Content uploaded by Steve Glassey
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Steve Glassey on Mar 31, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
July 2017 © S. Glassey & Wellington SPCA Inc.
1
Wellington SPCA submission to the
Ministerial Review: Better responses to natural disasters
and other emergencies in New Zealand
“Pet ownership is the single most common factor associated with human evacuation
failure that can be positively affected when the threat of disaster is imminent ”
(Heath & Linnabary 2015)
Introduction
The current animal disaster legal framework in New Zealand is based primarily upon the Animal
Welfare Act 1999 and Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. Both of these were written
prior to Hurricane Katrina (2005) which was the genesis for modern animal disaster law with legislation
being swiftly passed due to lessons learned, such as the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards
Act 2006. According to the Fritz Institute (2006) 44% of those who chose not to evacuate during this
catastrophic event did so in part because they were unable to take their pets, as the federal policy
was to leave pets behind at that time. Now in the USA, the PETS Act 2006 requires federal, state and
local plans to include animal rescue, evacuation, sheltering and care. Closer to home, following the
2009 Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria the Royal Commission into this disaster found that human
lives were lost as a direct result of animals not being able to be evacuated and pet owners returning
prematurely to their properties to save their animals (World Society for the Protection of Animals
2014). By contrast, New Zealand’s efforts to improve animal disaster laws has been sub-optimal with
no changes to legislation to enhance animal welfare during emergencies and therefore provide better
protection for animals and their human counter-parts. The recent Kaikoura earthquake provides an
opportunity to reflect on whether our current framework for animal disaster law is effective and if
not, how we can strengthen arrangements for future events.
Observations
Coordination and Planning
The Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002 yielded a robust and forward thinking piece
of legislation that has served the country well for most parts. A new National Civil Defence Emergency
Management Plan, issued in 2003, included animal welfare, with local authorities in most cases being
charged with this function for companion animals. However, 14 years on there still is no national
animal emergency management plan and only a small handful of group level animal emergency
management plans. The state of animal emergency management is under-focused, under-resourced
and inconsistent. The NCDEM Plan Order 2015, is vague and places responsibility also for MPI to also
regionally “coordinate” animal welfare for civil defence. Although the lead agency is compelled to
have an emergency management plan for its responsibilities and take all necessary steps to ensure
those functions are provided (s. 59, CDEM Act 2002), at a regional level they only need to “coordinate
the plan”. In effect, no one person or organisation is directly responsible or accountable to develop
the regional animal welfare emergency management plan – this is a major flaw in the framework. In
contrast, the Victorian Government following the Royal Commission into the Black Saturday bushfires,
July 2017 © S. Glassey & Wellington SPCA Inc.
2
required the Department of Primary Industries to lead the preparation of a stand-alone animal welfare
emergency management plan (White 2012) which was published in 2011, only two years after the
disaster and recently relaunched. Six years after the Canterbury 2011 earthquake which experienced
animal welfare related issues (Glassey & Wilson 2011; Potts & Gadenne 2014) and was the country’s
first declared state of national emergency, we have no such plan, still little progress, and the lessons
learned are more lessons lost. Lessons lost being those learnings that have been identified but never
acted upon (Glassey 2011). The total resource allocation for the Ministry for Primary Industries animal
welfare emergency planning is 0.6 FTE which is completely underwhelming to meet the expectations
placed upon the Ministry in the National CDEM Plan.
Legal complexities of animal evacuation and disposal
It is important to first of all acknowledge that pursuant to section 6 of CDEM Act 2002, the Act does
not affect the powers, duties or functions imposed on others. That is the powers of an Inspector under
the Animal Welfare Act 2002 remain unaffected even during a declared state of emergency under the
CDEM Act 2002, however common sense should always prevail. In the context of animal evacuation,
the CDEM Act 2002 allows for persons during a declared state of emergency to be directed by a
Constable or Controller to enter premises (s.87) including a dwelling (home) or Marae (sacred tribal
meeting place registered with the government) using force if required; and to seize or destroy an
animal (s.92) or other property.
