Dog attacks keep happening in NZ. Why hasn’t the law kept up?

In February of this year, the media in New Zealand both captivated and horrified the public with sensational stories of dog attacks.

That line could have been written last week. It wasn’t. It appeared in an article in the New Zealand Law Journal more than two decades ago.

The recent attacks that led to the death of a woman in Northland and left a father and son critically injured in Christchurch have once again forced dog control into the national conversation. But the sense of déjà vu is hard to ignore.

Writing in that article back in 2003, legal scholar Jill Jones was responding to a similar spate of attacks and the government’s proposed amendments to the Dog Control Act 1996.

Those changes were touted at the time as “significant and comprehensive”. In reality, they focused narrowly on banning the importation of particular breeds and introducing new classifications of “menacing” dogs.

The legislation was enacted within months, despite concerns it would do little to reduce attacks and risked becoming kneejerk lawmaking: a response to moral panic rather than to the underlying causes of the problem.

Reform in name, not in effect

Ultimately, the concerns were well founded. The legislation did little to solve the problem of dog attacks. In fact, a 2022 study published in the New Zealand Medical Journal showed that the problem has got steadily worse.

Those researchers identified “a nearly eight-fold increase in the risk of hospitalisation from a dog bite injury compared to forty years ago, with an incidence of 1.7 per 100,000 in 1979 rising to 13.4 per 100,000 in 2018/19”.

They also note that “this increase has come about despite regional attempts by each territorial authority at addressing this worsening problem”.

Thus, stories with sensational headlines such as “Deadly surge: Councils warn more deaths likely under weak dog laws” need to be read in context.

Despite the recent interest by news media – and the moral panic it might provoke – the awful attacks that occurred earlier this year are not out of the norm: this is a persistent issue. The public’s worry and its demands to address the problem are also entirely justifiable.

Soothing that worry will require much more emotional responses from politicians calling the owners of dogs who attack “feral” and “degenerate” and calling for stricter punishments.

Local Government Minister Simon Watts, who is in charge of the issue, has stated that “overhauling the Dog Control Act is not something that we have capacity for this term”. That raises the prospect that any short-term action will once again take the form of piecemeal, regional and ultimately ineffective responses.

Already, some local authorities have begun reviewing their bylaws in response to the media focus and public concern it has generated. However, no efforts are underway to develop a national solution.

From punishment to prevention

If the government is serious about reducing dog attacks, it would need to engage with expert advice and consider major reform.

The Dog Control Act turns 30 this year. While it has been amended over time, its core structure remains largely unchanged. Experts have long questioned its effectiveness and whether its decentralised design – which delegates the responsibility for dog control to local authorities – is still fit for purpose in addressing today’s patterns of dog ownership and harm.

This is one reason why the SPCA last week wrote an open letter to parliament calling for, among other things, a “comprehensive overhaul” of the act that would “replace outdated breed-specific provisions with evidence-based, nationally consistent risk management tools focused on individual dog behaviour and responsible ownership”.

Current legislation requires all councils to have the basics – such as a registration system and dog control officers – but leaves the details of implementing dog control policy to each individual council.

This explains the extreme regional variation in fees, educational programmes and enforcement. The 2022 study found a “seven-fold difference in the incidence of dog bites between territorial authorities with the highest and lowest rates of dog-bite injury”.

Another report found Invercargill has five times the number of prosecutions compared to Wellington, despite similar levels of registered dogs and reported attacks.

With an estimated 830,000 dogs in New Zealand, many people have important relationships with them, whether they be companions or colleagues.

There is a need for thoughtful, evidence-based policymaking that reflects the place of dogs in society and the nature of human–dog relationships. It should also consider which regulatory systems – including overseas models – have been shown to reduce harm.

Addressing the issue effectively requires national coordination and long-term planning, rather than inconsistent regional responses or short-term measures aimed primarily at easing political pressure. Any reform should focus on preventing attacks, not simply responding to them after the fact.

Progress on that work is overdue, given the harm experienced by victims and the broader responsibility to ensure safe and responsible dog ownership.

Marcelo Rodriguez Ferrere is the President of the New Zealand Animal Law Association, a coalition of lawyers, law students and law graduates working together to improve the welfare and lives of animals through the legal system in New Zealand.