New Zealand’s efforts to reform its emergency management law have highlighted a persistent gap between public sentiment and legislative action, particularly regarding the protection of animals during disasters. Despite robust public engagement and clear calls for animal-inclusive disaster arrangements, previous consultative processes have repeatedly failed to heed citizen expectations and translate these priorities into law. As the government releases the Emergency Management Bill, a new discussion document for consultation, there is renewed hope that this democratic deficit will finally be addressed.

Strong Public Support for Animal Protection

Analysis of public submissions on the Emergency Management Bill demonstrates overwhelming support for embedding animal welfare in disaster law. A recent thematic study found that 61% of all submissions raised the importance of including animals in emergency legislation, with nearly half of all submissions directly influenced by the “No Animal Left Behind” campaign—the largest animal disaster management advocacy effort in New Zealand’s history. Key themes included calls for:

• Clear statutory powers for animal rescue and evacuation;
• Mandated animal-inclusive emergency planning;
• Improved coordination and funding for animal disaster response; and
• Protection and identification of disability assistance dogs during disaster.

These priorities reflect both ethical concerns and practical realities: research from past disasters shows that people often risk their own safety to save animals, and that failing to plan for animals can undermine both human and animal welfare.

Despite the clarity and volume of public input, animal welfare provisions have repeatedly been sidelined or treated as peripheral in legislative drafts and policy documents. This pattern is not new. For example, after the 2017 Edgecumbe flood—where nearly 29% of evacuees breached safety cordons to rescue pets—animal welfare concerns raised in subsequent reviews were relegated to annexes for “future consideration,” rather than being integrated into core recommendations.

Such practices undermine the legitimacy of public consultation and risk breaching New Zealand’s obligations under Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees citizens the right to participate meaningfully in public affairs. As Bentley’s research on COVID-19 lawmaking in New Zealand has shown, rushed or performative consultation processes can erode civil and political rights, especially when governments fail to act on clear public priorities.

The Government’s Latest Discussion Document

The government’s new discussion document acknowledges the high volume of submissions advocating for animal-inclusive disaster law, a positive sign that public voices are at least being recognised. However, past experience suggests caution: previous documents have referenced academic work in passing but have not always engaged with the substance of the evidence or the most comprehensive research in the field despite such research being provided.

While the discussion document includes a reference to Glassey’s research, it does not fully reflect the breadth of analysis or the scale of public advocacy documented in recent peer-reviewed studies or the substantive report presented at Parliament in 2019. Nonetheless, the fact that the volume of animal-focused submissions is explicitly noted in the consultation process is a step forward.

The case for animal-inclusive disaster law is both moral and practical. International experience—from Hurricane Katrina in the US to the Edgecumbe flood in New Zealand—shows that people’s attachment to animals is a critical factor in disaster response. Laws that fail to account for this bond risk not only animal suffering but also human non-compliance with evacuation orders, increased danger, and reduced trust in authorities.

Moreover, national examples like the US’ Pets Emergency and Transportation Standards (PETS) Act 2006 and Italy’s Civil Protection Code 2018 demonstrate that animal-inclusive disaster law is both achievable and able to be integrated into primary disaster management law.

A Roadmap for Reform

The public has provided a clear roadmap for reform, calling for:

• Mandatory inclusion of animals in emergency management plans;
• Clear statutory powers for animal rescue and care;
• Proper funding and coordination for animal welfare response; and
• Recognition of the human-animal bond in disaster policy.

These recommendations are grounded in both lived experience and a growing body of academic research, including recent thematic analyses of public submissions.

As New Zealand prepares a new draft bill, there is hope that this time the voices of citizens will be reflected in law. The lessons of past failures are clear: meaningful reform requires not just consultation, but genuine responsiveness to public priorities. By embedding animal welfare into disaster law, New Zealand can set a global standard for compassionate, effective emergency management—and restore faith in the democratic process.