Once an animal comes into the possession of the SPCA as an approved organisation under the Animal
Welfare Act 199, the SPCA can rehome the animal or otherwise dispose of it after 7 days pursuant to
section 141(1A) if the owner does not claim the animal. The National CDEM Plan Order 2015, however
places the local authority as the organisation responsible for accommodation of companion animals,
yet they (and all other animal related organisations in New Zealand other than the SPCA) do not have
the legal authority to rehome unclaimed animals other than dogs (as local authority powers for
disposal only extend to stray dogs found at large under the Dog Control Act 1990) and they have no
powers for holding or disposal of displaced companion animals such as cats, rabbits and birds. There
is no provision in the CDEM Act 2002 that provides for the disposal of seized items except for
destruction, which would have to be done while a state of emergency is still in effect. This leaves only
the provisions of disposal under section 141(1A) to give effect to rehoming (or otherwise) of unclaimed
animals and this power only extends currently to the SPCA which is not responsible for
accommodation of disaster displaced animals.
Microchipping is a critical tool in the reunification of animals during and following and emergency
(American Microchip Advisory Council for Animals 2007; Glassey & Wilson 2011) and could be
interpreted that the CDEM Act 2002 allows for the “marking” of animals such as microchipping under
section 91, under the direction of a constable or controller during a declared state of emergency.
However, this assumption could be challenged and it is important during a mass evacuation of animals
that microchipping can be applied without owner consent to ensure reunification.
Whether a declaration of emergency is in effect or not, the SPCA Animal Welfare Inspector also has
the power to take animals into possession that are at risk of imminent harm under section 127(5)(a);
and in doing so a notice of entry must be left at the property under (s. 129) which is not practical for
mass evacuations across multiple properties; and dwellings cannot be entered unless a search warrant
has been issued (s.131), again not practical in a disaster response context. The Animal Welfare Act
1999 also provides an Inspector the power to mitigate suffering and prevent likely harm from
occurring to an animal under section 130(1)(a).
July 2017 © S. Glassey & Wellington SPCA Inc.
3
Where animals are taken in by the SPCA (as an Approved Organisation), the requirements under
section 141(1A) of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 state the animal must be kept for seven days and has
prescribed expectations around attempting to locate the owners and/or giving them notice of disposal
if the animal is not claimed. From overseas experiences including Hurricane Katrina, the American Bar
Association created a model act for states to adopt to address the ownership, temporary holding,
transferring and disposal of animals during and following a disaster. Their recommendation was that
during a declared disaster, that the holding period was set at 30 days to allow for displaced owners to
claim their animals; and that animals could not be transferred out of state without approval of the
State Veterinarian (American Bar Association 2010). Thousands of animals were evacuated and
transported across the United States following Hurricane Katrina, never to be reunited with their
original families again and this prompted legal reforms (McNabb 2007). The model act also ensured
that animals that were unable to be reunited could be legally rehomed with ownership being
transferred. The SPCA as an approved organisation can legally rehome such unclaimed disaster
affected; however other organisations do not have this authority and post-disaster rehoming through
other organisations may lead to animal custody disputes as experienced after Hurricane Katrina.
Mass Destruction of Animals
The CDEM Act 2002 does provide the power for the controller or a constable to destroy animals (s.91).
Understanding the intrinsic value that animals have to people (World Society for the Protection of
Animals 2014) and their importance as being seen as members of the family (Irvine 2009; Glassey
2010) and a psychosocial coping mechanism (Hunt et al. 2008; Heath 1999; Glassey 2010), not to
mention the negative psychological impacts following the loss of a pet (Edmonds & Cutter 2008;
Gerwolls & Labott 1994; Hunt et al. 2008; Leonard & Scammon 2007); though legal, it would be
immoral, socially unacceptable and potentially career and politically limiting to destroy companion
animals in an emergency. The availability of such unbridled power may give the impression that mass
animal destruction is an acceptable emergency management practice, where that is far from the truth.
