Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill

I move, That the Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill be now read a first time. I wish to commend to the House my member’s bill to ban the docking of dogs’ tails for other than medical reasons. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee. This bill would amend the Animal Welfare Bill. During the consideration of the stages of the Animal Welfare Bill in 1999, the Primary Production Committee considered at length a proposal to prohibit the practice of tail docking. The committee was unable to agree on the inclusion of a clause that would have prohibited the docking of dogs’ tails from 1 January 2003. The committee “also considered an alternative approach that would enable the making of an Order in Council to prohibit a specific surgical procedure at a later date.” The committee did not support that approach, as it believed “Parliament is the appropriate body to decide whether any procedure should be prohibited.”, and this bill brings the matter back to Parliament.

In the ensuing 4 years all Australian state legislatures have moved to restrict the tail docking of dogs, as from 1 April 2004. In New Zealand some breeders continue to perform this procedure on pups of breeds commonly docked, often with unfortunate results. The view of the veterinary profession in New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Australia is that there is no justification to continue the practice and that “there is no clear evidence that any kind of benefit associated with tail docking exists that can outweigh the potential harm that can be caused to the animals involved.”

This bill will not prohibit the tail-docking of dogs. It will restrict the procedure to veterinarians, or veterinary science students under supervision of a veterinarian, where the docking of the tail is necessary for the welfare of the animal because the tail has been damaged by injury or disease. A rural vet has informed me that he has had to do this operation only three times in over 20 years of practice. He is required, however, to remove cats’ tails as a result of injury, virtually on a weekly basis.

I remind the House that dog tail-docking has been banned in Australia and was ratified by all states on 1 April this year, which is partly why I have tabled this bill at this time. My bill is supported by the New Zealand Veterinary Association. and the SPCA, New Zealand, and I thank those organisations as well as a good number of kennel club members, dog breeders, and dog owners who support the bill. I also point out to the House that docking was also banned in Switzerland in 1988, Finland in 1992, Israel in 2000, Germany in 1992, Sweden in 1992, Norway in 1987, and is included in the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals. Ray Greer, president of the New Zealand Kennel Club said on Radio New Zealand recently that dog tails are not docked for cosmetic reasons but to prevent injury. There is a problem with this argument, as according to the SPCA, as I have mentioned, cats receive far more tail injuries than dogs, yet we do not customarily dock their tails when they are kittens to prevent these injuries. Those who object to my bill would never dream of customarily cutting off cats’ tails, I am sure.

In regard to the economics of the bill and professional breeders, I have been assured that dogs traditionally docked are not penalised at international dog shows and that breeders therefore would not suffer economic loss. Dr Hugh Worth, president of the Australian RSPCA, noted in his address to this year’s New Zealand SPCA annual conference that since the banning of tail-docking in Australia there have been no instances of dogs shown with tails being penalised by judges because their breed would traditionally have been docked. He emphasised that the ban had brought no negative impact on the dog show industry in Australia. Without doubt, the same would hold true in New Zealand if tail-docking were to be restricted.

By the way, I asked the Parliament Library to do some research on when and how dog tail-docking started. The House of Commons library in the UK informed us that the docking of dogs’ tails goes back to the 1700s, when working dogs’ tails were docked to avoid tax, and that owners of pet dogs perpetuated the practice, also to avoid this tax. The tax was repealed in 1796, but the practice continues as a fashion. However, as the New Zealand Veterinarian Association and the SPCA say, docking tails is cruel not just because of the operation but because for most dogs the tail is the key organ of communication between dogs and a signal to their human owners.

The SPCA is opposed to the surgical mutilation of companion animals for cosmetic, non-veterinary purposes. The society believes that no animals should be surgically mutilated unless there are good veterinary grounds for doing so. This policy is based on sound science that points to tail-docking as being a significant animal welfare issue.

