- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 17 March 2004
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment (Tail Docking) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 33 of 44
| Next Item »
Page: 7395
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 10 March.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.40 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment (Tail Docking) Bill. The Opposition will oppose the bill, but it was not an easy decision. I have been visited by experts from all sectors who have offered their own arguments and have matched and cross-matched opposing arguments. They have waved their sabres and produced doctors, professors and friends. For every argument there has been a counter-argument. I speak to the bill from my recollections and my feelings about this issue, and some may wish to attack the accuracy of small points that I will make. I want to talk about the philosophy and the reasoning of the Opposition.
Despite the Opposition opposing this legislation, I remain convinced from the information I have read that in 98 per cent of cases tail docking is an unnecessary operation. I am also not completely convinced that dogs with docked tails are used as working dogs, although in the past they had to go down burrows to hunt for a living. When I was a young man we had a pack of small dogs that we sent down small burrows when rabbiting but I have not seen a working dog work like that for a number of years. The reality is that tail docking is done for show, and in some cases it is a genuine aspect of a breed.
All those who made representations to me addressed the pain issue. Bruce Cartnell, with whom I have worked on many pieces of legislation before this Parliament, and who has earned the greatest respect from all sides, is a veterinarian who does a terrific job representing the position of fellow veterinarians. He is a canny guy because he brought with him Jenny Churchill, who has been a family friend of mine for 30-odd years. She was my local veterinarian and is now the wife of my local veterinarian. Jenny and her husband are great mates of mine and I respect them. Bruce was devious to bring Jenny with him because apart from being great in her job, and in many other areas, she can put a very convincing argument. They both made valid points about pain and gave examples of surgery on dogs.
A professor from the Canine Council said that docking a dog's tail with a ring in the first five days of its life had been shown in reports and studies not to be painful. He was just as convincing as my friends except that he mentioned the use of a ring to remove the sixth finger from babies born with six fingers. I found it somewhat amazing that that still occurs¯it sounded almost like a story from Peter Black. People are concerned about what practitioners do. I respect Bruce Cartnell, but in the past I have had differences with him about whether veterinarians are needed to do everything in relation to animals. If tail docking is as simple as putting a ring over the tail of a young puppy, a general veterinarian may not be the best person to do the job. In fact, a practitioner who docks the tails of lambs or gives injections to farm animals is probably better at the job than someone who does it occasionally.
A further concern is that if such an apparently simple operation as docking the tail of a dog has to be done by a veterinarian, will the mulesing and tail docking of lambs also have to be done by a veterinarian? To their credit, all the veterinarians were quite up-front with their views. They believe that tail docking and mulesing of lambs should be continued for the sake of animal welfare. But the Opposition is concerned that if the docking of a lamb's tail is shown to be more painful than the docking of a pup's tail—which is now virtually banned if it is not carried out by veterinarians—where will that leave the farming sector? We checked with the RSPCA, the veterinarians association, the Canine Council and the New South Wales Farmers Association. New South Wales Farmers believe that tail docking should only be done for therapeutic reasons. Yet the definition in new section 12 (2A) states:
A person is not guilty of an offence against this section if the court is satisfied that the procedure comprising the alleged offence was the docking of the tail of a dog, was performed by a veterinary surgeon and was in the interests of the dog's welfare.
When we first looked at that definition we thought it fulfilled our election commitment that tail docking be allowed, but only by a veterinarian. Interestingly, NSW Farmers propose that tail docking be done by veterinarians, but only for therapeutic reasons. That is considered to be a tighter and more stringent definition than that proposed by the Government in the bill. It is interesting that the Australian Veterinary Association also is persuaded to that view, but regards the words "in the interests of the dog's welfare" appearing in the bill as providing a large loophole. The RSPCA has a different view. I paraphrase its feeling, rather than what it said, by saying that the bill would enable the RSPCA to prosecute anyone who did tail docking.
It gets even more confusing. This bill emanates from Federal legislation, agreed to by the States, to have consistent legislation across Australia. The New South Wales bill is similar to that of Queensland, except that that State's provisions are more stringent. I am not sure that Victoria has passed its legislation. I have read both that it has legislation and that it has not. The one thing I am sure of is that Western Australian has legislation that has been mimicked by the Northern Territory. The Western Australian legislation—which is effected by regulation—states that a "registered veterinary surgeon shall not carry out tail docking of a dog unless he or she believes there are sufficient reasons for the tail docking to proceed for therapeutic or prophylactic purposes." Thus, if the tail docking can help the animal in the future, the Western Australian veterinary surgeon can do it. That virtually means that the Western Australian legislation gives carte blanche to tail docking. If you can find a veterinary surgeon who believes tail docking is acceptable within his creed, you can have it done.
As a consequence, New South Wales will have legislation that says maybe tail docking can be done if it is for the welfare of the dog. One can argue whether it is for the welfare of the dog when the National Competition Council is arguing that the Farm Debt Remediation Act cannot have a definition of "good faith" because that question just cannot be properly determined. New South Wales has a definition that relates to a dog's welfare. But Western Australian and Northern Territory legislation permits tail docking. When RSPCA inspectors are in New South Wales will they know whether the puppies they see here were taildocked in Western Australia or in New South Wales? Eventually they will, but it will not be an easy question for them. That brings me back to my concern that the bills that are being passed by the States are not only confusing but represent bad legislation.
