LOCAL
A CITY WORTH BELIEVING IN LONG-OVERDUE DOG CONTROL REFORM MEET THE TEAM
COULD COUNCILS SOON AUTHORISE KILLING WILDLIFE?
Nathan Speir
Brandon Watts and Cordelia Woodhouse
David Collins
Jayne Wiltshire
Long-overdue Dog Control Reform:
Is it finally on the horizon?
In this article, Partner David Collins covers the Government's announced review of the Dog Control Act 1996, exploring the current framework's shortcomings and what meaningful reform could look like if the opportunity is taken
Following several fatal dog attacks and increasing calls for reform from local authorities and other stakeholders, the Government has confirmed that a comprehensive review of the Dog Control Act 1996 will commence ahead of the November 2026 general election.
In a joint ministerial press release, Local Government Minister Simon Watts stated:
“We have heard clearly from Local Government New Zealand and councils that the Dog Control Act is outdated and is preventing them from doing their jobs effectively This is putting unnecessary strain on resources and the wider system. That’s why the Government has ordered a comprehensive review of the Dog Control Act to ensure the law empowers councils to keep communities safe ”
MOMENTUM FOR REFORM
Historically, reform of dog control legislation has been raised intermittently but remained a low priority for successive governments Momentum for change has now grown, driven in part by a detailed proposal developed by the Auckland Council Regulatory and Safety Committee and submitted to the Department of Internal Affairs in July 2025
While the legislative timeline and scope of the review have yet to be finalised, early indications suggest that the bill will include sensible changes, such as:
removing provisions that create barriers or place unnecessary resource pressure on councils; strengthening penalties and consequences for noncompliant dog owners; and introducing desexing obligations alongside enhanced enforcement powers for council officers.
These proposed reforms appear to align closely with the changes advocated by Auckland Council, suggesting that its earlier efforts may have paid off.
WHERE THE CURRENT FRAMEWORK FALLS
SHORT
In advising local authorities, we frequently see the challenges councils face in trying to achieve common-sense prevention and
public safety outcomes using the tools currently available under the Dog Control Act 1996 Importantly, these enforcement mechanisms are not directed at the vast majority of responsible dog owners – some of whom become victims of dog attacks
Rather, the difficulty lies in the fact that several of the existing tools are no longer fit for purpose In some cases, they are too weak or too narrowly framed to address the underlying issue or to have a meaningful preventative impact
As one example, the maximum penalty for breaching a courtissued destruction order is a fine of $3,000. This provides little deterrent for an offender determined to retain or rehome a dangerous dog, potentially exposing the community to further harm Similar deficiencies arise in other areas, including seizure processes, enforcement powers, and desexing requirements. In addition, the Act itself is dated in both structure and language Its provisions are at times inconsistent or unclear, contributing to a significant amount of litigation in the appellate courts Modernisation into a clearer, plain English format would significantly improve its usability and effectiveness
Alongside legislative reform, the Government has also signalled an intention to update enforcement guidelines to provide greater clarity for councils on appropriate responses and available tools Police Minister Mark Mitchell has further indicated that Police support will be available in situations involving high-risk dogs, or where an escort is required to ensure council staff can carry out their duties safely These operational measures are also likely to be welcomed by local authorities
FROM REACTION TO PREVENTION
To be effective, the review will need to move beyond incremental change and grapple with some of the structural limitations of the Dog Control Act 1996 A key issue is that the current regime is largely reactive Many of the Act’s most effective tools, such as classification of dogs as dangerous or menacing, or the pursuit of destruction orders, are typically engaged only after harm has occurred While these mechanisms remain important, they do little to assist councils in intervening earlier, when warning signs first emerge
Reform presents an opportunity to recalibrate the framework toward prevention, enabling earlier and more proportionate intervention in response to escalating risk For example, the clearer statutory authority to impose enforceable conditions on ownership, such as mandatory fencing standards, containment requirements, or compulsory training, could allow councils to address problematic behaviour before it results in serious injury Similarly, enabling councils to desex dogs proactively (particularly those repeatedly found roaming or impounded) would directly address one of the drivers of the current problem: the uncontrolled growth of high-risk dog populations
There is also a strong case for improving the evidential and information-gathering framework that underpins enforcement
As noted by Auckland Councillor Josephine Bartley in a recent NZ Herald article, councils are often responding to issues without a complete picture of the scale or frequency of harm. Introducing mandatory reporting obligations for dog attack injuries – particularly through hospitals and primary care providers – would significantly strengthen the data available to regulators and policymakers. In turn, this would support more targeted interventions and better resource allocation
Any expansion of enforcement powers will necessarily raise questions about proportionality and procedural fairness. The vast majority of dog owners are responsible, and reforms must continue to recognise that enforcement action is appropriately directed at a relatively small cohort of high-risk owners and dogs. This places a premium on ensuring that new powers are clearly defined and accompanied by appropriate safeguards
For instance, if councils are to be given broader powers of seizure or longer detention periods, the statutory thresholds for exercising those powers must be carefully calibrated, and decision-making processes must be robust and transparent This is particularly important given the existing level of itigation under the Act, where ambiguities in drafting have contributed to inconsistent interpretation and outcomes in the courts
Modernising the Act into clearer, more accessible language would go some way toward addressing these issues. A more coherent structure, with simplified definitions and aligned thresholds across different enforcement tools, would not only assist council officers but also improve understanding and compliance among dog owners.