I remind the House that this bill is about dogs’ tails only, and that we have already banned the clipping of ears. Most New Zealanders love dogs. The Animal Welfare Act banned ear-clipping in 1999, and I ask that the House now include tails in the Act. New Zealand’s reputation as a world leader in animal welfare practice will be threatened should this bill not be supported, particularly given that Australia and the UK, among other countries, have moved to restrict tail docking. As the SPCA says, it is patently absurd in today’s enlightened world to allow dogs’ tails to be cut off, simply to satisfy these outmoded and misguided views.

I just advise honourable members that New Zealand First and National have traded places in this debate, as they are able to do, but not times. So the Rt Hon Winston Peters, has 5 minutes.

I thank the National Party for allowing me to take the slot for this call. I say, very briefly, that with all our different and varying ideas in respect of this legislation, New Zealand First’s position is that we would like to see it go to a select committee and to hear the various opinions around this country, expert and otherwise. Having been through that procedure, we will then make up our mind. I just want to put that on the record.

I know that other parties have different views. I know, for example, that United Future is going to vote 4-4—four for the gun lobby and four for the other side of the society.

💬 Gordon Copeland: I don’t think so.

Oh yes, I think it probably will. I want to say that for our part, unless legislation is heinous, wrong, and evil, then we are happy to see it go to a select committee and to take the views of the experts who make submissions as a guide in our deliberations as a caucus. We will decide then, but right now New Zealand First intends to vote unanimously—we will not split our vote—to send this bill to the select committee.

I say to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who has just resumed his seat, that we were happy to yield in order to find out what New Zealand First position’s was and where it might be going. Unlike the member, I have read the explanatory note on the bill, where one can find out that the bill actually went through a full select committee process—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Once, in 1999.

That is correct. In 1999 it went to the Primary Production Committee, which recommended that the bill not proceed. I cannot see any reason why that position should be revisited. Therefore, the National Party will oppose this bill with 27 votes—there is no ambiguity about that. We will not be supporting this bill.

There are a number of reasons for that, and I will spend a moment or two explaining to the House what they are. For a start, the select committee looked at this legislation thoroughly. In 1999 it had a close look at where it should go, and I have not heard anything yet suggesting that the evidence it produced, the work it did, and the submissions it heard have changed, at all. There is no evidence that anything is different, at all. I agree with one of the submitters of the time—who has since written to me and to others who will be on the select committee that the bill will ultimately end up at—who said that the member promoting this bill is barking up the wrong tree. It is not unusual for Labour Party members to be barking up the wrong tree. One submitter went further and said things that were unparliamentary, but we will not mention those now.

The bottom line here is that a group of people in Wellington are saying to people in society—based on no evidence at all that I can find—that the only people who are in a position to have the intelligence to make the decision to carry out a surgical procedure in a humane way, for reasons that have been established over hundreds of years, are veterinary surgeons or their understudies. I just say to the House that I am sure the Veterinary Association will be supporting this legislation, because it would give it a monopoly on something that it does not otherwise have the opportunity to charge for. Vets out there listening should come to the select committee to present their arguments. I have not seen anything yet to suggest they should have a monopoly on being able to charge every dog owner out there a huge fee for something that has been carried out for many, many years.

All members know that this is a Trojan Horse. I ask the member, Dianne Yates, who I know has a close association with the farming industries—and part of her electorate represents a farming area—and the Minister of Agriculture, who will have some knowledge of this as well, where the evidence is of the wrongdoing. Can they stand in this House and say to the farming industries of New Zealand that this is not a Trojan Horse to bring in some back-door legislation that will put pressure on sheep farmers for docking sheep, dairy farmers for docking cows, and horse breeders for docking horses?

In fact, a part of the bill that was not mentioned in the opening comments—as far as I could tell—relates to banning the docking of horses in certain circumstances. Where is the evidence, and why would the idea be entertained just because the member can read out a list of European countries that have decided this is a wrong idea? The reality is that there is no evidence that this is the wrong idea. There is no guarantee that it will not be introduced carte blanche across the whole sector of the agricultural industry.