A further question put to me is: What happens in the case of a bobtailed dog? Breeders have been breeding for a recessive gene that will result in the industry having a bobtailed dog. It happens accidentally, but breeders tell us that this legislation might lead to some breeders aiming at breeding bobtailed dogs. We need to hear from the Minister what will be the position regarding onus of proof. To establish their innocence, will breeders have to prove that a bobtailed dog was a bred animal, or will their guilt have to be proven in accordance with the normal premise of law in New South Wales? Another concern is that, unfortunately, some breeders will continue to breed for bobtailed animals even though they know that will leave the animals susceptible to other congenital conditions, including spina bifida, which is appalling. It concerns breeders—I do not rate it a legitimate concern, although it is a real concern—that this could happen.
There is one other question on which I would be seeking a response from the Minister. The bill does not appear to provide for a review process. I think provision should be made for review of the operation of this legislation. Although, as the Minister indicated in his second reading speech, many European countries have moved to ban tail docking, Sweden has taken a step backwards by exempting, I think, the German short-haired pointer breed from legislation banning tail docking. This was because information showed that after the ban was put in place structural problems began to emerge in the current breed of the German short-haired pointer.
Mr Ian Cohen: It was probably a fault in the breeding.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Mr Ian Cohen says that was probably the fault of the breeder. I do not disagree, and that is why I was very careful to use the term "the current breed". That is the current state of the breed. In the past I had a German short-haired pointer. It was a lovely animal that had been tail docked when I got it; I did not have a choice about that. I am not sure what is the position regarding a dog of that breed that has a tail—although I recently saw one and it looked good and it seemed to be happy. The evidence of veterinarians and practitioners in Sweden—who moved very early in this direction—is that they have had to reverse the effect of that country's legislation.
We will be looking to the Government, through the Minister's reply to the debate, to give a commitment about review of this legislation and to undertake an analysis of the effect of the legislation on these breeds. We do not know what the potential problems are. If there are such problems, they are not showing up at the moment because these dogs currently have their tails docked. I do not wish to take up more time of the House. But once again I indicate that this is one of those bills on which it is not easy to make a decision because there is right on both sides. I have been lobbied extensively—and, I must say, nicely and quite properly. However, on balance, the Opposition believes this legislation is wrong. For the reasons that I have already given, we will be opposing the bill.
The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN [5.58 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the bill. Some people have a personal preference for the appearance of dogs with docked tails. It has become part of the signature of the breed, for instance, spaniels, boxers and rottweilers. Many of the arguments put forward to justify tail docking are no more than a smokescreen to cover the overriding reason, namely, the appearance of the dog. The issue is whether the discomfort, pain and frustrations suffered by a dog are justified simply to achieve an appearance based upon personal or historical preference. We say that this is not justified.
The bill, therefore, prevents the routine or cosmetic docking of puppies' tails arising from personal preference. It will bring New South Wales into line with other States, following a resolution of the Primary Industries Ministerial Council in October 2003 to co-ordinate a national ban on the docking of dogs' tails by April 2004. Community standards now require that this outdated cosmetic surgery be banned, unless it is in the interests of the dog. Community standards change, and legislation must reflect that. Practices that were acceptable, such as ear cropping for dogs, are no longer acceptable. Dog breeders in Australia have long accepted this. Ear cropping is still common in certain dog breeds in America, but it has been outlawed in Australia for many years. It is not appropriate to alter the appearance of animals to achieve a cosmetic outcome.
Some breeders have cited prevention of tail injury as a reason to tail dock, particularly for working dogs with delicate whip tails or large breeds of dogs, such as greyhounds, boxers and Dalmatians. However, very few of the docked working breeds with delicate working tails continue to be used as working dogs. The weakness of the working dog argument is apparent by a comparison of terrier breeds. Take, for example, the Manchester terrier, a short-haired breed, and the fox terrier. Both are of similar size and are traditionally used for ratting and other vermin-control work. However, the Manchester terrier has an entire tail and the fox terrier's tail is docked. Similar comparison can be made between the miniature versions of these two breeds. The English toy terrier has an entire tail and the mini fox terrier has a docked tail.
The weimaraner is a docked breed of gun dog. The long-haired weimaraner is identical in confirmation and temperament. However, the tails of long-haired weimaraners are not docked. Similarly, the tails of English pointers are not docked, but the tails of German short-haired pointers are docked. Another anomaly exists between the cardigan Welsh corgi and the Pembroke Welsh corgi, the former having an entire tail and the latter having a docked tail if not already born with a bobtail, as the breed often is. It has been argued that when dogging a fox in its den it is an advantage for a dog to have a shortened tail, because it is more practical when working in a confined space. However, I am informed that it would be rare to use a dog in New South Wales for this purpose. I note that foxes seem to manage very well underground without having a short tail.
I have owned dachshunds, which are badger hounds. Originally they were bred to go down holes after badgers. They certainly have tails and the breed has never been docked. Dogs do not need a shortened tail to chase another animal down a hole, whether it is a fox or a badger. Most working dogs in Australia are kelpies and cattle dogs, used for working stock. These dogs perform well with tails. Given the high standard of veterinary treatment now available, the issue becomes whether the pain, discomfort or frustration suffered by a working dog through a chance tail injury or infection is greater than the pain, discomfort and frustration that a dog suffers if its tail is docked at birth as a preventive measure. I support the retention of the entire tail of all dogs, including working dogs, with veterinary treatment sought only if injury or disease should occur. It is time to move on. I commend the bill to the House.