The experience in Auckland illustrates the operational reality. Even relatively well-resourced authorities are under significant pressure, with record impoundments, increasing call volumes, and the growing complexity of cases all pointing to a system that is stretched. Continued investment in capability particularly training for Animal Control officers in evidence gathering, risk assessment, and decision-making will be essential if enhanced statutory powers are to translate into improved outcomes in practice.
A CRITICAL OPPORTUNITY FOR REFORM
The convergence of political attention, stakeholder alignment, and public concern suggests that this review may represent the most significant opportunity for reform in decades As noted by Simon Watts, there is now clear recognition that the current framework is not adequately supporting councils to perform their role
The challenge will be to maintain that momentum, particularly in the lead-up to the 2026 general election The issues identified by councils are not new, nor are they isolated They reflect systemic limitations that have developed over many years
If this opportunity is taken, the review has the potential not only to modernise the Dog Control Act 1996, but to materially reduce the risk of serious harm in communities across New Zealand
GET IN TOUCH
For more information on the current Dog Control Act or on the potential reform, reach out to David Collins.
A city worth believing in
In this article, Partner Nathan Speir reflects on Tauranga's city centre transformation and why the best is yet to come
Stand at the corner of Willow and Wharf Streets on a Friday afternoon and you'll notice something that was severely lacking five years ago. People. Families. Workers grabbing a coffee before heading to the waterfront. It's not the finished product – not yet – but if you know what this place looked like in 2021, the difference is striking.
For the past three years, I've had the privilege of serving as a director on the board of Te Manawataki o Te Papa Limited, the CCO overseeing the delivery of Tauranga's civic precinct redevelopment. My term concludes in April, where I've chosen not to seek reappointment – not because the work is done, but because I want to refocus my energy on helping Tauranga City Council bounce back from recent weather-related events Before I step away from the boardroom, I wanted to share some thoughts on what I've seen – and more importantly, what I think is coming
A CITY THAT DECIDED TO INVEST IN ITSELF
The story of Tauranga's CBD over the past decade has been told many times, and not always kindly For years, the city centre was in decline. Foot traffic dropped. Shops emptied. The perception took hold that there was simply no reason to visit
Tauranga City Council changed that trajectory They made a deliberate choice to invest – meaningfully and at scale – in the heart of the city Te Manawataki o Te Papa is the centrepiece of that decision: a new library and community hub, a civic whare, and Tauranga's first museum and exhibition centre, all anchored around public green space on land that carries deep significance for mana whenua
But what excites me most isn't any single building It's what is happening around them.
