Emergency Management Bill (No 2)

Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate the opportunity to ask further questions. I would refer to clause 129. I do have an amendment for the Minister to consider, and, Minister, the amendment speaks about clause 129(1)(a) and (c). With regards to the legislation, it is about preventing and preserving human life and injury to people, and also to facilitate—carrying out urgent measures when people are suffering in distress due to an emergency event.

I want to pinpoint on the animal welfare part and want to recognise and acknowledge everyone who worked tirelessly in the Auckland anniversary floods of 2023. One of the things we set up in South Auckland, in Māngere, was that the emergency services in the community acted immediately. And so that was really fortunate and it was also appreciated. However, animal welfare was forgotten—not forgotten, but they were in position number two, because of the loss of a number of things, and it was chaos.

Minister, what I wanted to ask is in the provision—it says here “mitigate unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress of an animal.” In clause 129(4)(a)(i)—I have an Amendment Paper—it talks about the word “destroy”. I’ve been researching the word “destroy”, and one of the things that I saw, as part of the team that responded and were working together with services but also residents, was the angst and the heartache of many residents, elderly, families that had to make decisions, some very unwillingly, in terms of animals that they could not rescue. On site, in Māngere, there were a few changes. We had to work with the mayor, but the ground response was that people had forgotten how close family and members of our community were to their animals—not just dogs, not just cats, but a range.

The amendment that I have on the Table for consideration, Minister, is to act humanely. The word “humanely” is really important. What we saw on the ground at that time was there was a chaotic scenario, not just over a day, over a number of weeks, and the suffering of animals was complex and it was complicated. The insertion of the word “humanely” is—we had professionals that had to make very fast decisions at the time. You had members of the community who were very distressed and, actually, not for their own lives, for the lives of their animals. And so it was really, really difficult. There was a lot of professional advice, but there were gaps in the system at that time. So there’s been a lot of learnings, Minister.

The point of why I’m raising this is because at times of distress and at times of chaos in emergency situations, there can be different thinking, in terms of “got to act now; we’ve got to act appropriately”. The provision is in clause 129(4)(a)(i); it’s to request that the word “humanely” comes before the word “destroy”. One of the things when you’re witnessing at ground level, what happens in those circumstances, the legislation is very clear—that’s very helpful—but when you’re making decisions not just about humans but also about the wellbeing of animals, it’s actually really important that the decisions that are made at that time are humane. I’m just asking for consideration of the Amendment Paper that was lodged today at 9.35 a.m., for the Minister to comment, please.

I said that I’d come back to the member to clarify around the word “humanely”. The power to destroy an animal, in this clause, clause 129, may only be used to mitigate the animal’s suffering if the animal is actually suffering. This provides a safeguard to ensure that an animal is destroyed humanely. Also, the new requirement to plan for animals means emergency management committees are better prepared to support animal welfare during an emergency.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, that’s a really good point. That’s a valid point—and I’ll get to the actual technical piece in a minute—but I’ll just talk, generally, to the issue that you’ve raised. I want to acknowledge the outstanding scientists that we have inside our MetService and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research that do an enormous amount of hard work to try and keep us as best informed as we can be as a country, in terms of the weather events that we’ve got to plan for or be aware of. But it is not a perfect science. And a great example of that is just overnight, we weren’t anticipating as much rain falling in Queenstown as what actually occurred. The mayor there and the team there have been very good in responding to that. So what you do is when you start trying to anticipate and calling the state of emergency with a ward is that you risk not actually covering the entire area that may be hit by that weather event.

I am aware that the territorial authorities, they do have the wards; however, I’ve seen firsthand how ambiguity can cause damaging delays in decision making during emergencies. It’s important that we stick with unambiguous boundaries that already exist within our local authorities and districts for the reasons that I’ve just outlined.

Yes, I’ll get to you. I just wanted to come back to the member Dan Rosewarne. I think that the issues that you raised are really good ones, but, fundamentally, the way that the system is operating now is that the New Zealand Transport Agency—you know, all the Government agencies are actually working really well with the emergency operations centres, with the controllers, the mayors. There’s a very joined-up approach now between central government, regional government, and local government in terms of how we’re actually responding to these events, both in the prepositioning and the preparatory-type work through the actual response and into the recovery. So you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned, “Is it a joined-up approach, is everyone in the room, and is everyone having a say on decisions around, for example, the opening of roads and infrastructure?” That’s exactly what is happening. But if I refer the member to clause 158, this creates a higher bar to close roads or public places during the transition period compared to a state of emergency. So the bar is higher, rather than being in a state of emergency.