According to Irvine (2009), during Hurricane Katrina, Sherriff’s Deputies were managing evacuees with
their pets at the P. G. T. Beauregard Middle School. The Deputies assured the families they would take
their pets to an animal shelter while families moved to the local high school. Some thirty-three dogs
and cats were shot, execution style. A later forensic investigation found the animals had not been
killed humanely and been left to bleed to death. To mitigate this lesson from repeating itself, it would
be prudent to provide a safeguard that any destruction of animals only be undertaken after
consultation with an Inspector appointed under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, not being a constable.
Rescue Powers
Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002
85. Emergency powers of Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups
(1) While a state of emergency is in force in its area, a Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
may—
(b) provide for the rescue of endangered persons and their removal to areas of safety:
The rescue of animals is important to human safety. The academic consensus that in an emergency,
saving animals in effect saves human lives is a fundamental philosophy to contemporary emergency
management doctrine. The inclusion of animals in section 85(1)(b) would help strengthen animal
welfare emergency management arrangements to ensuring not just Animal Welfare Inspectors and
Constables, had the emergency power to conduct rescues in a declared state of emergency. Even
July 2017 © S. Glassey & Wellington SPCA Inc.
4
recently in New Zealand, there have been frequent examples of people losing their lives in an attempt
to rescue their companion animals (Barlow & Shadwell 2016; Mcbride 2016).
Evacuation Powers
Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002
86. Evacuation of premises and places
If a state of emergency is in force and, in the opinion of a Controller or any constable, the action
authorised by this section is necessary for the preservation of human life, that person or a person
authorised by him or her may require, within the area or district in which the emergency is in force,—
(a) the evacuation of any premises or place, including any public place; or
(b) the exclusion of persons or vehicles from any premises or place, including any public place.
The inconsistent use of life and human life within the CDEM Act 2002 creates challenges as the
interpretation of “life” may extend to animals, whereas “human life” is very specific. Requisitioning
powers (section 90) under the CDEM Act 2002 is specific to “human life”, whereas evacuation
provisions (section 89) uses “life” creating greater flexibility in interpretation. These discrepancies
were raised as issues to government in 2010 and despite recent amendments to the CDEM Act in
2016, these and other animal emergency management issues continue to be ignored.
The refusal of public safety officials to allow companion animals to be evacuate alongside their human
families is a leading cause of evacuation failure (Irvine 2009; Heath 2001; Glassey 2010; Fritz Institute
2006). The omission of animals in this section may also imply that animals cannot be excluded from a
premise or place. This section should be for the preservation of human and animal life and that
animals, persons or vehicles can be excluded for any premises or place.
Entry Powers
Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002
87. Entry onto premises
If a state of emergency is in force in any area, a Controller or a constable, or any person acting under
the authority of a Controller or constable, may enter on, and if necessary break into, any premises or
place within the area or district in respect of which the state of emergency is in force if he or she
believes on reasonable grounds that the action is necessary for—
(a)
saving life, preventing injury, or rescuing and removing injured or endangered persons; or
(b)
permitting or facilitating the carrying out of any urgent measure for the relief of suffering or distress.
The current section that provides access onto properties and premises, including that of dwellings,
refers to “life”, “persons” and “suffering or distress”. Without these terms being defined in the Act’s
interpretation (section 2), and without case law, the act is silent in regards to its application to animals.
To avoid ambiguity and to ensure the needs of animal welfare are assured, animals should be specified
with animals being defined in the Act’s interpretation as the same as in the Animal Welfare Act 1999.
July 2017 © S. Glassey & Wellington SPCA Inc.
5
July 2017 © S. Glassey & Wellington SPCA Inc.
6
Requisition Powers
Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002
90. Requisitioning powers
(1) This section applies if a state of emergency is in force and, in the opinion of a Controller or a
constable, the action authorised by this section is necessary for the preservation of human life.
Though empirical evidence would suggest that the preservation of animal life during an emergency
will positively influence the preservation of human life as earlier discussed, to avoid ambiguity the
section should be amended to reflect a contemporary approach to emergency management law.