THE WATERFRONT IS ALREADY TRANSFORMING
Walk down to the harbour edge and you'll see it Masonic Park has been beautifully reimagined as the connective tissue between the civic precinct and the waterfront – a genuinely inviting public space that draws people through the city centre rather than around it The waterfront playground has become a magnet for families (one of the perks of the job is that my kids
got to have one of the first plays). The wider waterfront upgrades are creating the kind of public realm that a city of Tauranga's stature has always deserved
These aren't just cosmetic improvements. They represent a fundamental rethinking of how Tauranga's city centre relates to the harbour For decades, the CBD effectively turned its back on one of the most beautiful urban harbours in the country. That's being corrected, and the early results are genuinely impressive
DIVERSITY IS THE KEY
What gives me the most confidence about Tauranga's future is the diversity of what's emerging A successful city centre is never just one thing It's not purely civic, or purely commercial, or purely residential. It's all of those things woven together, creating reasons for different people to show up at different times of the day and week
Tauranga is getting that mix right. The library and community hub (due to open later this year) will bring thousands of daily visitors into the city centre Importantly, they'll be visiting for reasons that have nothing to do with retail: to read, to connect, to attend programmes, to use a dedicated spaces for a variety of members of the community The museum and exhibition centre, due to open in 2028, will add another layer – telling the stories of this place for the first time in a purpose-built facility
The civic whare is, for me, one of the most significant elements of the entire programme It isn't just a new town hall It's a building that exudes the cultural identity of this region and reflects the genuine partnership between Council and mana whenua that underpins the entire precinct The resolution of historical land grievances through the Otamataha Trust and the joint ownership of the land beneath the civic precinct is a model for what reconciliation can look like in practice. It should be celebrated
And then there's the private investment. The foot traffic data is already moving in the right direction – a 35 per cent increase between June and December 2025 That's before the library opens Before the museum opens Before the full waterfront programme is complete. The tide, as they say, is starting to turn.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED FROM THE INSIDE
Sitting around a board table governing a project of this scale teaches you a few things Chief among them: transformative projects are hard They take time They cost money They generate debate, and not all of it comfortable.
But I've also learned that the alternative – doing nothing – is far more expensive Tauranga tried that approach for years and the results spoke for themselves. A declining city centre in one of the fastest-growing regions in the country That was the real cost
What the commissioners started, and what the elected council has continued, is an investment in the future identity of this city. Every great city has a beating heart – a place where the community gathers, where culture lives, where visitors get a sense of who the people are Tauranga is rebuilding that heart right now.
LOOKING AHEAD
By early 2035, Council projections suggest the civic precinct could triple the number of people visiting the city centre –averaging around 5,500 people a day That's two million visits a year Those numbers will underpin the commercial viability of the city centre in a way that no amount of marketing or activation ever could
I'm stepping away from the board, but I'm not stepping away from Tauranga. Through our work here at Meredith Connell, I'll continue to support the Council on the legal and regulatory challenges that come with a city in transformation And there's no shortage of those – from responding to the tragedy that occurred in January 2026, to building consent reform to the broader question of how local government funds and delivers infrastructure in an era of rapid growth
Tauranga's city centre has been through the hard years The disruption, the construction, the empty shops, the scepticism
What I see now, from the inside looking out, is a city that's about to reward the patience and persistence of everyone who backed this vision
If you haven't visited the CBD recently, go. Walk the waterfront. See Masonic Park Watch the library and museum take shape And imagine what it's going to feel like when it's all done
I think you'll be proud – I certainly am.
GET IN TOUCH
To discuss building and construction matters, local government reform, or any of the issues covered in The Local Edge, please contact Nathan Speir
Photo source: Playground Centre
Will RMA reforms give councils the power to authorise killing wildlife?
In this article, Brandon Watts and Cordelia Woodhouse explore the controversy surrounding Clause 128 of the Natural Environment Bill and what it could mean for wildlife protections in New Zealand.
Most native species of birds, bats and lizards, as well as some invertebrates and marine life are protected under the Wildlife Act 1953, meaning they cannot be taken or killed without authorisation (wildlife approval) from the Department of Conservation (DOC). While applications to deliberately harm protected species are uncommon, applications to authorise the accidental destruction of protected species are relatively routine.
For example, electricity distributors that need to protect their power lines by regularly trimming back overhanging trees in areas with bat or lizard populations commonly seek such a wildlife approval The conditions typically require the trimming to be undertaken with the assistance of an ecologist to minimise any harm to the protected species.
Last year the wildlife approval process hit the headlines when the Environmental Law Initiative took DOC and the New Zealand Transport Agency to court over a wildlife approval for the construction of the Mt Messenger Bypass. The High Court ruled that the Wildlife Act, as it then stood, could not be used to authorise the killing of protected species, even accidentally, unless consistent with the Wildlife Act’s protective purpose. This ruling went against DOC’s practices and was swiftly responded to with a legislative fix from Parliament, which inserted new sections 53A to 53C into the Wildlife Act, providing for DOC to authorise the “incidental” killing of wildlife within relatively tight parameters These provisions only enable DOC to grant such an authorisation if it is satisfied that the “overall effect” will be consistent with the protection of wildlife Typically this will be achieved through a combination of measures to minimise harm and environmental improvements to offset any residual adverse effects
The Natural Environment Bill, currently before the Environment Select Committee, rather quietly includes a proposal to bring authorisations under the Wildlife Act into the resource consent process Clause 128 provides that:
“A natural resource permit may include a wildlife approval, which is a lawful authority for an act or omission that would otherwise be an offence under [various sections] of the Wildlife Act 1953 ”
The inclusion of this clause has parallels with the FastTrack Approvals Act 2024 (FTA), which enables fast-track panels to not only grant resource consents, but also other authorisations including wildlife approvals in a “one-stop shop” process. When a wildlife approval is sought under the FTA, the panel is required to receive and consider a report from DOC, take into account a wide range of environmental factors, and then make a decision giving greatest weight to the purpose of the FTA itself, followed by the purpose of the Wildlife Act.
