Thousands of people and pets sign petition to ban fireworks
More 90,000 humans - and tens of thousands of animals - have signed a petition in support of a ban on the public sale of fireworks.
The Pawprint Petition was presented to Parliament and was received by National MP Greg Fleming.
As well as the human signatures, the petition was supplemented by nearly 80,000 additional paw, hoof prints and marks from pets of concerned owners.
Petition organisers Animates said loud explosions from the letting off of fireworks - purchased around the celebration of Guy Fawkes night - created "extreme stress", leading to injuries, fatalities and missing animals.
They said banning the sale of fireworks was crucial to protect animals from unnecessary fear, distress and harm.
Fireworks impact pets, livestock, zoo animals and wildlife - vets association
The New Zealand Veterinary Association spokesperson Sally Cory said fireworks caused stress and anxiety in pets, livestock, zoo animals and wildlife.
"Every year, veterinarians are called to see horses that have been badly injured by panicking and running through fences, attempting to jump out of paddocks, or have run on to roads, endangering themselves and motorists.
"Cats and dogs often get anxious and try to flee when fireworks are going off. As a result many each year are injured. Large animals in general suffer from fear and stress related to fireworks and the impact of fireworks on wildlife is also a recognised issue," Corry said.
Pawprint Petition 'a world's first'
Animates general manager of marketing Nathalie Moolenschot told RNZ the signatures were gathered over six months and the inclusion of the animals pawprints and marks was likely to be "a world's first".
"Just having [fireworks] available in New Zealand for sale for a couple of days a year enables people to stockpile them which means that they're being lit all throughout the year.
"Owners are unable to protect their pets and livestock during those times," Moolenschot said.
She said she was thrilled that the large response to the petition was now a matter of official record.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
12 hours ago
- RNZ News
Can a partner claim part of my house if we never lived together?
RNZ's money correspondent Susan Edmunds answers your questions. Photo: RNZ Send your questions to I recently separated and managed to buy the house and own it myself with a mortgage ... I have been seeing someone that I don't plan to live with. So my question is if you have a relationship with someone for a length of time that you don't live with or share bills with do I need to protect myself with a prenuptial agreement? When does the relationship need to have documentation of what I own and never want to share? People normally think of relationship property issues arising when a couple lives together but you can sometimes be captured even if you're living apart. Victoria University law professor Nicola Peart said this question came down to whether a relationship would qualify as 'de facto' . She pointed to the Property Relationships Act, which sets out a definition of a de facto relationship. But she said none of the criteria were essential to decide that someone was in such a relationships. The act says that the things taken into account include the nature of the relationship, the extent of common residence, whether you have a sexual relationship, the amount of financial interdependence between the parties, the ownership and use of property, the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life, the performance of household duties and the public aspects of the relationship, as well as the care of children. So it's possible you could tick off those factors while still maintaining separate homes. "Not living in the same house or not sharing finances does not exclude the possibility that a de facto relationship exists. If in doubt, contract out to preserve separate property ," Peart said. My partner of 11yrs received his inheritance last September. Just wondering if I'm entitled to any of it ... we split up just five weeks ago due to an argument. It sort of depends what he did with it when he received it. If it went into a joint bank account you both contribute to and pay bills from, or into a mortgage on your family home, for example, then it's likely to have become relationship property and you would be entitled to a share of it. But if he has kept it separate, you might not be. This would be a good thing to talk to a lawyer about as you work through your separation agreements. If property investors are making a loss, can't they still get something back on taxes? Through a rebate scheme? I thought I heard something about that. It used to be the case that property investors who made a loss on their rental investments could offset that against their other sources of income, such as the salary and wages they received from their job. That would reduce the tax they paid and sometimes meant they got a tax refund at the end of the year. That ended when "residential loss ring fencing" rules were introduced in 2019. "Broadly, these rules quarantine any losses from residential property so they can only be offset against profits from residential property, either carried forward to a future year or offset against other properties in a portfolio. There are some minor exceptions to these rules, for example for property which is or will be taxed on sale, and a property that is also a person's main home," said Robyn Walker, a tax partner at Deloitte. What you might have heard about recently is the reintroduction of interest deductibility. From 2021, investors' ability to include interest payments in their calculation of property profits was phased out. That's returned now, which will usually reduce their tax bills. Walker said another thing you might be thinking of is the Investment Boost policy. "This allows a 20 percent deduction for the cost of new assets which are used for business purposes on or after 22 May 2025. There are some restrictions on this as it does not apply to residential property or improvements to residential property. This restriction covers the building itself, it's possible that Investment Boost can apply to other assets which are included in a residential property but are not part of the property itself - separately identifiable chattels like a fridge. Again, any deductions available under the Investment Boost are also subject to the ring fencing rules." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Alternative Alert System ‘Mothballed' Despite Benefits
