Kedgley Sue: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16374] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 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.