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [6.02 p.m]: The Christian Democratic Party will support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment (Tail Docking) Bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 to limit the docking of dogs' tails to veterinarians, and then only when it is in the interests of the welfare of the dog. We, likewise, have been lobbied by some very fine people who are interested in animal welfare and animal rights, and who come down on both sides of the argument. Currently in New South Wales the docking of a dog's tail is allowed to be performed by any person if the dog is under five days of age. We have seen this, although not in recent years, done by people who breed their own puppies and those who have puppies as result of a dog becoming pregnant. Many breeds of dogs are routinely tail docked within days of birth.
The bill seeks, on the encouragement of the RSPCA and others, to eliminate cruelty to animals. We have received many emails and letters saying that the RSPCA does not have the right to do this, that it exists to care for the welfare of animals. But I would argue that the RSPCA has an advocacy role on behalf of prevention of cruelty to animals, and I accept what it is doing. The bill prevents the routine or cosmetic tail docking of puppies only. It limits tail docking to veterinarians only, and it ensures that the operation is performed only when the welfare interests of the dog are being served, not for cosmetic purposes. A number of reasons appeal strongly to us to support the bill. One is that the bill makes concessions if a dog is injured. As previous speakers mentioned, injuries are usually caused by the dog's tail being caught, and slammed, in the doors of cars. I understand that only 0.4 per cent of dogs present with such an injury, which would require tail docking.
The second reason we support the bill is that tail docking seems to have no clear benefit for the dog. Many people argue that small dogs do not feel pain, but I remember doing experiments at university with even the smallest kind of life, such as amoeba. When we deliberately created stimuli and pain the amoeba, even though it took a long time, reacted to pain. Even the most primitive form of life can feel pain. We have listened to Professor Bob Hales and others talk about the problem of pain, but we are quite sure that in most cases the dogs feel pain. Leaving aside the pain there is still the likelihood of infection when ordinary instruments are used to dock the tails of dogs.
I have in my possession at home a very sharp folding penknife given to me by my grandfather. When I was about 10 he instructed me to always keep it clean because it was the knife I should use when I was fixing cats. I admit that I have never used the knife to fix cats, but if those types of instruments that are neither sterile nor clean are used, infection can occur. I believe there is a difference with pigs and lambs. I have asked the professor and others about this and they tell me that there are clear scientific reasons for de-tailing pigs and lambs, particularly when they are fly blown. We note that in 10 countries it is illegal to dock dogs or to show docked dogs. It is quite appropriate that Australia should line up with those countries. I note that breeders will continue to seek to have tails docked.
Some people who came to see us expressed the view that because there is availability in both Western Australia and the Northern Territory under regulations to dock dogs they will send their dogs to Western Australia. They claim that they already send scores of dogs to Western Australia and the Northern Territory every single week for various purposes, and it would be no trouble for them to have the procedures done in Western Australia or the Northern Territory. This seemed to us to be a very curious line of argument. There is community support for the bill, even though the majority of written material I have received came from those who breed and show dogs, and who are members of the Canine Council. I know that they are heavily committed to having their dogs' tails docked. We listened with respect to their viewpoint, but we support the principle of prevention of cruelty to animals.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [6.09 p.m.]: I am very pleased to support the bill. Tail docking has been under consideration for many years, both in Australia and overseas. Tail docking started hundreds of years ago when people were more complacent about the welfare of animals than they are today. In fact, in those times people were often far more complacent about the welfare of human beings than is the case today. The practice of tail docking became common in the Middle Ages in Britain and western Europe. A number of theories have been proposed for the commencement of tail docking, including the prevention of rabies, the prevention of back injury, increasing the speed of the docked dog and the prevention of tail damage owing to fighting with other animals, ratting or baiting.
Docking of tails on farmers' or drovers' dogs that are used for herding or driving cattle and sheep began in early Georgian times in England because the practice exempted the owner from a tax levied upon working dogs with tails. Many other types of dogs were also docked to avoid the luxury tax. Although the imposition was repealed in 1796, the habit of docking particular breeds has persisted. We can talk around this issue all we like, but inevitably the reasons for tail docking are because of human desires, not animal necessities and certainly not animal welfare. Given the variety of historical reasons for the practice of tail docking and the fact that none has significant application in a modern animal welfare oriented society, there is no compelling reason for continuation of this practice in the future.
Arguments are proffered about the appearance of dogs, hygiene matters and traditional standards. I will address the question of hygiene. I do so with the benefit of considerable experience because my family's history of pet ownership is an association with border collies, Pekingese, and currently six cross shitzu-bichons. All of those breeds are long-haired dogs and all require considerable grooming. Quite simply, if people own such breeds, they must also be prepared to keep them in good condition, which includes proper grooming.
The suggestion has been made that for long-haired breeds, such as the Old English sheepdog and the Yorkshire terrier, tail docking is required in the interests of hygiene. It is claimed that long-haired breeds may have increased problems related to faecal soiling and flystrike around their breach and tail if they are left undocked. An owner of a long-haired breed of dog that allows such a thing to happen is clearly not responsible enough to own dogs that have long hair and a tail. Amputation of the dog's tail should not be considered a substitute for the proper care and grooming that is required to keep long-coated breeds in good condition. The failure to prevent faecal soiling by a change of diet, grooming, judicious clipping and the failure to notice injury or infection and seek veterinary care raise questions of inadequate care and irresponsible pet ownership.