During a declared state of emergency, this provides flexibility to the Controller and any constable, to
effect requisitions to protect animals. For mass animal rescues during disasters such as those from
intensive farming facilities and laboratories, specialist equipment and heavy machinery may be
needed. The inability for public safety officials to be able to carry out specialist or logistically complex
animal rescue operations may force animal activists through to pet owners to defy official advice and
put themselves at harm’s way as seen in numerous events such as the Buckeye Farm disaster in 2000
(Irvine 2009, p.48). It is in the interest of disaster response officials and politicians to mitigate this
significant risk by ensuring animal disaster response is enabled with the same powers as those given
for human disaster response.
As with the other emergency powers within the CDEM Act 2002, any constable may exercise such
powers (except for those contained in section 85 which are exclusively conferred upon the Controller).
SPCA and MPI Inspectors appointed under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 are already provided with the
same powers as a constable under the act, except for the power of arrest or stopping a vehicle. The
government already entrusts these officers with significant legal powers and it makes sense that
during a time when police are going to be overwhelmed, the same powers are conferred upon them
for animal welfare matters during a state of declared emergency.
Codes of Welfare
The Animal Welfare Act 1999 makes provisions for Codes of Welfare to be established for species,
industries or activities to ensure minimum animal welfare standards are set. Under the Act, they can
be used as evidence of non-compliance with the Act, and they can also be used by the defence to
prove they met minimum requirements and therefore were not in breach. Certain offences under the
Act have a strict liability, meaning the prosecution needs only to prove the act of the offence (actus
rea), not the guilty knowledge or intent (means rea). Codes of Welfare often support the enforcement
of strict liability offences, however they have also a defence caveat to applying these in circumstances
of emergency, namely:
Animal Welfare Act 1999
13. Strict liability
2 (c) that the act or omission constituting the offence took place in circumstances of stress or emergency,
and was necessary for the preservation, protection, or maintenance of human life;
What countless examples of recent disasters have proven, is that the saving of animals, in particular
companion animals strongly correlates to increased evacuation compliance and subsequent increase
in the protection of human life. The relationship between saving people and companion animals in an
July 2017 © S. Glassey & Wellington SPCA Inc.
7
emergency is intrinsically linked, and therefore the omission to save such animals indirectly places the
human population in particular their owners and public safety responders at risk. The old attitude of
“human lives before pets” is draconian and reflects a lack of understanding between the evidence that
saving pets will actually save more human lives. Therefore, any omission to save companion animals
in an emergency, is empirically contrary to the preservation, protection, or maintenance of human
life. The defence clause under section 13(2)(c), should not be seen as an excuse for public safety
officials, especially when emergency management purports to take an evidence based approach to its
activities. Further effort is required to enhance animal emergency management within Codes of
Welfare.
Zoological vulnerability
Companion animals are the ones that are given the most attention in emergency management, given
their strong bond to their human guardians and the paternalistic protective behaviours displayed by
their guardians also. But companion animals are generally the least zoologically vulnerable when
compared to intensively farmed animals reliant on automated feeding and environmental systems
(Irvine 2009). There numbers may be so large that their rescue during emergencies may be logistically
impossible, or it may simply be more cost effective for the producer to discard them as waste, rather
considering these animals as sentient beings. It is important that legislative frameworks afford
protection to these animals across the spectrum of comprehensive emergency management.
Following the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake, GNS Scientist Kevin Berryman observed the seabed was
vertically displaced some 6 metres along the coastline, rendering crabs, fish and Paua trapped unable
to return to the water (Clayton 2016). Other media reports corroborated these observations with
crayfish and lobster also being observed stranded by the uplift and despite public officials warnings
not to, community members returned to relocate the sea life back into water (Lewis 2016). There was
significant backlash by the public to the government direction to stop the sea life rescue attempts with
even a Ministry for Primary Industries fisheries officer threatening to arrest the Paua rescue volunteers
(Gates 2016). With hundreds if not thousands of crabs, lobsters, fish and crayfish stranded and dying,
no government agency took responsibility for the welfare of these animals, despite them being
afforded the same protections under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 as companion animals
(acknowledging that Paua however are not classified as animals and therefore not protected under
the Animal Welfare Act 1999). Simplistically, the government sets the maximum number of fish that
can be legally taken from the sea through a quota system or allowable catch. The efforts by the public
to rescue the fish where treated as breaches of fishing quota by officials, whereas they in many cases
were acting in the interests of animal welfare. It is unclear whether the provisions of section 16
(emergency measures) would be effective in enabling rescue of fish, those protected under the Animal
Welfare Act 1999 or otherwise. In effect, there is no agency or body responsible for the welfare of
these animals during an emergency and this gap needs to be addressed.