I say that based on the wording in the explanatory note that the procedure is to be performed on an animal inter alia.That is an interesting term. I am not sure that a hang of a lot of dog owners out there would understand what that means. Basically, in the language of legislation, to the best that I can ascertain, inter alia means that it is a restricted surgical procedure. I have asked a few people and nobody has been able to answer that question. I have not asked the officials. I am sure that if we asked the officials, or even the member who sponsored the bill, what inter alia actually means, it would be very difficult to ascertain clearly what it means.

💬 Sandra Goudie: It means “among other things”.

My colleague has The Concise Oxford Dictionary out, which states that the meaning is “among other things”. Does that not reinforce absolutely the argument that I have just put up, which is that it could mean cow tails, lamb tails, or anything? A number of those who submitted put that argument forward and said: “Why restrict this to dog tails? Why not put it across all animals?”. That demonstrates a huge ignorance of standard farming practices in New Zealand, the history of why they have developed, and the reasons for them.

Have members ever seen a lamb or sheep die from flyblow? Have they ever witnessed it? I ask them to tell me what is humane about that, what causes it, and one of the systems that is used to minimise that. I bet there will be no answers; silence from the other side of the House. The Minister of Agriculture may know—then again, he may not. Some of us in the farming sector know only too well the reasons why that takes place, and why, in some circumstances, cows are docked. Does anybody know why that is done? [Interruption]

I hear the member from Dunedin central, or somewhere like that, interjecting over there and saying that it is inhumane and it is dreadful. I shall tell that member what I think is inhumane. The last time I was in the Octagon in Dunedin, I saw a number of people with German shepherds on leashes. People live in urban areas with dogs that should never be in a restricted environment like that. I am not talking about eye dogs. I am not talking about dogs that have a working purpose. I am talking about family pets. That is absolutely inhumane. Those animals should never be restricted in the way they are. There is an argument. There is my philosophical point of view. The member can sit over there and say that no doggies should have their tails docked, and that it is dreadful and should be banned unless a vet says it is necessary because of some kind of animal welfare issue. That is the reason why, right at the beginning, this silly kind of legislation should never be allowed to proceed. I hope the member from Dunedin will take a call to explain how a practice that has gone on for hundreds of years, for very sensible reasons, has suddenly become so outdated that it is no longer necessary or sensible, but that having dogs in urban area—where, of course, they were not, hundreds of years ago—is OK. How is that OK? Can the member explain to me why that is OK?

Members have seen some of the horrendous examples of what happens when we have the wrong breeds of dogs. The Minister of Local Government, Chris Carter, had to pass special legislation to police some of the problems that are caused by having the wrong breed of dog in the wrong environment. We have seen legislation passed as a result of that. I ask members to tell me what is humane about that. We will not hear that member take a call to try to justify this sort of nonsense, and we will not see anybody in the National Party supporting it.

National will oppose this legislation. I will be interested in listening to those who come forward from the SPCA, and other groups such as that, to put forward their arguments. However, their arguments are weak, flawed, and no stronger now than they were in 1999 when they were rejected by the Primary Production Committee—a committee that is generally occupied by people with some knowledge of animals and some common sense. I guess that is the reason why the legislation will not go to the Primary Production Committee this time. If the Government thinks it can hijack the committee process by sending it to another committee, it is wrong. The arguments it has put forward for supporting this legislation will be disproved at that committee, I am sure of that.

I thought it was appropriate that I take a call as the Minister responsible for the Animal Welfare Act. When that Act was in the course of passage, the issue of docking dogs’ tails was debated before the Primary Production Committee, and in the House at some length. I must say that while the weight of the evidence from the veterinary profession and animal welfare groups was strongly in favour of the prohibition of dog tail-docking for any reason other than therapeutic reasons—that is, for an injured, malformed, or diseased tail, or in the interests of the animals—the scientific evidence in respect of the effect of docking on the animals themselves was equivocal at that time. So the committee, of which I was a member, came to quite a finely balanced decision, which the House supported, to allow the status quo to prevail. The status quo was passionately supported by a number of breed organisations that claimed that tails could get damaged when hunting. There was a need for a “handle”, it was claimed, if a dog gets stuck head first in a rabbit hole and has to be helped to back out by its owner, and we also heard about the vast number of precious antique vases that get smashed to smithereens by Labrador tails sweeping them off coffee tables, and numerous other claims—some of them a bit more far fetched than those. Since then there has been a great deal more scholarship undertaken on this subject.