Many long-haired breeds, such as the bearded collie, the Afghan hound, the Komondor, the Pekingese and Maltese terriers are undocked, which highlights the fallacy of the argument related to the hygiene requirements of long-haired breeds of dogs. Moreover, as I understand it, there is some veterinary evidence suggesting that tail docking may contribute to the development of urinary incontinence and soiling in bitches of large breeds of docked dogs, such as the Old English sheepdog, rottweilers and doberman pinschers. It must be remembered that dogs' tails have nerve endings in them. By docking dogs' tails, we do not know for sure what injury is caused to dogs and their nervous systems, particularly in relation to spinal movement. This bill is specifically aimed at protecting the interests of dogs, not the interests of breeders. That is the purpose of the bill and the reason it is being debated. It is therefore not surprising that there has been some opposition to the legislation.
Perhaps the best demonstration of the reasons this House is debating the bill is the defence that exists for veterinarians. The bill allows the tail docking procedure to be done when it is in the welfare interests of the dog. Veterinarians, through their professional training and experience, are best placed to determine the factors constituting the welfare interests of a dog on a case-by-case basis. During this debate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Duncan Gay, referred to naturally occurring bobtail dogs. Some breeds are known to regularly or occasionally give birth to bobtail or short tail puppies. This is a genetic characteristic that has been selected by inbreeding in some lines or breeds of dogs. For example, there is a type of Australian cattle dog that is born with a bobtail. Pembroke corgis and Australian shepherds may also be born with bobtails.
Some owners and breeders have expressed concern that they may mistakenly become the subject of actions to enforce the ban on tail docking when their dogs have naturally occurring bobtails. However, it will be a simple matter to respond to any such unfounded allegations. People who have a history of breeding dogs with naturally occurring bobtails would also have a history of seeking veterinary assistance in the breeding of their dogs: Most responsible breeders do. They would therefore be able to provide evidence from their veterinarian about the composition of the litter. If the litter comprises six puppies, perhaps three will be born with bobtails and three without. I am sure that responsible breeders and owners will have no problem in providing ample evidence to prevent any mistaken enforcement of action being commenced, especially in breeds where the bobtail or short tail occurrence is common.
Another issue was raised by both the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Duncan Gay, and Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes relating to dogs' tails being legally docked in Western Australia. I had not heard about large-scale transfer of puppies from New South Wales to Western Australia to have their tails docked and then bringing them back to New South Wales. Presumably that would make the cost of such breeds prohibitive. Is it suggested that breeders put the dogs into the back of a car, drive them over to Western Australia, have their tails docked by veterinarians, and then bring them back again?
Mr Ian Cohen: A helicopter?
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: The cost of flying dogs is quite considerable, irrespective of whether they are transported on a commercial freight flight or a passenger flight. The transportation of dogs from one State to another would make their cost so prohibitive that people would be unlikely to undertake that practice.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: I did not say that.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I know that. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that tail docking is legal in Western Australia. Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes stated that he had been advised that it is likely that there would be a trade in dogs.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: People move to Western Australia and sell dogs back here.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Typically in a federation we are unable to control what happens in other States, and if breeders want to move to Western Australia we can only do our best to ensure that the practice does not occur. However, the simple fact is that dogs born in New South Wales and kept in New South Wales should not have their tails docked. The other issues I wish to mention have been raised with me in emails I have received in connection with this subject matter. I must say that I expected to receive an absolute deluge of email messages and correspondence on this issue because I know that many people are involved in dog breeding and are very concerned about the issue.
People who are concerned about animal husbandry issues also are concerned that this legislation will be the thin end of the wedge to enable animal liberationists to place their stamp on government policy and determine the way in which animals are dealt with. I received some material supporting the legislation and the Government's proposals. I received approximately half a dozen letters from people, including representatives from top breeding associations, and I received perhaps a dozen emails from others. The emails to which I have responded have resulted in people writing back to me with more information and there has been ongoing correspondence. The main issue raised by people in emails I have received on this bill is simply that they believe this will be the beginning of some crazy animal liberation move. One email I received stated:
The Animal Liberationists have 1 view, and that is that "all animals should roam free" they should not be farmed or kept at zoos regardless of them being endangered species, the majority of these people are Vegan, and those that have pets force them to eat as they do from a Vegan perspective. I have many quotes and links to these organizations. They want to ban shearing and mulesing, dairy cows, battery hens and the like without even thinking of the repercussions it will have on our economic circle, a taildocking ban they have stated will open the door for more bans and wider animal husbandry practices, which in turn will affect general society, [some] people are not looking at the big picture.
I assure the House that the New South Wales Carr Labor Government is a responsive Government. Country Labor is a very responsive organisation within the Australian Labor Party. The view has been expressed that animal liberationists will somehow see this legislation as a win which will lead to their changing the way everybody in New South Wales, Australia and ultimately the whole world will manage their farms, manage their animals, harvest their animals and put them into the food chain for human consumption and that the next thing that will happen is there will be a proposal for this legislation to be the beginning of a ban on people wearing leather shoes.
