuff; a backstop of four years; and then a staged transition approach throughout it, and we’ll just work our way through that.

Should there be an approach of laying out in dates exactly when each provision comes in? I mean, well, there’s an argument for that, but then the trade-off with that is the flexibility around the system not keeping up, around some people not being ready. You do need that flexibility, and I think we’ve taken the right approach with that.

I can tell the committee there will be extensive material prepared. The Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport is already working around that communicating. They’ve already got various different stakeholder groups set up. They’re working with Local Government Professionals—Taituarā, I think they’re called; the old SOLGM, Society of Local Government Managers. They’re working with the Resource Management Law Association. There’s an erstwhile alumnus of that organisation in the Chamber. They’re working with the New Zealand Planning Institute—great people who will be in this donkey deep in the next four years or so, Liz Moncrieff and the team. There’s a lot of people invested in all of this stuff, and there’ll be an extensive amount of workshops and stakeholder engagement and material publicised, and all of that will work its way through regardless of who the Minister is, obviously.

Just, finally, in relation to—I understand Ms Pham had a question for the chair when I was away: how much of this bill is rolled over from the Resource Management Act (RMA)? It’s a good question. These bills draw on the RMA in places which are efficient and reduce litigation risk of using new terms. Ultimately, they are new bills. They are new bills; different scheme; different framework; funnel approach, obviously, which we’ve talked about; a variety of different instruments and tools throughout it. But we have kept some of the RMA nomenclature, and I think that was important. That was actually one of my criticisms of the NBA and the SPA: big new terms that have not been used before—clearly there has to be some of that in the new system, but as much as you can, you want to try and use terms that people are familiar with, because that helps the transition.

10:37

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start by talking about commencement in clause 2, because it’s really important. This framework, in terms of a functional resource management system, is so critical to the entire country and particularly all those people who live in this country and all of those people, particularly, whose jobs it is to interact with it and plan for it and just be part of it. What really pains me about this commencement section is how necessary a functional framework is, but then I can’t help but be so struck how dysfunctional this system is.

Now, when it comes to commencement, the simple fact is these bills should not commence, and they shouldn’t commence because the Government has got it so staggeringly wrong. Why it’s staggering is because we had all the people who actually know, who are actually involved in these systems, putting in front of us the solutions that could have made it functional. Why didn’t the Government listen? Why didn’t the Government take this opportunity to get something right?

My title that I think would be much more appropriate for this bill in particular is the “Natural Environment Dysfunction Bill”, because even at the highest level, the Government have failed to even understand the concept of integration, where we cannot separate the built environment from the natural environment. It doesn’t work. It’s been spelt out time and time again that this is completely illogical, and there hasn’t been a clear justification as to why it’s split.

That’s where the dysfunction starts, but it continues through so many aspects, including the fact that the Government is claiming this is a fit for purpose 2026 framework, when the environmental limits themselves are not even environmental limits. That does not make sense, and it’s actually shameful for a country like New Zealand, where so much of—this Government purport to be all about economic growth and our exports and everything—

Jobs.

—and jobs, and all of that depends on the backbone of our economy, which is our environment, and we’re selling it off in these bills.

Another aspect that could be considered by this Government is that this is the “Natural Environment (Delay till we Die) Bill”. The delay, the delay, the delay is consistent throughout climate, throughout environment, and by the fact that, for example, the Government just introduced last-minute amendments that mean that regions of this country will not even have environmental limits—noting that they’re not even real environmental limits. These environmental limits don’t even come into play until the 2040s.

We are getting nowhere fast. We are in a race to the bottom with this bill, because the environmental protections that New Zealanders know have, ultimately, not even managed to protect the environment so far. They’ve been so drastically eroded and weakened, and any tools that could have progressed these things are gone. We are seeing agricultural industry lobby groups coming straight in and dictating the terms of this reform. It’s not even serving our best farmers; it’s serving our bottom-of-the-barrel farmers. It’s letting the most polluting farms off the hook in a totally unfair way where the good farmers have to pick up the tab, and we’re not even enabling catchment groups to take charge and be part of this. Those who know and understand the dysfunction of the system oppose this. These bills should never commence. It’s such a missed opportunity, and I’m extremely disappointed about the whole process and the duty of care that this Government’s failed on.

10:42

It is strange to be here speaking on a title clause of a bill that has many of the same parts in it as another bill that we’ve just been discussing a day or so ago. That is because this Government has, for some terribly weird reason, decided that the natural environment can somehow be separated from land. It is this view of the world that you can put everything into little separate boxes, and you can say, “Oh, no, it’s fine for people to do whatever they like on their land. That won’t have any consequences on the natural environment.” But of course, we know that that is a total fiction. What you do on your land—if you dig it up, and then there’s a rain event and that dug-up material gets washed away into our rivers and our coastal environment, it stops the seaweed from growing and the fish from flourishing. We know that those two things are related, so to try and separate them is madness, and it is a madness that this Government embraces.

