Local Government Minister Simon Watts has released updated Dog Control Act guidelines, the first phase of a comprehensive review of the Act ordered in March.

The new guidelines replace guidance originally developed in 2009 and supplemented in 2015. They are intended to help councils make full use of existing tools under the Act, promote responsible dog ownership, and respond effectively when problems arise, RNZ reports.

A key feature is standardised reporting across councils to improve data collection on dog control issues. That reporting is not yet mandatory. Watts has indicated whether it will become mandatory is being considered as part of the legislation review.

Watts stated the aim is to have legislative recommendations by the end of this year and an updated Dog Control Act in place next year. Stronger penalties for irresponsible owners and more powers for council officers to deal with threatening animals are among the options on the table in the review.

The scale of the problem is measurable. ACC recorded more than 14,000 claims related to dog bites and attacks in 2025, according to RNZ.

The Dog Control Act 1996 received royal assent on 2 May 1996. Cabinet material related to amendments to Schedule 5 of the Act was proactively released by the Department of Internal Affairs on 7 February 2025, DIA records show. Schedule 5 lists the dogs classified as menacing breeds, and changes to it have been a recurring point of contention between central and local government.

Local government pressure has been a factor. Auckland Council called for an overhaul of the Dog Control Act, stating current laws lack power to stop roaming dogs and protect the public, LawNews reported in October 2025. That call came before the Government ordered its comprehensive review in March.

The two-stage approach Watts has outlined is worth noting for what it signals about the Government's preferred method. Updated non-statutory guidance takes effect now, giving councils clearer direction on using powers already available to them under the 1996 Act. The heavier lifting, including any changes to penalties, classification regimes, and enforcement powers, is deferred to the legislative phase. That sequencing lets the Government claim early action while leaving the more politically sensitive decisions, such as tougher penalties or breed-specific measures, for later.

The standardised reporting element is the piece most likely to have lasting structural impact, even in its current voluntary form. Council dog control data has historically been inconsistent across territorial authorities, making national-level policy development difficult. If the review eventually makes standardised reporting mandatory, it would give the Ministry for the Environment and DIA a dataset comparable across councils for the first time, and would likely sharpen future policy decisions on classification and enforcement.

For councils, the immediate practical effect is limited. The guidelines clarify how existing powers should be applied, but they do not create new ones. Auckland Council's complaint that it lacks the statutory tools to deal with roaming dogs will not be resolved by guidance alone; it requires legislative change. The timeline Watts has set, with recommendations by year's end and legislation next year, puts any resolution well into 2027.

The 14,000-plus ACC claims for 2025 provide the political impetus. Dog attacks are a visible, measurable harm, and the figure gives Ministers a concrete number to point to when justifying tougher measures. Whether that translates into meaningful reform will depend on what the review recommends and what Cabinet is willing to adopt, but the baseline data and the political pressure are both now established.