Ian Hassall: Redress at last for some of society’s most needy

In January 2003 a dog attacked Carolina Anderson in a public park, causing serious injuries to her face and an eye. Erana Jamieson in her dialogue piece last Monday called the public reaction to the attack a case of moral panic.

She suggested the consequent changes to the Dog Control Act 1996 went further than was warranted, that attacks by dogs on children were a relatively minor problem, and that a programme of education of the public and children in schools about how to avoid such attacks would have been a more appropriate response.
By what process are laws that protect marginalised citizens brought into being if not by the process of moral panic Jamieson describes?

In our tradition of liberal democracy we do not like the power of the state to be used to place limits on individual freedom. Nevertheless, we accept the role of the state in limiting the freedom of one group to protect the freedom of another. There is a balance of rights, with the balance being properly tilted in the favour of the innocent party going about their business and against the person who introduces the threat.

Laws limiting the freedom of drivers are a response to their potential to injure and kill. The case for limiting the freedom of dog owners rests on a similar argument. The difference is one of the scale of likely harm. The principle is the same.

So, does the level of harm from dog attacks warrant state intervention? The attack on Carolina did not warrant intervention, perhaps, if it were a one-off. It wasn't.

The Injury Prevention Research Unit at the University of Otago reviewed the statistics in 1992 and estimated there were 5710 incidents of dog bite injury requiring medical treatment in New Zealand each year. Thirty-five per cent of the attacks were in a public place. A high proportion of the victims were children.

The Injury Prevention Research Centre at the University of Auckland found that 39 per cent of the 2375 people presenting to a hospital emergency department for dog bite injury between 1993 and 2001 were under 10 years of age. Most of these were aged under 5.

In a study in Victoria, Australia, dog bite injuries to 1- to 4-year-olds severe enough to require hospitalisation were found to have occurred at an annual rate of 42 per 100,000 population, while the rate for motor vehicle occupant injuries was 25 per 100,000.

The conclusion is that dog bite injuries requiring medical care are common and are mainly a problem for children. While most of the attacks are by the family dog and on the family's property, a significant number are not.

Injuries on this scale warrant intervention, I believe. What intervention is permissible and likely to be effective? Education of the public and of preschool and school children, as proposed by Jamieson, seems the best option for preventing attacks by the family dog. The role of legislation in this case may be at the far end of the scale, where a few parents might demand prosecution for negligence.

A significant minority of dog attacks are by strange dogs in public places and it is these that justify the recent law changes, which aim to allow children and their families the freedom to walk in the park without fear of attack. This is surely their right, independent of their amenability to education on how to deal with dogs.

What of the wave of public concern over dog attacks on children that Erana Jamieson has called moral panic? The label implies that concern and scale of remedy were unjustified.

This does a disservice to children and misunderstands the process by which policy related to them and other relatively voiceless population groups is made.

Public policy on children moves in fits and starts. Public interest is not easily roused or sustained. It has been a long haul to get measures that respond to violence in the home towards children. Likewise with child poverty.

Why is this? In the competition for public and political attention, children are at a disadvantage. They are not a constituency that buys newspapers or products advertised in the media. Nor do they vote.

For many years dog attacks have been significant in the numbers of children affected and the seriousness of the attacks. The last time the issue was raised was 14 years ago when Parliament had the opportunity to stop dangerous breeds of dogs from being imported into New Zealand and to impose sensible limits on the freedom of dogs in public places.

The opportunity lapsed because of the typically rapid submergence of the issue once it was clear that children were the principal victims.

Erana Jamieson refers to a 2002 New Zealand survey in which residents were asked to say what made their neighbourhood unsafe. Strangers were apparently considered to be much more of a threat than dogs. Does this mean that dog attacks are unimportant and that restrictions should not be placed on dogs? No.

It underlines that bursts of moral panic may be the ordinary way in which movement occurs in public policy matters that affect submerged population groups.

The media are often criticised for getting things out of proportion but in this case what some call moral panic others might be inclined to call redress at last and be thankful to the media for their watchdog role.

* Ian Hassall is Senior Researcher at the Institute of Public Policy, AUT