Pet Refuge Calls For Urgent Changes Amid Rise In Targeted Violence Against Pets
Charity urges Ministry of Justice to include pets in family violence reporting forms to ensure they arent left defenceless in violent homes.
Following a significant rise in the severity of pet abuse linked to family violence, Pet Refuge is calling for changes to Ministry of Justice Family Violence application and affidavit forms, to ensure victim's pets are recognised and protected through court orders.
In recent months, the charity has provided safety to pets who have suffered extreme abuse, including broken bones, strangulation, burns, and – in one particularly distressing example – a dog who was dragged behind a car resulting in life threatening injuries.
This rise in severity has led to an increase in the need for complex veterinary treatment, with Pet Refuge's vet costs more than doubling over the past two months.
Julie Chapman, founder and CEO of Pet Refuge, says current application and affidavit forms fail to ask victims of family violence about whether their pets are being abused and used as a means of control. As a result their abuse is often missed and their safety left unaddressed.
'Like children, pets are often the silent victims of family violence, used to control and intimidate their families. When pets are deliberately targeted in acts of family violence – as we're seeing more and more – it is important victims know they can seek protection for their pets to prevent further harm,' she says.
'Many victims don't realise they can ask the courts to protect their pets under the Family Violence Act, under this legislation the ill-treatment of household pets is deemed as a form of psychological abuse. The current forms don't prompt them – or their lawyers – to mention pets at risk. Adding a few clear questions could help expose abuse that's too often overlooked.
'We are seeing an increase in the sadistic nature of deliberate, targeted cruelty towards pets in family violence situations. Relatively straightforward changes to the current forms could help protect pets, giving their families more confidence to escape violent situations, knowing their pets will be safe too.'
Pet Refuge is also in discussions with NZ Police about potentially amending family harm reporting forms with a focus on better protecting victims. In many cases, victims may not realise that cruelty towards pets can be part of the abuse they are experiencing. By making it easier for frontline officers to identify and record instances of pet harm, victims can be offered support and receive information about what Pet Refuge offers.
As its June appeal begins, the charity is urging public support for its 'Safe Beds for Pets' programme, where a monthly donation of $25 provides shelter, veterinary treatment, transport, and rehabilitation for pets impacted by family violence.
'Every week, we see pets come through our doors mentally and physically broken – yet despite everything they have been through, so many still wag their tails and crave love and care,' says Julie. 'Pets can be in our care for many months while their families are in refuge or emergency housing, and their rehabilitation and healing takes time, resources, and expert support. With the recent increase in the need for specialist veterinary treatment, more public support is critical.'
To donate to give a pet a safe bed, visit www.petrefuge.org.nz.
About Pet Refuge:
Founded by Dame Julie Chapman and opened in 2021, Pet Refuge removes a major barrier to pets and their families escaping family violence.
We work with NZ Police, Women's Refuge, Shine, and other family violence agencies to assist pets via referrals. We transport pets from around New Zealand to provide a national service for families affected by family violence. The shelter's location is kept confidential to protect the safety of the pets, women and children Pet Refuge supports.
The shelter houses dogs, cats, small pets, and farm animals and has been designed to provide comfort and security. There are no wire cages, and the enclosures have underfloor heating to create a space specially designed to help pets heal. There are play areas with climbing structures, an obstacle course, and beds for lounging in the sun.