I have received from the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee detailed advice and analysis of ethical and technical factors relating not only to transient pain from the cutting off of the tail—[Interruption] the member should keep his tail out of sight—or the longer-term pain, the phantom pain, that can come from an amputated limb, which is what we are talking about, but also to the consideration of the utility of the tail to a dog. It is used as an instrument of balance and normal communication with other dogs—which the dog could miss out on.

I have also received advice from the Veterinarian Association; a very scholarly review of the issues published in the Australian Veterinary Journal last year.

As well, since this House last considered the issue, many countries, including Australia—a great primary-producing nation, with which we often make common cause in these matters—have prohibited the docking of dogs’ tails.

Altogether, I feel there is now an overwhelming case for this bill to proceed to the select committee process so it can be given close and careful consideration. While those who still cling to the traditions of tail-docking must be heard, and heard carefully, their views and existing rights must be weighed against the social and ethical case espoused by the bill—that the mutilation of dogs, man’s best friend, essentially for cosmetic or fashion reasons, is no longer ethically or morally supportable in a civilised nation. [Interruption] Finally, I set the Opposition member’s mind at rest and point out that this bill is not a stalking horse for the prohibition of the docking of lambs’ tails. There are very sound therapeutic reasons for docking lambs’ tails that certainly do not apply to dogs.

I would like to congratulate Dianne Yates on her second member’s bill tonight. It is a simple but brilliant little bill, which requires that before chopping off a dog’s tail a veterinarian must agree that the procedure is necessary for the welfare of the animal, where the tail has been damaged by injury or disease. The Green Party is absolutely delighted to support this bill going to the select committee.

I am absolutely delighted that we are actually having here tonight a debate about animal welfare. It is the first such debate that has taken place during my 5 years in Parliament. The chopping off of dogs’ tails is certainly not the most pressing or most urgent animal welfare issue in New Zealand. Indeed, it pales in comparison with other cruel acts such as keeping hens in cages for all their lives, or keeping sows in crates or cages. But having said that, I tell members that we are talking about a painful and utterly unnecessary procedure, and it is often or usually done without anaesthetic, which can cause dogs to suffer needlessly and for no good reason, and according to the majority of veterinarians, it causes significant or severe pain to dogs. So why would we cause significant pain to dogs, and chop off the tails of an estimated three thousand dogs in New Zealand? It is certainly not done for animal welfare reasons. It is certainly not done in the interests of the animals. It is done—let us be quite honest about it—for cosmetic purposes, because of some ancient tradition, and basically for the interests of humans.

If this procedure causes dogs to suffer needlessly for no good reason and, secondly, prevents, as it obviously does, dogs from displaying natural forms of behaviour, then it is a breach, pure and simple, of the Animal Welfare Act. National members voted for that Act—I understand that all members of this House voted for that Act. So if members voted for it, it flows from that that they will need to support this bill, because the docking of dogs’ tails is a breach of that Act passed by this Parliament.

The Animal Welfare Act imposes a duty of care on animal owners. It states quite explicitly that all of us have a responsibility to ensure that animals live in ways that do not cause them to suffer and that allow them to display natural forms of behaviour. The practice of docking dogs’ tails is a breach of that Act, so I cannot understand why National members could be up in arms. It is an Act they supported. The Green Party considers that we should not be chopping off the tails of any animals, or performing surgical operations on animals, unless there is an animal welfare issue at stake, such as fly strike. If there is an animal welfare issue at stake, then there would be no breaching of the Animal Welfare Act. But if there is not an animal welfare issue at stake—if the practice is for cosmetic purposes—then that is a breach, clear and simple, of the Act.