I know that some people are probably right to take a very sceptical view about the rational behaviour of a lot of animal liberationists, particularly taking into account what has happened in England, where animal liberationists have gone to absolute extremes, but this legislation is the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment (Tail Docking) Bill. The bill is designed to stop the cosmetic docking of dogs' tails. Its purpose is to stop dogs from being docked and owners from claiming that the dog conforms to a standard that was devised by judges in a breeding group in the United States or England, not Australia, which has led to specific traits becoming mandatory for particular breeds.
Honourable members should not be distracted by the suggestion that this legislation represents the thin end of the wedge, that the end of the world is nigh, or that Chicken Little is saying "The sky is falling!" That is simply not the case. This bill is all about stopping cruelty to dogs. If a dog has a broken or injured tail, the legislation will provide an opportunity for a veterinarian to treat the dog, including the removal of the tail if the tail will not heal and its removal becomes necessary.
We are debating the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment (Tail Docking) Bill, and people who are concerned about its provisions should realise that it prevents the cosmetic docking of dogs' tails. All dog owners, people who like to have a companion animal, and people who have regard for the pain and suffering of animals, should support the bill. They should not be sucked in by the argument that this is the beginning of the end of farming as we know it. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr IAN COHEN [6.21 p.m.]: Discussion on this bill has been interesting so far. The Greens are pleased to support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment (Tail Docking) Bill, which aims to control and regulate the horrible act of tail docking—I tend to call it amputation. The practice proliferated when people realised that money could be made with breed and purebred dogs. The bill brings New South Wales into line with other States that have banned the archaic practice. I take the point raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that there are differences in the laws of each State, and I will touch on them later. Current practices are dictated purely by the interests and the vanities of dog owners and not the interests of dogs. The bill will bring some sanity to the practice, allowing veterinary surgeons to conduct tail docking only where there is sufficient evidence that the operation is necessary for the dog's health.
Western Australia has allowed the insertion into its legislation of a prophylactic condition to justify tail docking. At crossbench briefings we heard many submissions by groups on both sides of the argument. It was said by a group at odds with the RSPCA and other peak organisations that because of that provision in the law in Western Australia puppies will be transferred there to have their tails docked. Earlier in the debate it was said that Western Australia allows tail docking for prophylactic means as well as for the health of the animal. It was argued that certain specialist breeds, such as terriers that are used for ratting, justify the prophylactic removal of the tail. The argument against that is that many breeds of dog, especially the fox with its magnificent tail, do very well down rat holes. The threat that dogs will be transported to Western Australia for the purpose of tail docking is really an idle threat; I do not believe that will happen.
Another point of great interest to me is that dogs are subject to fashion, and fashions do change. Various dogs become fashionable for a period—a rather superficial approach when one considers that dog owners bear a responsibility for about 15 years. Many of the so-called fashion accessories end up being left in dog homes when they are no longer in fashion. They are left without adequate care and often they are euthanased as the focus on different breeds changes. At the same time we see inbreeding and line breeding, which leads to problems. As the Hon. Amanda Fazio said, Pekingese dogs have heart attacks because of inbreeding. Some breeds have a high intelligence quotient within the canine population.
[Interruption.]
No, I am not referring to a particular Pekingese, I am referring to dogs that are bred for purposes other than their intelligence. There is considerable breeding for the sake of fashion, and it is my hope that over time the impact of the bill will result in a fashion away from tail docking. Hopefully, in a short time from now, a dog with a healthy tail will be judged as being the best of its breed. Such a change in thinking will completely negate the threat by certain breeders that they will transport their dogs to Western Australia to have their tails docked. There is no justification for the continued practice of the routine or cosmetic tail docking of puppies. The pure breed and breed associations that have written to my office have argued that tail docking does not harm the dog in the long term, has health benefits for the dog, and stems from a long tradition of dog care and breeding.
I reject those arguments. The tail docking of dogs is based on the continuing assumption that humans have the right to manipulate animals to serve their own purpose. That is a cruel assumption. Puppies have their tails docked when they are around two to five days old by a pair of scissors or a very tight rubber band. Currently in New South Wales tail docking does not have to be carried out by a veterinary surgeon; anyone classed as an experienced breeder can cut off a puppy's tail. Usually anaesthetic is not used, despite the fact that highly sensitive nerves are cut. Many veterinarians oppose the procedure on the ground that it is cruel, painful and unnecessary. I am convinced by those arguments.
Advocates of the practice claim that tail docking does not cause pain or discomfort to a dog, as the nervous system of puppies is not fully developed at the time of docking. That is not the case. The RSPCA has advised me that the basic nervous system of a dog is fully developed at birth, and the available evidence indicates that puppies have similar, if not increased, sensitivity to pain as that of adult dogs. Docking a puppy's tail involves cutting through muscles, tendons, up to seven pairs of highly sensitive nerves and severing bone and cartilage connections. Puppies give repeated intense shrieking vocalisations the moment the tail is cut off and during stitching of the wound, indicating that they experience substantial pain. Inflammation and damage to the tissues also cause ongoing pain while the wound heals. Only one breed of dog has a naturally short tail, and that is the stumpy tailed cattle dog. All the other dogs that we are used to seeing with short tails are victims of outdated traditions kept alive at the fancy of breeders.