Since opening, Pet Refuge has given over 61,000 safe bed nights to more than 658 pets in need.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
3 days ago
- Newsroom
When it's worth waiting for democracy
Undemocratic and a breach of human rights. That's what most experts and officials think of the Government's proposed changes to the electoral law. Last week Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced a suite of changes around who can vote and how they do so. Those include more opportunity for digital enrolment methods and introduce automatic enrolment updates. But the big one is the moving of the enrolment deadline. At the last election, you could rock up on election day, enrol and cast your vote at the same time. But under this bill New Zealanders would have to enrol 13 days before election day to be eligible to vote. Goldsmith says it's to ensure a final election result is achieved sooner but he's being met with fierce critics, including from some within his own party who think the change takes things a step too far. While entities like the Ministry of Justice can, and do, offer advice in the form of policy papers and regulatory impact statements, electoral law expert Graeme Edgeler says the final decision falls on the shoulders of who New Zealanders have elected to represent them – the politicians. 'The Government and the MPs are the ones that are elected, so they get to make the policy calls and argue for them and the opposition, if they want to, gets to argue against them,' he says. Edgeler says the Ministry of Justice had its own suggestions for reducing the number of special votes, for example, automatic enrolment updates. 'So if you tell MSD, 'Here's my new address,' they'll tell the Electoral Commission, 'Hey, this person has updated their address with us'; the Electoral Commission will see person's already enrolled … and so your enrolment should be updated automatically now,' he says. The Government took this suggestion on board, but Edgeler says stopping enrolment 13 days before election day takes things a step further. Goldsmith told RNZ that people don't start coalition negotiations until they know the final outcome. But while it might be a political preference to wait until the special votes are counted, Edgeler says there's nothing legally stopping politicians from starting negotiations as soon as election day finishes. 'The John Key-led National government, when it was first elected, it had its coalition negotiations complete and John Key was sworn in as Prime Minister before the special votes were announced,' he says. Edgeler says that's because the initial count on election night made the result clear, and he thinks that was the case with the last election as well. 'Prime Minister Chris Hipkins came out on election night and said, 'We've lost, we're not going to be the next government,' he says. National, Act and NZ First could have started coalition negotiations that same day if they had wanted to, so Edgeler doesn't think special votes delaying coalition negotiations is a good enough reason to push the enrolment deadline out to 13 days. Newsroom's political editor Laura Walters confirms that waiting until the final result is announced before starting negotiations is the preference of some political leaders. 'Winston Peters, the New Zealand First Leader, he doesn't like to actually start negotiations proper, if you will, until they have that final result back,' she says. Walters says Peters told her advanced enrolment also benefited political parties. 'He said if people don't enrol ahead of that voting period how do they know who they're campaigning to, who their message should be pushed towards,' she says. David Seymour was more blunt in his support of the change, saying only 'dropkicks' enrol on election day. But Walters says those 'dropkicks' include quite a broad sector of society. 'What we do know from Electoral Commission data is that these people tend to be younger, we've also seen a higher proportion of Māori and Pasifika and Asian, but especially Māori,' she says. Walters adds renters and people who move around a lot and forget to update their enrolment details as people who might also be caught out by these changes. Exactly how many people will be impacted by this change is unclear, but if last election is anything to go by, Walters expects the number of people impacted is in the hundreds of thousands. 'There were 450,000 people who registered or enrolled to vote during that advanced voting period and 110,000 people did that on election day,' she says. It's these figures the Attorney-General Judith Collins referred to in her report examining whether or not there was enough justified reason behind the changes to the election law. She ruled that denying voters the political franchise is a 'heavy price' to pay just to have the election result a week or two sooner. Aside from the automatic enrolment update Walters says reaction to the bill has been mostly negative. 'Essentially people are saying nothing should ever be done to suppress or reduce the number of people who are able to vote. Anyone who is eligible to vote, eligible to register to vote, should be given every opportunity to exercise that right. 'Is this worth it? Should the Government and the Electoral Commission be bearing a little bit more administrative cost, a little bit more administrative burden, maybe waiting a little bit longer after the election to get the results, isn't that just the cost of democracy?'