Research undertaken by Potts and Gadenne (2014) also noted that other animal groups such as
hedgehogs, sea birds and turtles were negatively affected as a result of the Christchurch earthquakes
and current animal emergency planning efforts struggle to cater for companion animals let alone other
animal groups such as wildlife. Further research is needed around non-companion animal vulnerability
to disasters in New Zealand and how these animals can be better protected in the future.
July 2017 © S. Glassey & Wellington SPCA Inc.
8
Recommendations
To strengthen the existing animal disaster legislative framework in New Zealand, there are several
improvements that could be made including:
1. Mandating the development and maintenance of animal welfare emergency management
plans, both at the national and regional level; and ensure MPI is sufficiently resourced to do
so.
2. Amending the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 to ensure animal protection
measures are included in rescue, entry, evacuation, requisitioning and other relevant sections;
and ensuring that Inspectors under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 can respond appropriately.
3. That microchipping of animals is specifically added as a power during an emergency and the
recovery transition period
4. Limiting the power of animal destruction in recognition of international experiences
5. Educating public safety agencies (including government departments and military) around the
importance of taking an inclusive approach to animals in emergency planning and evacuations
6. Revising and developing Codes of Welfare to incorporate animal welfare emergency
management principles and developing a new Code of Welfare for Animals in Emergencies
7. Defining emergency welfare responsibility for unowned sentient animals (whether protected
under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 or not), in particular those who are highly vulnerable to
natural hazards.
8. As like in the US, ensuring response costs for animal emergency management are eligible
under central government funding/reimbursement claims.
For the purposes of consolidation, consideration should be given to a specific regulation made under
the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 or Animal Welfare Act 1999, like that of the Pet
Evacuation and & Transportation Standards Act 2006 set in the United States. For further information,
the following websites are provided:
https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Reference/disaster/Pages/PETS-Act-FAQ.aspx
http://www.wagnpetsafety.com/pdf/Pet_Parents_and_PETS_ACT_of_2006.pdf
July 2017 © S. Glassey & Wellington SPCA Inc.
9
Conclusion
There is considerable evidence that substantiates the protective nature of humans towards animals,
in particular companion animals. Well respected disaster management scholar Erik Auf der Heide
(1989) stated that emergency planning should be based on “normal behaviour” not “correct
behaviour”, in effect we should plan on the basis on how humans will likely react, not how we want
them to react. On this basis, emergency managers need to place greater focus on ensuring that
animals, companion animals are acknowledged as intrinsically linked to people. To achieve improved
evacuation compliance and public confidence in response coordination, the welfare of animals during
emergencies needs to be a core function and a priority of the response. To enable this change and
designate accountability, New Zealand needs to heed the lessons of Hurricane Katrina and the Black
Saturday Victorian bush fires and give urgency to strengthening the animal emergency management
laws with amendments to the relevant acts or the passage of specific regulations to reflect
international best practice and meet the expectations of its citizens.
Steve Glassey MEmergMgt PGDipEmergMgt PGCPM GCTSS CEM® FEPS
Chief Executive Officer
July 2017 © S. Glassey & Wellington SPCA Inc.
10
Bibliography
American Bar Association, 2010. Model Act Governing Standards for the Care and Disposition of
Disaster Animals (2/10). Available at:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/disaster/policy/other_policies_related_to_
disaster.html.
American Microchip Advisory Council for Animals, 2007. Companion animal identification: an
emergency management guide. , p.14.
Auf der Heide, E., 1989. Disaster Response: Principles of Preparation and Coordination, C.V. Mosby
Company.