We just had the Minister responsible for RMA Reform tell us that he thinks there should be a Minister for planning. Maybe you’d have one sort of low-ranking environment Minister as well, and they would be low ranking because the Minister for the Environment has been outside of Cabinet for this whole term of Government and has had zero participation in this legislation—even this bill that is supposedly the one that deals with the environment. That just demonstrates how this Government thinks of the environment. It does not think of the environment as the most important part of our economy. All of our primary production totally relies on our environment, and I see the Minister for Trade in the House and the Minister for Tourism. What does that rely on? It relies on our environment, and what are we doing to the environment in this bill?

Protecting it.

Oh, somebody said protecting it. If only—if only. That member—I think it might have been the Minister for Trade—has not been in the House during this debate, I suspect, because—

I said it as the Minister of Agriculture.

Oh, as Minister of Agriculture—definitely not protecting the environment. I say that because the Minister of Agriculture might have been listening to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform who has told everyone this is great: “This is great new legislation. We are going to have environmental limits. For the first time, we’re going to have proper environmental limits.”, he says. He seems to have forgotten about the limits that were in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and various national environmental standards. “It’s going to have limits.” So then we interrogate those limits in this House, and what do we hear? “Yeah, some human health limits. We can measure those. They’ll be there.” But these limits for the environment, limits for our water quality, these limits that go to whether there can be mahinga kai—so not only the eel in the river but are we going to be able to eat the eel in the river? No, none of those. Or “maybe”: “Maybe we can have the odd environmental limit, but we’ve got to be very clear about much it’s going to cost, and somebody’s going to have to pay for it.” That is what Simon Court told us last night. That means that this title of this bill, as the Natural Environment Bill, is misleading. It gives us the idea that it might do something for the natural environment, but instead, that promise, from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, about the environmental limits—those limits and any protections they’re in—have been dissipated to the four winds.

So, I think much better names for the bill would be the “Natural Environment (Doesn’t Matter to this Government) Bill” or the “Natural Environment (Enablement of Pollution and Biodiversity Destruction”—both those two things—“Bill”. This is the “Natural Environment (But Only if the Community Pays) Bill”, and my last contribution on this debate is that this bill is the “Goodbye to the Natural Environment Bill”. Mr Chair, haere rā.

10:47

Well, those are all interesting suggestions, but they are clearly not going to meet with the Government’s approval. The bill does what it says on the tin, which is a bill called the Natural Environment Bill. It’s a complementary, ancillary piece of legislation to the Planning Bill, which we debated on Tuesday, Wednesday, and I suspect a touch of Thursday as well. They’re appropriate titles for the bills, we’ve discussed the commencement of the bill at length already, and I think there’s not much more to say about it.

The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 amending clause 2 be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 amending clause 2 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 710 as amended be agreed to.

The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to clause 2(1) set out on Amendment Paper 739 be agreed to.

10:53

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m pleased to present the Emergency Management Bill (No 2) for the committee of the whole House stage. I want to acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee for their work in considering this important bill, and thank you to everyone who made submissions.

Like national security, emergency management should be bipartisan. I want to thank all of the parties that have had input into getting this bill to this stage, and I look forward to constructive debate with you today. There is one substantive Amendment Paper that I have put on the Table. Although we will discuss it further later on in the debate, I’d like to highlight the main changes it would make to the bill.

Amendment Paper 750 would give emergency management committees the power to carry out precautionary works when there is an imminent threat of an emergency but a state of emergency has not yet been declared. It also expands the Director-General of Emergency Management’s power to step in and direct local emergency management authorities if necessary to preserve life, prevent injury, or prevent serious property damage. Bringing precautionary works into the bill removes any doubt that they are an important part of emergency management. It enables these activities to be subject to national direction. Direction would be a last resort, but, ultimately, the public would expect the Government to be able to step in if lives and property are at risk.

Overall, this bill will help ensure New Zealand is better prepared to manage more frequent and complex emergencies now and into the future. I look forward to continuing the work across the House to get this bill enacted so that the system is strengthened for all New Zealanders. Thank you, Mr Chair.

10:55

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.

10:57

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.

10:58

[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.

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.

10:59

Thank you, Mr Chair, and at the risk of peace breaking out in the Chamber over this bill—

No worries, mate.

Yes, no worries—I agree. Can I acknowledge the member Cushla Tangaere-Manuel. Not only has she been extremely proactive and done a lot of the heavy lifting in the work on this bill and with our officials—and I acknowledge them and the outstanding work that they have done—but you’re also present on the ground, as well, during these events. I want to acknowledge your work and support in working alongside me, not just here in the House with the legislation but out on the ground too, supporting our communities.

It was very simple. As you know, we’ve worked very hard with the leads from our iwi leaders. I want to acknowledge them, Marama Royal and Kiritapu Allan, as their representatives, working really closely with us and the officials to make sure that we do recognise and codify in the legislation the outstanding work that iwi and hapū do in emergency management. Without a doubt, as the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery for the past 2½ and a bit years, I’ve seen this at just about every event that I’ve been at: just how good they are at emergency management—that’s not just for their own people; that’s for the entire community—and the expertise and the leadership they bring to it. It was really important that we codified that in the legislation. I think that we have done that.