RNZ News
4 days ago
- RNZ News
When it's worth waiting for democracy
Photo: RNZ / Nate McKinnon Undemocratic and a breach of human rights. That is what most experts and officials think of the government's proposed changes to the electoral law. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith last week announced a suite of changes around who can vote and how they do so. Those include more opportunity for digital enrolment methods and introduce automatic enrolment updates. But the big one is the moving of the enrolment deadline. At the last election, you could rock up on election day, enrol and cast your vote at the same time. But under this bill New Zealanders would have to enrol 13 days before election day to be eligible to vote. Goldsmith says it is to ensure a final election result is achieved sooner, but he is being met with fierce critics, including from some within his own party, who think the change takes things a step too far. While entities like the Ministry of Justice can - and do - offer advice in the form of policy papers and regulatory impact statements, electoral law expert Graeme Edgeler says the final decision falls on the shoulders of who New Zealanders have elected to represent them - the politicians. "The government and the MPs are the ones that are elected, so they get to make the policy calls and argue for them and the opposition, if they want to, gets to argue against them," he says. Edgeler says the Ministry of Justice had its own suggestions for reducing the number of special votes, for example, automatic enrolment updates. "So if you tell MSD, 'here's my new address,' they'll tell the Electoral Commission, 'hey, this person has updated their address with us'; the Electoral Commission will see person's already enrolled ... and so your enrolment should be updated automatically now," he says. The government took this suggestion on board, but Edgeler says stopping enrolment 13 days before election day takes things a step further. Goldsmith told RNZ that people do not start coalition negotiations until they know the final outcome . But while it might be a political preference to wait until the special votes are counted, Edgeler says there is nothing legally stopping politicians from starting negotiations as soon as election day finishes. "The John Key-led National government, when it was first elected, it had its coalition negotiations complete and John Key was sworn in as prime minister before the special votes were announced," he says. Edgeler says that is because the initial count on election night made the result clear, and he thinks that was the case with the last election as well. "Prime Minister Chris Hipkins came out on election night and said, 'we've lost, we're not going to be the next government'," he says. National, Act and NZ First could have started coalition negotiations that same day if they had wanted to, so Edgeler does not think special votes delaying coalition negotiations is a good enough reason to push the enrollment deadline out to 13 days. Newsroom political editor Laura Walters confirms that waiting until the final result is announced before starting negotiations is the preference of some political leaders. "Winston Peters, the New Zealand First leader, he doesn't like to actually start negotiations proper, if you will, until they have that final result back," she says. Walters says Peters told her advanced enrollment also benefited political parties. "He said if people don't enroll ahead of that voting period how do they know who they're campaigning to, who their message should be pushed towards," she says. David Seymour was more blunt in his support of the change, saying only "dropkicks" enroll on election day. But Walters says those "dropkicks" include quite a broad sector of society. "What we do know from Electoral Commission data is that these people tend to be younger, we've also seen a higher proportion of Māori and Pasifika and Asian, but especially Māori," she says. Walters adds renters and people who move around a lot and forget to update their enrollment details as people who might also be caught out by these changes. Exactly how many people will be impacted by this change is unclear, but if last election is anything to go by, Walters expects the number of people impacted is in the hundreds of thousands. "There were 450,000 people who registered or enrolled to vote during that advanced voting period and 110,000 people did that on election day," she says. It is these figures which the Attorney General Judith Collins referenced in her report examining whether or not there was enough justified reason behind the changes to the election law. She ruled that denying voters the political franchise is a "heavy price" to pay just to have the election result a week or two sooner. Aside from the automatic enrollment update, Walters says reaction to the bill has been mostly negative. "Essentially people are saying nothing should ever be done to suppress or reduce the number of people who are able to vote. Anyone who is eligible to vote, eligible to register to vote, should be given every opportunity to exercise that right. "Is this worth it? Should the government and the Electoral Commission be bearing a little bit more administrative cost, a little bit more administrative burden, maybe waiting a little bit longer after the election to get the results, isn't that just the cost of democracy?" Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here . You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter .
Newsroom
5 days ago
- Newsroom
Attorney-General rules her own Govt's voting crackdown breaches human rights