Barlow, J. & Shadwell, T., 2016. Wairarapa woman Gaylene Dunn died trying to rescue her cat from a
tree. Wairarapa Times Age.
Clayton, R., 2016. GeoNet posts video showing the uplift of Kaikoura’s coastline. Stuff. Available at:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/nz-earthquake/86763803/GeoNet-posts-video-showing-the-
uplift-of-Kaikouras-coastline.
Edmonds, A.S. & Cutter, S.L., 2008. Planning for Pet Evacuations during Disaster. Journal of
Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 5(1).
Fritz Institute, 2006. Hurricane Katrina: perceptions of the affected. , (2010). Available at:
http://www.fritzinstitute.org/PDFs/findings/HurricaneKatrina_Perceptions.pdf.
Gates, C., 2016. Leave the paua alone, says Government. Nelson Mail. Available at:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/national-news/86646499/Leave-the-paua-alone-
says-Government.
Gerwolls, M.K. & Labott, S.M., 1994. Adjustment to the death of a companion animal. Anthrozoos, 7,
pp.172–176.
Glassey, S., 2011. Preventing “ lessons lost ”: is evidence-based dynamic doctrine the answer ?
Australasian Journal of Emergency Management, 14.
Glassey, S., 2010. Recommendations to enhance companion animal emergency management in New
Zealand. Wellington: Mercalli Disaster Management Consulting. Available at:
http://www.amazon.com/Recommendations-enhance-companion-emergency-management-
ebook/dp/B0046REN2E.
Glassey, S. & Wilson, T., 2011. Animal welfare impact following the 4 September 2010 Canterbury
(Darfield) earthquake. Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 2011(2), pp.49–59.
Available at: http://trauma.massey.ac.nz/issues/2011-2/AJDTS_2011-2_Glassey.pdf.
Heath, S.E., 2001. Human and Pet-related risk factors for household evacuation failure during a
natural disaster. American Journal of Epidemiology, 153(7), pp.659–665.
Heath, S.E., 1999. The Public and Animal Health Consequences of Pet Ownership in a Disaster: The
January 1997 Flood of Yuba County (California).
Heath, S.E. & Linnabary, R.D., 2015. Challenges of Managing Animals in Disasters in the U.S. Animals,
5(2), pp.173–192. Available at: http://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/5/2/173/.
Hunt, M., Al-Awadi, H. & Johnson, M., 2008. Psychological sequelae of pet loss following Hurricane
Katrina. Anthrozoos, 21(2), pp.109–121.
July 2017 © S. Glassey & Wellington SPCA Inc.
11
Irvine, L., 2009. Filling the ark: animal welfare in disasters, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Leonard, H.A. & Scammon, D.L., 2007. No pet left behind: Accommodating pets in emergency
planning. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26(1), pp.49–52.
Lewis, O., 2016. Divers and volunteers band together to save stranded shellfish and sea life. Stuff.
Available at: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/nz-earthquake/86476242/Divers-and-volunteers-
band-together-to-save-stranded-shellfish-and-sea-life.
Mcbride, N., 2016. Man swept down Manawatu River when dog rescues goes wrong. Manawatu
Standard.
McNabb, M., 2007. Pets in the eye of the storm: Hurricane Katrina floods the courts with pet custody
disputes. Animal Law, 14(71), pp.72–108.
Potts, A. & Gadenne, D., 2014. Animals in Emergencies: Learning from the Christchurch Earthquakes,
Christchurch: Canterbury University Press.
White, S., 2012. Companion Animals, Natural Disasters and the Law: An Australian Perspective.
Animals, 2(4), pp.380–394. Available at: http://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/2/3/380/ [Accessed
July 25, 2014].
World Society for the Protection of Animals, 2014. National Planning Principles for Animals in
Disasters,
July 2017 © S. Glassey & Wellington SPCA Inc.
12
Annex A: Model Amendments to Legislation
1. That the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 be amended as follows:
2. Interpretation
Auxiliary Officer means an auxiliary officer within the meaning of the Animal Welfare Act 1999
Director-General means the Director-General within the meaning of the Animal Welfare Act 1999
Inspector means an inspector within the meaning of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.