There are wider issues here, as well. There has been an attitude for many, many years that we humans are entitled to do whatever we like to animals. We can cut off their tails, manipulate them, put them in cages, clone them, genetically engineer them, patent them—do whatever we like, no matter now cruel, providing it makes them more efficient producers of meat, eggs, and milk for human consumption. This bill challenges that view, just to a small extent. It challenges the view that we are entitled to do whatever we wish to animals, no matter how cruel. It is a small step towards regarding animals as living, sentient beings, having intrinsic value in their own right and not simply existing as the property of humans, for us to do with whatever we wish. It is a small step also to accepting that animals have a right to natural forms of behaviour, and it is, of course, supported for those reasons by the SPCA, veterinarians, and so forth. The Greens are totally supportive of this bill.

I have to ask first up: why on earth are we spending vast sums of taxpayers’ money—I do not know what this bill will cost, but the potential if it goes through is for untold sums of money—on the docking of dogs’ tails? It is the single biggest issue that that member, Dianne Yates, can come up with. What I find even more perverse is that this bill about docking dogs’ tails will go to the Government Administration Committee. It is a bit like sending the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill to the Primary Production Committee. I mean, it just does not make any sense—it is just perverse. I understand that Dianne Yates chairs the Government Administration Committee. Is that not a surprise?

💬 Jill Pettis: The money could be spent on farming kiwis!

Let me give members my credentials on this bill. I have been a farmer for a long, long time, and I have owned more dogs than Jill Pettis has had hot meals. My wife and I have three cats, and two Jack Russells—one with a docked tail and one without. So how is that? My son and daughter-in-law-elect have one of each. This bill is based on emotion—and that is all. It is not based on reality. My understanding—

💬 Jill Pettis: Yes, from a man who wants to farm kiwis.

Perhaps if that member could just button the jawbone for a moment or two, she might realise that there are fewer dogs being docked. I understand there are three and a half thousand, or fewer, dogs being docked each year. In round figures there are 60 million lambs being docked each year. If that figure is halved, we go to 30 million lambs being castrated.

Now, that is an expression that brings a tear to my eye, I tell Mr Shane Ardern. We of the male species understand the significance of that. Let me just tell that member of some of the practices in my part of the world years ago, where out came the knife from the top of the purse, in went the teeth, and out the side of the mouth went the mountain oysters. If one was hungry, they possibly did not even go out the side of the mouth. Practices change, and I say in all seriousness that if breed society members, who are responsible people—the ordinary mum and dad New Zealanders who own dogs—decide to exercise choice and have that fundamental freedom to decide these things, what would be wrong if they made that judgment call instead of this Parliament wasting vast sums of money on a bill of this nature?

What I find even more perverse is that we are discussing the welfare of dogs. We are talking about only days-old puppies. Their nervous system is just starting to work. But what about the circumcision of baby boys? Why do we not ban the circumcision of children in this country? I could understand that, because the medical profession tells me that there is no good reason for circumcision. The Jewish community might have a slightly different opinion. But why do we focus on animals and ignore what is happening to many young boys in this country? I cannot, for the life of me, understand Dianne Yates’ logic.

Mr Shane Ardern made a very good point when talking about animal welfare and, again, I think this is a serious issue. Anybody who has some understanding of the animal kingdom will recognise that the worst thing a dog owner can do to a pet is overfeed it. How many grossly obese dogs do we see walking around the streets with arthritic legs and in absolute pain? They are then put down by veterinary surgeons. The owners do not understand what they are doing.

This will be a split vote for United Future members of Parliament. However, I will be supporting Dianne Yates’ bill. We human beings have a special duty to preserve, safeguard, and enhance this beautiful planet for ourselves and for all the creatures with whom we share our world. Amongst these, of course, is man’s best friend—the dog. We sometimes lament, and rightly so, man’s inhumanity to man. Perhaps these days I should say people’s inhumanity to people. But it is also true that we have a duty to be humane in our treatment of our animals, and especially those that we describe as domestic—those animals that literally share our homes and our farms with us.