In terms of the Treaty, I’m sure that the member is aware that the select committee considered the matter and did not recommend that the Treaty clause be added to the bill. Speaking to that, there are a number of clauses throughout the bill which seek to give effect to the Crown’s Treaty responsibilities, with some useful additions being made at the select committee, which the Government, of course, supported. Importantly, these features of the bill are supported by non-legislative work being done to improve the systems and relationships with iwi and Māori on the ground. Collectively, both legislative and operational improvements will better support Treaty-consistent emergency management across the four Rs of reduction, readiness, response, and recovery.

11:02

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just wanting to, again, thank the House for their cross-party work on this issue and the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery for his leadership and offering up extensive briefings. Also, to the submitters on this bill—a lot of the people who submitted on this bill are emergency management professionals or volunteers who have extensive experience in the system.

I do want to ask some specific questions around clause 6(2), around the “happening” section, and a proposal around that, but I wanted to preface my comments around why it is that we’ve drafted amendments in this committee of the whole House stage even though we’ve had an opportunity to also do so during the select committee stage. As you know, Minister, the Governance and Administration Committee did good work on this bill, but not every political party is represented on the Governance and Administration Committee, so we thought it would be a good opportunity to get the House’s view on a number of topics. Some of the amendments we are putting forward here we did put forward during the select committee stage. I want to acknowledge my colleague Mike Davidson, who put forward several clauses regarding Te Tiriti, as my colleague Cushla Tangaere-Manuel has already outlined. We would like to see those clauses back in.

Turning now to clause 6, in the section about “happening”, we would like to see a clause inserted in that. We have multiple proposals around it, but one of the specific ones that we proposed is “drought”. Obviously, drought and other extreme heat events are something that has occurred and has done massive damage, particularly in Australia. I do acknowledge that this is not necessarily an exhaustive list—the clause acknowledges that “happening includes, without limitation, the following:”—so you could argue why, but then, if you make that argument, you could also argue why list anything there in the first place if you’re not going to include drought.

We do think drought is significant and significant enough to be included as a paragraph here. The last major drought—it’s been a while since we’ve had one. The last really serious one was in 2013, and that ended up causing billions of dollars of damage in Aotearoa. We do feel like inserting drought here would be a nice counterpart. Things like tsunami and floods have been listed. Things like storms, tornadoes, and cyclones have been listed, and serious fire has also been listed. We feel like drought is a good kind of counterpart to that and something that will add to and enhance this.

We’ve also drafted some amendments around adding to “actual or imminent attack”, including widening it to acts of economic attacks or blockades, because we know that there is potential for a blockade on an island nation like New Zealand, or an economic attack, to seriously disrupt life and infrastructure in Aotearoa. I’m just offering those to the Minister under clause 6(2). We would like to see those considered and added to the bill if possible. Thank you.

11:05

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.

11:07

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.

11:11

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.

11:13

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.

11:14

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.

11:17

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.

11:18

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.

11:20

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.

11:21

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.

11:25

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.

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

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 3 replacing paragraph (a) be agreed to.

The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 3 replacing paragraph (b) be agreed to.

The question is that Cushla Tangaere-Manuel’s tabled amendments to clause 3 amending paragraph (g) and inserting new paragraph (h) be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 3 inserting new paragraph (h) be agreed to.

The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 3 inserting new paragraph (h) be agreed to.

The question is that Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s amendment inserting new clause 3A set out on Amendment Paper 757 be agreed to.

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.

The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendments to clause 6(1) be agreed to.

The question is that Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to clause 6(2) inserting new paragraph (ba) be agreed to.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 6(2) inserting new paragraph (ja) be agreed to.

The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 6(2) inserting new paragraph (ka) be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 6(2) inserting new paragraph (l) be agreed to.

11:36

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.

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.

I would just like to acknowledge that member and the benchmark of the way she asked those questions during the committee stage.

11:39

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.

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?

11:40

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)—

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.

11:42

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.

11:44

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.

11:45

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—

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.

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.

11:47

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.

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.

11:52

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.

11:53

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.

11:54

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?

11:58

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.

12:01

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—

Thank you.

—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.

12:03

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.

12:05

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—

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.

Thank you. Thank you for that direction. I will make sure that I keep it much more succinct.

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.

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.

12:10

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.

12:11

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.

12:13

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.

I always recommend flying an NH90!

Ha, ha! Yeah.

Maybe the recommendation is to give up rugby!

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.

Are you going to vote for the amendment?

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.

No, no, no. Minister, stop and address the question to the member who asked you the question.

Well, maybe a little bit of decorum from—

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.

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.

12:16

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.

12:21

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.

12:23

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.

12:25

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.

12:30

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.

I’m coming very close—I’m going to let Mike Davidson just round up his questions.

12:32

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.

12:34

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?

Just a quick clarification.

12:35

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.

12:36

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.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 750 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

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

The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment inserting clause 14(da) be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 14 inserting new paragraph (l) be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’ tabled amendment inserting clause 15(4)(ca) be agreed to.

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.

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

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

The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment inserting clause 27(1)(l) be agreed to.

The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment replacing clause 28(2)(a)(iv) be agreed to.