Ardern Shane: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Ardern Shane: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16371] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 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. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: 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”. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: 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.