Eckhoff Gerrard: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16374] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 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! 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: 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. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: 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.