The Natural Environment Bill contains no such process or clarification of priorities. It is not even clear whether wildlife approvals are to fit under the Bill’s permitting framework, or to be considered under the Wildlife Act’s criteria In Andrea Vance’s 2 March 2026 Article in The Post, she reported that the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform Chris Bishop said clause 128 was included as a “placeholder” ahead of the Bill’s introduction and further policy work is underway We certainly hope so as what is proposed is currently unclear
As might be expected, submissions on clause 128 have been varied For example, Electricity Networks Aotearoa has submitted in its favour, viewing the integration of the resource consent and wildlife approval processes as a welcome efficiency On other hand, submissions from environmentally-focussed groups such as the
Environmental Defence Society and Greenpeace are highly critical Their concerns include the watering-down of the Wildlife Act’s criteria, subordination of its purpose to that of the Natural Environment Bill, and the loss of DOC’s expertise and nationwide perspective if the decision-making power on wildlife approvals is transferred to councils.
From our perspective, there is some potential for greater efficiency for applicants if the resource consent and wildlife approval processes are integrated. There is a degree of overlap between the RMA’s concerns for effects on native fauna and the Wildlife Act’s concern for protected species, which could potentially benefit from restructuring. However if the power to grant wildlife approvals is to be given to councils, then the legislation needs to provide a clear framework and ideally a procedure for DOC’s input, as is the case under the FTA In the absence of DOC’s input, it seems inevitable that councils will need to lean on external reports and peer reviews, which may well result in increased overall costs for applicants
We will be watching this space closely when the Select Committee report emerges
GET IN TOUCH
The reform process is being closely followed by our Local Government team If you would like to discuss any of the changes implemented through the Planning Bill, or to discuss how the broader RMA reforms may influence you, please contact Simon Rickit, Brandon Watts or Cordelia Woodhouse
Meet the team: Jayne Wiltshire
Each month we’ll spotlight a member of the Meredith Connell team, so you can get to know the people behind our Local Government practice
This month, we introduce Jayne Wiltshire, a Senior Associate in the Local Government team.
Jayne is one of those lawyers clients come back to Thoughtful, precise and quietly tenacious, she takes the time to understand a problem properly before she tackles it, and has spent nearly 20 years building a practice that local authorities and government agencies trust for some of their most complex property and legal challenges
Jayne comes from a family of lawyers having studied at the University of Auckland, with a semester at the University of Nottingham along the way.
She began her career working for an Auckland firm for several years before heading to London, blending her love of travel with work, and then making her way back to Auckland and joining MC. She has now been with the firm for 13 years, working her way up from Solicitor to Senior Associate. It's a track record that reflects exactly the kind of lawyer she is: steady, dependable and someone clients know they can count on
Much of Jayne's work sits at the intersection of property law and local government In practice, that means helping councils navigate the messier end of property The transactions that don't fit neatly into a template, the infrastructure projects with competing interests, the civic landholdings that come with complicated histories
She has worked closely with councils on everything from services easements to major land disposals, and brings particular depth to how property law intersects with local government legislation more broadly
Jayne has also acted for the Criminal Proceeds Management Unit of MBIE on the management and sale of assets forfeited under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, work that demands precision and care in equal measure.
She puts her longevity at MC down to the way the team operates "You can turn your hand to pretty much anything that grabs your attention" she says After 13 years with MC, that variety is clearly still part of the appeal
Outside of work, Jayne recently completed the Rakiura Track on Stewart Island, a three-day, two-night tramp through one of New Zealand's more remote great walks No kiwi sightings, but Stewart Island has a way of making up for it with its taiao.
GET IN TOUCH
Based in our Auckland office, Jayne supports various local government clients across New Zealand For any questions, don’t hesitate to reach out