This means turning away from an attitude that sees in a dog, for example, an opportunity to gain status. We should not make a dog a status symbol at the expense of a dog’s natural design, which includes its personality, nature, and communicative abilities such as tail-wagging to express pleasure and tail-tucking to express embarrassment or fear. Cosmetic procedures may be chosen by those people whose vanity drives them to expensive and painful plastic surgery, but they should not be needlessly imposed on a dog, for the dog itself has no such choice.

However, tail-docking that is in the interests of the dog is a separate case. I ask the select committee that will consider this bill to provide an exemption for hunting dogs when docking is undertaken to avoid the likelihood of tail damage. That action, I am sure, can be justified as being consistent with the best interests of the dog itself, which should in every individual case be the guiding and paramount consideration as to whether a dog may or may not be curtailed. Shane Ardern said that this practice has gone on for hundreds of years. When I heard him say that I thought that he had not read Dianne Yates’ notes, which she very generously circulated with the bill. In fact, the practice developed hundreds of years ago as a tax avoidance exercise. It had very little to do with whether it was desirable that a dog had a tail.

I also thought that Shane Ardern—and Minister Jim Sutton has also mentioned this—gave us a pretty alarmist speech when he said that this legislation could creep on to cover sheep, horses, and cows. Gerry Eckhoff said that—goodness gracious me—it had ramifications for the circumcision of young boys. I say to those members that this bill is not some Trojan Horse; it is simply a bill about dogs. I think that we should stick to the point, do the common-sense thing, and allow this bill to go forward to the select committee.

I was fascinated by Mr Eckhoff’s contribution. I learnt why ACT is at 2 percent in the polls—his speech reinforced that today. I find it absolutely amazing that members on the opposite side of the House are so dismissive and sneering of the New Zealand Veterinary Association, the SPCA, and other organisations that have considerable involvement in and knowledge of the whole area of animal welfare. I found it absolutely amazing that members opposite are quite happy to ignore the experience of state legislatures across the Tasman. They are hardly radical, politically correct groups of people. One could hardly accuse the New Zealand Veterinary Association of being a radical, politically correct group, as members opposite would perceive it. One could hardly say that of the SPCA, let alone the Veterinary Council of New Zealand.

I take this opportunity to support my colleague, Dianne Yates. I believe this bill should go to the Government Administration Committee for a thorough analysis. I note the presence of Barbara Stewart and convey my admiration to her leader, Winston Peters, because at least the New Zealand First caucus is prepared to keep an open mind and let this bill go to the select committee. I find the split voting of some of the other parties somewhat curious. I acknowledge the contribution that the Green Party made.

Frankly, I have said all that I need to say on this excellent bill. It should go to the select committee so that all points of view can be considered. Ultimately we are talking about a realistic, sensitive approach to animal welfare in this country. I acknowledge the great work done by the New Zealand Veterinary Association, the SPCA, and my colleague Dianne Yates, the member for Hamilton East.

I am delighted to oppose this bill, in line with my colleague Shane Ardern. When this bill was first introduced one of the key phrases that accompanied it was “barking mad”. That is one of the many descriptions that followed the announcement of this bill’s reintroduction. I say reintroduction because I was unaware that the legislation had already been to the Primary Production Committee, where it had languished and been dismissed as not being a valid matter to pursue.

I agree with my learned colleague Gerry Eckhoff that it is typical of the Government that there is a distinct lack of problem definition in most of the bills that it introduces to this House. All it takes is for somebody to wander up to a Government MP and say that they do not like something and would like something done about it, and a bill is whipped out. That tends to be the process that we see—never mind the cost to the taxpayer. I can name any number of other areas where money could be better spent. Special education needs a whole heap of input. We need better-paid carers. We need respite care to be available for many, many people. Yet here we are. Members should think about the time and cost that is involved in getting this bill through the House. I think it is an absolute disgrace.