Electoral law restrictions announced last week are in breach of the Bill of Rights Act, Attorney-General Judith Collins KC says in a report belatedly disclosed to Parliament. She indicates more than 100,000 people may be directly or indirectly disenfranchised by rules banning enrolment in the final 13 days before an elections. Young people, and areas with larger Māori, Asian and Pasifika communities, are likely to be worst affected. Denying voters the political franchise is a heavy price to pay, she says, when there are alternative, less restrictive measures that could have addressed the same problem of speeding up the vote count. But Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has hit back. 'Allowing late enrolments, however well intentioned, has placed too much strain on the system,' he tells Newsroom. 'I don't accept that we are disenfranchising people by requiring that they are first enrolled. Many countries do this, such as Australia.' Professor Andrew Geddis, at the University of Otago, says the Bill of Rights notice ought to have been attached to the bill when it was presented, according to the wording of section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act. This would have allowed ministers to be asked about it, when the proposal first came out. 'However, it doesn't seem to have been,' he says. 'Instead, it quietly went up on the Ministry of Justice website just in time for the weekend.' 'Heavy price' for administrative convenience In its Regulatory Impact Statement, the Ministry of Justice did not recommend the option of closing enrolment earlier. 'Its impact on reducing special votes is uncertain, while its impact on democratic participation could be significant,' officials said. The Attorney-General's Bill of Rights inconsistency notice goes further, concluding the proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on section 12 of the Bill of Rights Act, which says every New Zealand citizen aged 18-plus has the right to vote in Parliamentary elections. 'The accepted starting-point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy,' she says. 'A compelling justification is required to limit that right.' Citing Electoral Commission and Ministry of Justice data, she says about 3400 people would have their eligibility to vote directly affected by the law change. These include people returning from overseas after being away for an extended time, and people who become New Zealand residents or are released from prison during the registration period. But many more will have their right to vote indirectly affected, by being in effect excluded from the franchise by the practicalities of the operation of a 13-day pre-election registration deadline. There has been an expectation, since 1993, that electors can register as late as the day before polling day, or more recently, on polling day. Indeed, the trend (with accompanying publicity campaigns) has been towards greater flexibility as to when people may register to vote. In the 2023 general election, the special votes included more than 97,000 people who registered for the first time during the voting period, and nearly 134,000 people who changed electoral districts during the voting period. 'This gives some indication of the number of people who may be affected, and the farther out the registration deadline from polling day, the greater the disenfranchising impact is likely to be.' There were other options the Government could have embraced, Collins says, that would impose 'less onerous limits on the right to vote'. For instance, it could have reverted to a deadline of the day before election day (which was the rule from 1993 to 2020) or a deadline of three, five or seven days before polling day. The notice to Parliament also finds the announced law changes breach the rights of sentenced prisoners, by reinstating a ban on them voting. For most of New Zealand's history, sentenced prisoners have been denied the right to vote. In 1975, the Rowling Labour government gave them the vote but that enfranchisement was brief – the National government repealed it two years later. The Electoral Act 1993 allowed for a limited prisoner franchise, though those serving a a sentence of three or more years were excluded. That was repealed in 2010. Then in 2020, the Ardern Labour Government restored prisoners' ability to vote, after jailhouse lawyer Arthur Taylor took a successful case to the Supreme Court. Like the Attorney-General, the court said the ban was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. Goldsmith has now announced it will (again) be repealed. And he isn't wavering, in the face of the Attorney-General's notice. 'Citizenship brings rights and responsibilities,' he says. He rejects the inclusion of prisoners' rights in the Bill of Rights Act. 'People who breach those responsibilities to the extent that they are sentenced to jail temporarily lose some of their rights, including the right to vote.' Speeding up the vote count On the wider matter of when people are allowed to enrol, the law says an eligible voter can enrol right up to and including election day, at any voting place in New Zealand. According to public advice from the Electoral Commission, if people enrol early, then voting will be faster. The commission says that those who enrol before Writ Day (about a month before election day) will have their names on the printed electoral roll at the voting place. They'll also be mailed an EasyVote card, making it faster for the person issuing voting papers to find them on the roll. 'You can still enrol after Writ Day – but you may need to fill in an extra form when you go to vote.' Goldsmith justifies barring people from voting if they don't enrol more than 13 days out from election day, saying it should enable votes to be counted faster. 'The final vote count used to take two weeks – last election it took three,' he says. 'If we leave things as they are, it could likely take even longer. 'If you want to vote, you need to be enrolled. People have a whole year to get organised. I have every confidence New Zealanders can manage.' Ockers and 'drop kicks' Goldsmith says many countries require people to be enrolled before voting. Australia required people to be enrolled 26 days before the last election, and before 2020, New Zealanders were not able to enrol on election day. 'Those people were not disenfranchised, they were simply required to be enrolled. It is not difficult.' However, the Attorney-General points out the High Court of Australia has ruled on a voter registration deadline that departed from previous settings. She endorses that court's comments, that restricting the impact on the franchise of restricting the voter registration period is a 'heavy price'. Delivering a 2010 judgment on behalf of a seven-member panel of the High Court, Chief Justice Robert French had said the heavy price imposed on the constitutional mandate was disproportionate to the benefits of a smoother and more efficient electoral system, to which the amendments were directed. Last week, Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said only 'drop kicks' enrolled late to vote. Goldsmith reiterates his unhappiness with the Act leader's comment. 'I said last week, Mr Seymour's comment was unhelpful. The purpose of the change, and a large number of other changes, is to take pressure off the system, so that the Electoral Commission can do its job effectively and efficiently.'
