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

The new guidelines replace earlier guidance from 2009 and 2015. They are meant to help councils use the tools already available under the Act, encourage responsible dog ownership, and respond well when problems arise, RNZ reports.

A key change is standardised reporting across councils to improve data collection on dog control issues. That reporting is not compulsory yet. Watts has said whether it becomes mandatory is being considered as part of the wider law review.

Watts wants legislative recommendations by the end of this year and an updated Dog Control Act in place next year. Options on the table include stronger penalties for irresponsible owners and more powers for council officers to deal with threatening animals.

ACC recorded more than 14,000 claims related to dog bites and attacks in 2025, according to RNZ. That figure gives the Government a concrete measure of the problem.

The Dog Control Act 1996 received royal assent on 2 May 1996. Cabinet material related to changes 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 dogs classified as menacing breeds, and changes to it have been a recurring point of disagreement between central and local government.

Auckland Council called for an overhaul of the Dog Control Act, saying current laws lack the power to stop roaming dogs and protect the public, LawNews reported in October 2025. That call came before the Government ordered its review in March.

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

The standardised reporting element is the piece most likely to have lasting impact, even as a voluntary measure. Council dog control data has historically been inconsistent across the country's territorial authorities, making national-level policy difficult to develop. 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, likely sharpening future decisions on classification and enforcement.

For councils, the immediate practical effect is limited. The guidelines clarify how existing powers should be applied but do not create new ones. Auckland Council's complaint that it lacks the tools to deal with roaming dogs will not be resolved by guidance alone; it needs a law 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 number to point to when justifying tougher measures. Whether that leads to meaningful reform will depend on what the review recommends and what Cabinet adopts, but the baseline data and the political pressure are both now in place.