Article – RNZ The founder of an alternative alert framework says officials never gave it a look-in when they were setting up the under-fire Emergency Mobile Alert system. The founder of an alternative emergency alert framework says officials never gave it a look-in when they were setting up the under-fire Emergency Mobile Alert system. And he reckons his was better, proving its worth during the aftermath of the Christchurch quakes. The National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) is investigating glitches in the current system following the magnitude 8.8 earthquake off Russia on Wednesday. Some Kiwis say they received up to 50 alerts, while some did not receive any at all. Matthew Nolan founded an alternative system, Readynet, which was used during the Christchurch Earthquakes and to mobilise volunteers cleaning up the Rena oil spill. 'I think that the NEMA system – which costs them the best part of $20 million – has miscued for them, and it's certainly not the first time,' he told Morning Report on Friday. 'There is a record of it waking people up at night for messages that were text messages only, and as well as circumstances where people did not get the alert that they should have got.' NEMA spokesperson John Price told Checkpoint on Thursday there were many reasons for the differences. 'It could be different providers and different cell towers. There's a lot of possibilities, but this is something we're working through. We'll look into it, absolutely.' Nolan criticised the NEMA system as being 'one-way' only, and unable to tell if people had actually received the message as no information was sent back. 'Whereas other systems and a better system, and yes, our system was interactive, and we could see where the messages had been received. 'So for example, you send a message out into an area where there's a big river and cell towers have been wiped out. Our system would tell you that all the people in that river have not received the message – all the people in that river valley have not received the message. You can deduct from that, that in fact, the cell phone towers are out.' He claimed the Emergency Mobile Alert system 'can't target messages'. 'It's a modern equivalent of a World War 2 fire siren. It alerts people that something's happening and it gives them a brief message, but it can't target messages. 'So for example… people in Upper Hutt got no message. In Lower Hutt, lots of people got the message. So, you know, why is there a difference between one area and another?' According to the NEMA website, the current system can 'broadcast to all capable phones from targeted cell towers to areas affected by serious hazards'. 'You may not receive an alert if you are out of mobile coverage, mobile phone towers are damaged, or there is a power outage.' Price said the variation in coverage 'could be different providers and different cell towers, there's a lot of possibilities'. Nolan suggested the system was not working as well as it could because it was now owned by 'a banking conglomerate out of New York'. New Zealand's system was provided by Dutch company one2many, which is now a division of Everbridge Public Warning, an American software company that specialises in alert systems. 'Now, those sorts of companies are chasing the big markets, the multi-million markets, and I think New Zealand is a very small end of that market,' Nolan said. 'There is no office of that organisation in Wellington to work alongside emergency services in New Zealand… 'I think that a New Zealand-owned, developed, supported, helpdesked system is the best, and that's what we had built, and our system is now mothballed.' He said he asked officials to look at using Readynet for the national system, but 'they never ever fully examined what we had, even though it was used during Christchurch to communicate after the Christchurch earthquake, to communicate with all the residents and contractors left inside the cordons. 'And that was, information such as, well, 'The cordon will be open on the corner of such and such street at four o'clock this afternoon to allow people in and out for shopping there.' That's the sort of stuff you can't put on Facebook.' As of Friday morning, a tsunami advisory remained in place. Pacific nations emerged relatively unscathed.
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
Warning after three injured trying to sort fires in Dunedin homes
Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly Three people have been badly injured in separate attempts to remove a burning mattress, dryer and pot of oil from their Dunedin homes. Fire and Emergency said they were lucky not to have been killed by the fires in recent weeks, with one person asleep in a house without working smoke alarms. Otago risk reduction advisor Matt Jones said people should not try to deal with fires themselves. "These people have sustained serious injuries, but we were fortunate to not be responding to fatal fires," he said. "Let this be a reminder to people that if a fire is bigger than a football, then you can't put it out. You must get out and stay out. That means closing the door to the room if safe to do so, getting everyone out of the house and calling 111. Let the firefighters do their job and put the fire out safely." Jones said the mattress fire was caused by a vape's battery overheating while charging on a bed. "That caused a very intense, hot fire inside the mattress," he said. "The person attempted to remove the mattress three times, but this put themselves and others in danger, not only from the fire, but from the toxic smoke being emitted. "Everything in that house can be replaced, except for the people inside. People should never risk their lives to save their property - it's just not worth it." The home did not have working smoke alarms, Jones said. "It was just fortunate the person arrived home when they did as there was another person asleep inside the house at the time," he said. FENZ recommended having working smoke alarms in all bedrooms, hallways and living areas and a three-step escape plan.
