Governing in the Dark: The State's Refusal to Track Dog Attacks

By ozgur , 8 July 2025
A bar chart showing rising dog attacks, with the final data point missing and replaced by a red question mark, symbolizing a lack of government data.
Disclaimer: This article contains a factual account of the author's direct experience with state government departments. It is for educational and advocacy purposes only.

From a Local Failure to a State-Wide Problem

Following the closure of our local council's failed investigation, it became clear that the problem was bigger than one council. The core issues—flawed laws, a lack of accountability, and a system that protects irresponsible owners—are written at the state level.

To address these systemic failures, we began a formal dialogue with the two key government bodies responsible:

  • Agriculture Victoria (AV): The department in charge of the Domestic Animals Act 1994.
  • Local Government Victoria (LGV): The department responsible for overseeing the 79 local councils that enforce the Act.

Our primary question was simple: To understand and fix this problem, you must first measure it. Who is responsible for collecting and publishing statewide dog attack statistics?

The answers we received were a stunning admission of systemic neglect.

Agriculture Victoria: "Considering" Action After 30 Years

Our correspondence with a Senior Policy Analyst at Animal Welfare Victoria (a sub-department of AV) revealed a shocking fact. Despite the Domestic Animals Act being in place for over three decades, the department in charge of it has never implemented a proper system for tracking the very incidents it is supposed to prevent.

After persistent questioning, the department admitted in an email dated 2 May 2025:

"Collecting more detailed information from councils is something we are considering as part of possible future reforms."

"Considering" is not good enough. For 30 years, the department has been amending legislation, advising ministers, and overseeing a critical public safety framework while remaining willfully blind to its real-world outcomes.

Local Government Victoria: A Direct Refusal to Govern

If the department in charge of the law won't collect the data, surely the department in charge of the enforcers (the councils) would see it as their duty. We put this question to Local Government Victoria.

Their formal response, in a letter dated 8 July 2025 [Note: We will need to adjust this date if the article is dated June 6th], was a masterclass in bureaucratic abdication:

"the role of Local Government Victoria is to provide policy advice, oversee legislation and work with councils to support responsive and accountable local government services. Therefore, Local Government Victoria’s role does not extend to collecting information about the number of dog attacks in Victoria."

This statement is a fundamental contradiction. It is impossible to support "responsive and accountable" council services while refusing to measure the outcomes of one of their most critical public safety functions.

A Deliberate Choice to Remain Ignorant

The conclusion is inescapable. The lack of data on dog attacks in Victoria is not an oversight; it is a choice.

This deliberate data black hole serves a clear purpose: it protects the government from accountability. Without official statistics to show a rising trend of attacks or the failure of current laws, there is no public pressure to act. The problem remains invisible, and the suffering of victims remains uncounted.

This is not just poor administration; it is a profound failure of public governance.