“We simply lack sufficient enforcement capabilities. We don't have an Enabling Act, such as a Freedom Camping Act, or Dog Control Act which prescribes particular powers.”
The report presented to councillors at the meeting further highlighted the issue.
“Staff noted the difficulties presented by the lack of infringement authority, instead relying on engagement and education to drive compliance,” the report read.
Council chief of strategy and science Joanna Noble said bylaws made solely under the Local Government Act 2002 did not have an infringement authority because the legislation simply did not provide for it.
Ms Noble explained that enabling legislation was additional legislation put in by central government that allowed councils to issue infringement notices under a given set of conditions.
“Councils can prosecute. However, that is usually disproportionate to the offence and of course is very costly and time-consuming,” Ms Noble said.
“For example, our current bylaws for keeping of animals, trade waste, reserves and public places have this limitation.”
The Freedom Camping Act 2011, dog control, alcohol control and traffic and parking bylaws were all examples where the council or police could issue infringements because of enabling legislation.
During the September 8 meeting, councillor Andy Cranston asked if a graph presented in the report suggested the bylaw had been effective in driving down animal issues.
Mr Gilmore said it was hard to quantify the bylaw's effectiveness.
“It's very hard to tell if the bylaw is having the desired effect or not. This suggests it may not be. And it's still the only available tool for council to achieve its purposes.”
The Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw 2012 does not apply to the regulation of dogs or stock control on roads, which are controlled by other bylaws.
It includes general animal nuisance clauses and specific control of poultry, stock, bees and pigs.
In the past 10 years, the council has received 1541 animal nuisance-related requests.
The animals most complained about over that time were roosters and chickens, which accounted for 32 percent of complaints.
Rats, mice and vermin accounted for 19 percent, and bees and pigs 13 percent each.
In order to review the bylaw, the council had to determine whether it was the most appropriate way of dealing with the perceived problem.
The council moved the recommendation to determine a bylaw was the most appropriate way of addressing issues arising from the keeping of animals, poultry and bees in Tairāwhiti, and approved the review of the existing bylaw.
