Yates Dianne: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Yates Dianne: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16369] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 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.