Tail docking has continued because, despite convincing arguments against it, breeders of traditionally docked breeds have kept the tradition going through adherence to the breed's standards. Although docking is not a written requirement for any breed in Australia, show judges, breeders, kennel councils and breed organisations continue to perpetuate that painful practice. I am very thankful that this bill will bring a stop to the cruel practice. I have heard the argument advanced that in certain cases tail docking avoids an animal's propensity to have back problems. If that is the case with a particular breed, breeders should start looking in other directions. If those faults are bred into dogs, it is about time the breeders started breeding for the health of animals, not fashion. In that way the relationship between a human and a dog can be successful without any mutilation. The Greens support the bill.
[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Kayee Griffin) left the chair at 6.28 p.m. The House resumed at 8.15 p.m.]
The Hon. JON JENKINS [8.15 p.m.]: This tail docking issue has been fairly well covered by most members who have contributed to the debate on this bill. However, I would like to add some of my thoughts. I found extraordinarily curious the threat by breeders to transfer their dogs to Western Australia to have them docked and then to bring them back to New South Wales—as though that would somehow convince us not to pass this legislation. I cannot see any reason that that would change any decision to pass legislation in this House. One of the matters raised in debate that had some validity to it was the assertion that people who have a dog with a docked tail, for whatever reason—it might be a medical reason, the dog's tail might have been damaged, or the dog's tail might have been docked in another State—would be assumed guilty of breaching New South Wales law, and that is somewhat concerning. A relatively simple mechanism to overcome that problem would be for the owner to produce a certificate from a veterinary surgeon to verify that the dog had had its tail docked for legitimate reasons. Another argument proffered by Opposition members concerned sheep and a surgical procedure done to the tails of sheep. However, this legislation is not about sheep. In any case there are legitimate reasons why sheep require their tails to be removed.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: It is for animal welfare reasons. There is a difference.
The Hon. JON JENKINS: It is for animal welfare reasons. That argument has no weight in the case of dogs. I do not necessarily think that the concern that has been expressed relates to the pain and suffering of an animal. We could equally well have legislated that tail docking be done under anaesthesia and by a qualified and registered veterinarian; that would have removed the element of pain and suffering. But for me that is not really the core issue. The issue is about surgical intervention in the appearance of an animal for cosmetic reasons, which I find quite difficult to comprehend. People might wish to have surgery performed if their dog was born with a malformed tail, or its tail was damaged. Surgery might be done for prophylactic reasons, or for the numerous other reasons that have been mentioned, and the bill provides for those cases. They are fairly well covered in this bill.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: It does not provide for prophylactic reasons, it provides for welfare reasons.
The Hon. JON JENKINS: It provides for welfare. One of the earlier arguments related to dogs with an anatomical problem. I support Mr Ian Cohen's strong suggestion that any anatomical problem should be bred out of a dog. If certain breed of dogs have a problem with their tails, or the dogs have some other problem, breeders should breed that trait out of them or not breed the animal at all. They should stop the genetic problem at that point. Some honourable members referred to working dogs, which are more susceptible to tail damage. From my experience on the land—I have a lot of cattle and sheep working dogs—I cannot remember one of my dogs ever injuring its tail. My dogs run through thorns, thistles, fences, bush and scrub and in between cattle and sheep and I cannot ever remember even one dog damaging its tail. The Hon. Amanda Fazio said that there are dogs of all sizes, and she listed several breeds that have tails and other breeds that have no tails.
There was at least some reasonable evidence to suggest that working dogs do not suffer from problems to their tails. Reference was made earlier to bobtail dogs and to the Australian bobtail kelpie. This is a fairly trivial matter. Owners can simply obtain a statement from their veterinarian to verify that their dog was born without a tail. As I said earlier, I do not think this issue is about pain; it is really about the concept of surgically altering an animal for cosmetic reasons. The practice was probably traditional in the tail-tax days of medieval times, but there is no real cause for it today. My dog, which is a mutt, has a tail. Dogs communicate with each other by wagging their tails; they put their tails between their legs when they are in a timid state. However, the two boxer dogs that live near me cannot communicate with each other in that fashion. I support this legislation and commend it to the House.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.21 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats have a record that is second to none on animal rights. I am pleased to support this legislation. I am also pleased with the information that has been provided to me by the Australian Veterinary Association. As a medical professional I take note of what veterinary associations have to say.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: What about the information that we gave you? That was pretty good too, wasn't it?
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I think I got something from the Minister. I quote from the material that was provided to me by the Australian Veterinary Association and by the RSPCA, which states:
A ban on tail docking has wide animal welfare community support from the AVA, the RSPCA, the New South Wales Animal Welfare League, the Animal Societies Federation, the Animal Welfare Advisory Council and the Australian Labor Party.
For once the Australian Labor Party has done something right. I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to hear me say so.
The Hon. Dr Peter Wong: He is wagging his tail.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Dr Peter Wong. The Australian Veterinary Association also states:
The docking of dogs' tails other than for therapeutic reasons is not scientifically defensible. Removing a dog's tail for preventive reasons when it is perfectly healthy and useful to the dog is clearly not in the animal's best interests. Inflicting a forced, painful and unnecessary injury to prevent an accidental one is contrary to the animal's welfare and interests.
