Animal welfare submission for the Advanced draft Cabinet paper (pre-departmental consultation)
– Emergency Management System reforms
MPI has previously made submissions on the proposed Emergency Management Bil on animal
welfare in emergencies, specifically around classifying animals as property and animal rescue. We
also submitted that the powers in sections 87 and 92 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management
Act 2002 (CDEM Act) should apply in situations when a state of emergency is not declared, since
potential y there can be some impact of an adverse event, in an undeclared emergency ie. that
animals could be ‘seized’ to save their lives, prevent injury, for the relief of suffering or distress etc.
We note that in NEMA’s
‘Modernising the emergency management framework’ document
(February) it was noted that there is ‘no clear legislative direction for animal rescues operations in
emergencies’. The fol owing proposals were noted (following our earlier submissions):
• Animals are covered (in addition to people and property)
• Clarify that animals can be ‘seized’ for their safety/rescue
• Clarify that entry on premises is allowed to rescue animals, as it is to rescue humans
s9(2)(h)
NEMA
has subsequently advised in its June Trifecta update that NEMA wil not be progressing the original
animal welfare proposals as in NEMA’s view’
the existing legal mechanisms are adequate and
introducing new powers would require further consideration of the NZ Bil of Rights Act implications.’
We would seek clarification on what the existing legal mechanisms are to address the issues that
have been raised by MPI and recognised by NEMA in the
‘Modernising the emergency management
framework’ document.
We have previously submitted that we believe the additional powers we are seeking fit best into the
scheme of the CDEM Act, since they are specific to an emergency situation, rather than the Animal
Welfare Act 1999.
We would reiterate that by recognising animals expressly in the CDEM Act, they could be included in
the Control er’s objectives, in a response and thus afforded a high priority in preserving their lives in
under the Official Information Act 1982
an emergency response.
s9(2)(h)
Released
In 2015, animals were legally recognised as sentient beings in an amendment to the Animal Welfare
Act 1999. Sentience is not defined in the Animal Welfare Act but takes its ordinary meaning. It is
accepted that animals have feelings, both positive and negative. To leave sentient animals behind on
a premises in circumstances that may lead to suffering, injury or death, would be deemed
unacceptable by the New Zealand public and animal advocacy groups. It could also be seen to be
contrary to the policy and philosophy which supported the addition of sentience into the Animal
Welfare Act.
We strongly believe not to address potential threats to animal welfare from an emergency, in
respect to the advice that we have given, wil be raised during the select committee process by
Opposition parties, the New Zealand public and animal advocacy groups. We have already seen
challenges to legislation and regulations and to the High Court by animal advocacy groups, about the
legitimacy of secondary legislation. There needs to be clear reasons why the animal welfare issues
we have raised have been rejected.
We would request an opportunity to discuss further with NEMA.
under the Official Information Act 1982
Released