I looked at the bill and asked: what is the problem with tail-docking? I have docked a heck of a lot of lambs in my day and mostly it simply involved putting a ring on a tail. I can think of a few tails in this House that I would like to put a ring around. There is absolutely no definition in the bill, or in the Animal Welfare Act, of the words “docking” or “tail docking”. The Concise Oxford Dictionary states that to “dock” is to “cut short” the tail of an animal. The entry also refers to deductions and, of course, there is the dock in a criminal court—and we can think of a particular person who is somewhat in the dock these days: one John Tamihere. However, there is a shortcoming in that there is no proper definition of “tail-docking”, or even of the word “docking”, in this bill or in the Act. That has not been picked up.

I would like to pick up on something else in this very short bill—it is essentially one page. There is a bit of a conundrum here. Clause 4 relates to the performance of restricted surgical procedures. I will take members through this. Clause 4 amends section 17(2) of the principal Act: “… by adding, after the words ‘interests of the animal’, the words ‘, which, in the case of tail docking, is based on an informed veterinary opinion that the procedure is necessary for the welfare of the animal where the tail has been damaged by injury or disease, …’ ”. That, more or less, states that we need a medical opinion about the animal.

However, the clause states further: ‘… and is not being performed for cosmetic or prophylactic purposes’.” If we look at the dictionary definition of “prophylactic”, we see that the word relates to medicinal purposes—to a course of action that is to do with the health of the animal, or, in the context of this bill, for the animal. We are saying that a vet can dock a tail due to injury or disease, but, sorry, a vet cannot perform the procedure for cosmetic reasons, injury, or disease. That, essentially, is what prophylactic means.

I suggest the Minister has acted with a little haste. It is not a clear definition. The bill is not clear about the definitions of the actions being undertaken through its provisions. We probably should have gone back to the previous work done at the select committee and looked at why this legislation was thrown out in the first place. I cannot blame people for calling it barking mad, because there have been a number of articles put out. There is a New Zealand Council of Docked Breeds. We know about fly strike. We know that it comes about when longhaired animals crap and the faeces stick to their fur, builds up, and sticks the tail to their hindquarters. That is how dogs get a build-up and collection of faeces around the rear end. What happens then? The flies may lay maggots in those quarters, and they start to eat the animal alive. That is why some animals’ tails are docked.

I want to speak just briefly to this bill. I think it might be interesting, as we come to the closing stages of the debate this evening, to go over a little bit of historical fact.

Docking of tails on farmers’ or drovers’ dogs used for herding and driving cattle and sheep originated in early Georgian times in England, as it exempted the owner from a tax levied upon working dogs with tails. Many other types or breeds of goods were also similarly docked to avoid that tax. Although the tax was repealed in 1796, the habit of docking has persisted until modern times. Short-tailed dogs around that period were called “curs”, and that gave rise to the term “curtailing”, which means to cut short.

I think it is time we cut short this debate. In conclusion, I just want to add that it will be very useful for this bill to go to a select committee so that people who are genuinely interested in making submissions will have the opportunity to do so.

I thank the Veterinary Council of New Zealand for its long persistence, since 1999, in bringing forward this legislation. I inform Sandra Goudie that it has been written by a vet who understands the terms involved. I also thank the local veterinarians in Hamilton, Morrinsville, and Matamata who contributed to the debate and to the bill; the SPCA, both in Australia and in New Zealand; those involved, particularly Hugh Worth from Australia who persisted in getting the law passed in Australia; and those kennel club members who have shown their support—and there are many thousands of kennel club members who support the bill.

I also wish to point out, given that I will move to have the bill referred to the Government Administration Committee, that Mr Ardern, Mr Tisch, and I are on that committee, and that we are all from rural or semi-rural areas. I would think that the people on that committee have as much expertise as anybody else in any other committee. Of course, all New Zealanders are experts on dogs, I am sure.

I thank the House for the time. This was legislation that should have been passed with the original bill in 1999, but for one or two people who were concerned about one or two breeders, and who did not look at the interests of dogs as a whole or New Zealanders as a whole.

I move, That the Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs’ Tails) Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee.