Goudie Sandra: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16376] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 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.