It is a view of the informed and educated that the act is inhumane, unwarranted and self-serving. No clear benefit has been shown to accrue from tail docking that can outweigh the potential harm that might be caused to the dog involved.
That statement is unequivocal. It is absurd to amputate a body part on the basis that it might be injured if it is not amputated. We must also consider the possibility that if the body part is not amputated it might not get injured. Taking the most elementary view of anatomy, a dog's head is at the front of the body and is the part of the body that would likely suffer injury first; its body is next, and it is larger than the head so it has a greater chance than the tail of being injured; then there are the feet, which are on the ground and could also be injured; and then there is the tail, which is the smallest part of the body and is at the rear of the animal and is by any commonsense measure the least likely part of the dog to be damaged. The idea that someone should whip off a dog's tail because it is likely to be injured goes against any commonsense analysis of the situation. While I am a great supporter of scientific expertise, I think commonsense is a good principle to apply to the problems that we consider in this place. The Australian Veterinary Association [AVA] continues:
Most vets believe that tail docking causes significant to severe pain. Though currently legal for vets to perform tail docking for prophylactic reasons, very few vets in NSW are prepared to perform it. 76% of vets believe that tail docking is significantly to severely painful.
We must wonder about the remaining 24 per cent of vets. Virtually from birth, animals move towards heat and away from cold. They are sensitive to degrees of stimuli that are far less drastic than tail docking. One can have fancy arguments about whether the degree of myelin on the nerve sheaths is greater or lesser histologically when sectioned and viewed under a microscope, but that is virtually irrelevant. It beggars belief to claim that an animal does not feel pain when it is born, and perhaps even in utero. It also defies belief to argue that because an animal is young it does not feel pain. Those who believe circumcision in neonates is painless have not performed too many circumcisions. I have not seen a neonate yet who thinks it is a good idea.
Neither the Australian Veterinary Association nor the RSPCA supports the banning or elimination of purebred dogs, as has been suggested erroneously. Both organisations are keen to put that point on the record. Dogs' tails can still be docked in the case of injury. That is fairly obvious. But such injuries constitute only 0.4 per cent of injuries to dogs treated by vets. Such injuries are usually caused when a person shuts a car door enthusiastically on a dog's tail. That is an injury related not to a dog's natural behaviour but to human activity. Injuries to dogs' tails are not a huge problem. Even though one or two such cases have been found and the injuries photographed—I have been directed to a number of web sites devoted to this issue—I find such argument most unpersuasive. The Australian Veterinarian Association goes on to say that the Australian National Kennel Council does not enforce tail docking. The code states:
… docking should only be carried out in respect of those breeds with a known history or propensity to injury and/or damage to their tails in the course of their normal activities for therapeutic and/or prophylactic purposes … and for sanitary purposes.
"Prophylactic" has to do with prevention. It is absolutely absurd to amputate a dog's tail in case it needs to be amputated later. I think the idea of docking a tail for prophylactic purposes is a nonsense.
The Hon. Jon Jenkins: Congenital deformities.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I do not have any statistics on congenital deformities to dogs' tails but I imagine the incidence is low. The AVA and the RSPCA both see clear differences in docking dogs' tails and docking lambs' or piglets' tails. There are no demonstrated benefits of tail docking in dogs but tail docking in lambs prevents fly strike. Lambs can get very fly blown.
The Hon. Rick Colless: You'd know a lot about that.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I have docked a large number of lambs' tails, thank you very much. My brother-in-law is a sheep farmer in Balclutha in New Zealand and I help him dock many lambs' tails whenever I visit.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Is it a surgical procedure?
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: That description is perhaps a little pretentious.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Do you hurt the sheep?
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Yes, it hurts the sheep. There is no doubt about that.
The Hon. Rick Colless: So it is a non-surgical procedure.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: It is an apparatus like a diathermic guillotine that burns as it cuts. The sheep do not like it very much—let us have no illusions about that.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: But it is important to their survival so you are prepared to do it.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I do it to help my brother-in-law. I do not find it at all tasteful. Norway has banned the docking of dogs' tails since 1987. Part of Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and Sweden have also banned tail docking.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: But Sweden revisited its decision.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I have received many emails about the situation in Sweden. The banning of tail docking will not financially cripple the purebred dog industry. I have many statistics about the exporting of dogs but I do not propose to enlighten the House in that regard. Dogs with tails may be exported to countries that have no legislation banning the docking of dogs' tails. Such animals have been successfully exported by dog breeders in Australia.
Presumably, if a breed is redefined, a period of changeover may cause some difficulty but at the end of the process the qualities that are sought will define what a breed is supposed to be. If the definition of a dog is that it has a tail, that fact will filter through to show judges and breeders will not be disadvantaged. In keeping with the policy of the Australian Democrats for a national ban on cosmetic tail docking, which was urged at the Primary Industry Ministerial Council meeting, I support this legislation, as did my Leader in Canberra, Senator Andrew Bartlett. The Democrats take a strong stand against tail docking, and I support that stand.
The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [8.31 p.m.]: I must inform the House that this legislation put me on a sharp learning curve for me because I did not know what tail docking was all about.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: And you are a doctor!
The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: I know. I am not a veterinary surgeon. I have done circumcision.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Is it a surgical procedure?