85. Emergency powers of Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups
(1) While a state of emergency is in force in its area, a Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
may—
(b) provide for the rescue of endangered persons or animals and their removal to areas of safety:
86. Evacuation of premises and places
If a state of emergency is in force and, in the opinion of a Controller or any constable, the action
authorised by this section is necessary for the preservation of human or animal life, that person or a
person authorised by him or her may require, within the area or district in which the emergency is in
force,—
(c) the evacuation of any premises or place, including any public place; or
(d) the exclusion of persons, animals or vehicles from any premises or place, including any public
place.
87. Entry onto premises
If a state of emergency is in force in any area, a Controller, constable or an inspector, or any person
acting under the authority of a Controller, constable or inspector, may enter on, and if necessary break
into, any premises or place within the area or district in respect of which the state of emergency is in
force if he or she believes on reasonable grounds that the action is necessary for—
(a) saving animal or human life, preventing injury, or rescuing and removing injured or endangered
persons or animals; or
90. Requisitioning powers
(2) This section applies if a state of emergency is in force and, in the opinion of a Controller or a
constable, the action authorised by this section is necessary for the preservation of human or
animal life.
July 2017 © S. Glassey & Wellington SPCA Inc.
13
91. Power to give directions
While a state of emergency is in force, a Controller, constable or an inspector, or any person acting
under the authority of a Controller or constable, may—
(a) direct any person to stop any activity that may cause or substantially contribute to an emergency:
(b) request any person, either verbally or in writing, to take any action to prevent or limit the extent of
the emergency.
92. Power to carry out inspections, etc
1. While a state of emergency is in force-
(a) A Controller, constable or an inspector, or any person acting under the authority of a Controller or
constable, may examine, mark, seize, sample, secure, disinfect, or destroy any property, animal, or
any other thing in order to prevent or limit the extent of the emergency.
(b) An inspector, auxiliary officer or any person acting under the authority of an inspector or auxiliary
officer, may microchip or otherwise mark any animal.
(c) A Controller or any constable destroying any animal must consult with an inspector from an
approved organisation before such destruction is undertaken, and only in such circumstances
where it is reasonable to do so.
2. That the Animal Welfare Act 1999 be amended as follows:
2. Interpretation
State of emergency has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Civil Defence Emergency
Management Act 2002.
141. Duties of Approved Organisations
(7) While a state of emergency is in force, the Director-General may instruct approved organisations to
extend the 7 day period under subsections (2) and (3) up to 30 days.
3. That the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan Order 2015 be amended as follows:
75. Animal welfare
(1) All animal owners, or persons in charge of animals, should develop their own plans to care for their
animals during emergencies.
(2) At the national and CDEM Group levels, the Ministry for Primary Industries is the agency responsible
for—
(a) co-ordinating the provision of the animal welfare services sub-function (including animal rescue,
animal shelter, food, water, husbandry, reunification, and veterinary care and other essentials) for all
animals, including companion animals, production animals, animals in research, testing, and teaching
facilities, zoo and circus animals, wildlife, and any other animal as defined in section 2 of the Animal
Welfare Act 1999; and
(b) developing and maintaining the national animal welfare emergency plan; and
(bb) developing and maintaining a regional animal welfare emergency plan for each CDEM Group; and
(c) maintaining the Government’s reporting and advisory capability on animal welfare in an emergency.
July 2017 © S. Glassey & Wellington SPCA Inc.
14
162. Government financial support to local authorities during response
Government financial support for response activities focuses on costs incurred by local authorities to—
(a) care for directly affected people and companion animals, including the costs of accommodating,
transporting, feeding, and clothing people and companion animals as a result of an emergency; and
(b) take the necessary precautions or preventive actions (whether by construction, demolition, or any
other means) to reduce the immediate danger to human or animal life, where those precautions or actions
were begun during the response period; and
(c) take precautions or preventive actions aimed at reducing the potential consequences of an emergency,
where those precautions or actions were begun in the period immediately before the emergency.
