Sutton Jim: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Sutton Jim: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16373] 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I thought it was appropriate that I take a call as the Minister responsible for the Animal Welfare Act. When that Act was in the course of passage the issue of docking dogs’ tails was debated before the Primary Production Committee and in the House at some length. I must say that while the weight of the evidence from the veterinary profession and animal welfare groups was strongly in favour of the prohibition of dog tail-docking for any reason other than therapeutic reasons—that is for an injured malformed or diseased tail or in the interests of the animals—the scientific evidence in respect of the effect of docking on the animals themselves was equivocal at that time. So the committee of which I was a member came to quite a finely balanced decision which the House supported to allow the status quo to prevail. The status quo was passionately supported by a number of breed organisations that claimed that tails could get damaged when hunting. There was a need for a “handle” it was claimed if a dog gets stuck head first in a rabbit hole and has to be helped to back out by its owner and we also heard about the vast number of precious antique vases that get smashed to smithereens by Labrador tails sweeping them off coffee tables and numerous other claims—some of them a bit more far fetched than those. Since then there has been a great deal more scholarship undertaken on this subject. 
I have received from the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee detailed advice and analysis of ethical and technical factors relating not only to transient pain from the cutting off of the tail—[ 
Interruption 
] the member should keep his tail out of sight—or the longer-term pain the phantom pain that can come from an amputated limb which is what we are talking about but also to the consideration of the utility of the tail to a dog. It is used as an instrument of balance and normal communication with other dogs—which the dog could miss out on. 
I have also received advice from the Veterinarian Association; a very scholarly review of the issues published in the  
Australian Veterinary Journal  
last year. 
 As well since this House last considered the issue many countries including Australia—a great primary-producing nation with which we often make common cause in these matters—have prohibited the docking of dogs’ tails. 
Altogether I feel there is now an overwhelming case for this bill to proceed to the select committee process so it can be given close and careful consideration. While those who still cling to the traditions of tail-docking must be heard and heard carefully their views and existing rights must be weighed against the social and ethical case espoused by the bill—that the mutilation of dogs man’s best friend essentially for cosmetic or fashion reasons is no longer ethically or morally supportable in a civilised nation. [ 
Interruption 
] Finally I set the Opposition member’s mind at rest and point out that this bill is not a stalking horse for the prohibition of the docking of lambs’ tails. There are very sound therapeutic reasons for docking lambs’ tails that certainly do not apply to dogs.