The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: Yes. I share the view of professor the Hon. Jon Jenkins that the question is not about pain, tradition or cosmetic appearance, but it is about whether it is good for the welfare of the dog. However, if docking causes pain and there are also ill-effects then we have to consider why we should not support this legislation. From my research I understand all dogs have 27 bones. However, the number of tailbones, and therefore the length of the tail, varies from breed to breed. It is interesting that many honourable members received a letter from Professor Bob Hales, who is against the legislation. On the issue of physical pain referred to by many honourable members, Professor Hales stated:
PHYSICAL PAIN. This claim is based on several studies of lambs; these studies (& a few similar, on calves & piglets) were properly scientifically conducted & published in peer reviewed …
However, he argued that for newborn pups only two to five days old, even if an anaesthetic is not employed, tail docking should not cause pain. Professor Hales accepted that there are other risks, such as bleeding and infection, as referred to by the Hon. Jon Jenkins. As a doctor I accept that in any surgical procedure it is common to have a 5 per cent to 10 per cent infection rate, so we ought not be concerned about that point if it is an issue in this case. The RSPCA campaign document states that tail docking is painful. The article states:
Advocates of tail docking claim that it does not cause pain or discomfort, as the nervous system of puppies is not fully developed. This is not the case. The basic nervous system of a dog is fully developed at birth and the available evidence indicates that puppies have similar, if not increased, sensitivity to pain as adult dogs. Docking a puppy's tail involves cutting through muscles, tendons, up to seven pairs of highly sensitive nerves and severing bone and cartilage connections. Tail docking is usually carried out without any anaesthesia. Puppies give repeated intense shrieking vocalisations the moment the tail is cut off and during stitching of the wound, indicating that they experience substantial pain. Inflammation and damage to the tissues also cause ongoing pain while the wound heals.
I would imagine that most honourable members or their relatives have fractured a bone and know how painful it is. As the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans said, even neonates experience pain. We cannot argue that if human beings experience pain then dogs do not, as we have a very similar anatomy and a virtually similar nervous system. It is not a question of whether there is pain; it is about the degree of pain that a dog suffers when its tail is docked. I do not want to waste any more time of honourable members except to say that there is no medical or veterinary scientific ground to support—
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Cut off half the tail!
The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: Cutting off a part or the whole of the tail for cosmetic or any other reason is not for the welfare of the dog.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS [8.37 p.m.]: I want to raise three matters about this issue. First of all, I put on the record the concerns of some of the breed societies in relation to the tail docking issue. I say at the outset that my family and I are registered labrador breeders so we do have some working knowledge of the concerns of the breed societies in relation to tail docking.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: You do not have a conflict of interest?
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: No, there is no conflict of interest, because labradors have never had docked tails. They are a long-tail breed, as required by the labrador society. My concerns and the concerns of the breed societies are that a breed specification of many breeds of dogs includes a docked tail. The logical way to have approached this issue, if we had wanted to remove the requirement that certain breeds have docked tails, would have been to have worked through the issues with the breed societies with a view to changing the specifications before suddenly slamming the breeders with this legislation.
As breeders attempt to sell their registered dogs with tails on, even though the breed society specification requires docked tails, they will find that their dogs are absolutely valueless and not able to be sold. That might be only for a short period of time, perhaps a couple of years, until the breed societies catch up. It appears to me that it would have made a lot of sense to go to those breed societies first and say, "This is a welfare issue for dogs. We need to change the specifications in line with what is happening in the rest of the world. Why don't we work towards that?" That has not happened and the legislation is being dumped on the breeders. The bill will remove the need to tail dock dogs as a specification of particular breed societies. That issue should have been addressed before the legislation was brought into the Parliament.
There is one other matter I would like to put on the record, and that is the position taken by the Royal New South Wales Canine Council Working Party on Tail Docking. Tonight I received a fax from a Professor J. R. S. Hales, whose qualifications and CV are listed as: B.Sc.(Hons), M.Sc. (New Engl.), Ph.D.(Glasgow); retired biomedical Research Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales; Visiting Professor, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Sydney University; and Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO. So this is a person with eminent qualifications. Professor Hales sent me a fax explaining that he had:
… become involved in the controversy because of the blatant misrepresentations of the matter and of scientific materials by the AVA/RSPCA: Eg., it is not done for cosmetics, it is not a bloody mess, pups do not "howl & scream & yelp", data demonstrating pain in lambs are irrelevant, lack of myelination does render the nerves functionally useless, pain sensation or threshold in dogs is not known to be the same as in humans.
The principal purpose of docking puppies' tails is to avoid painful injury later in life. When essentially all breeds were first being developed 100's of years ago, humans had particular purposes in mind, eg., vermin control. As they were being bred & selected for appropriate temperament & sound physical & physiological characteristics, some breeds were found to 'have problems' with their tails while carrying out the normal duties for which they were being developed, eg., rats taking hold; tails were therefore docked. Since that time, breeders have continued to select for the characteristics needed for their particular purposes, but the tail was not in the equation. Consequently, when the tails are left on these particular breeds in the modern world, it is highly susceptible to injury.
The <0.4% of injuries quoted by the AVA/RSPCA is ridiculous. Of course very few injuries are seen, because the tails of breeds which are highly vulnerable have been docked.
At the age puppies are docked, viz., 2 – 5 days, they are incapable of feeling pain—as evidenced by electrophysiological measurements in rats at University College London, & my own current finding that the midside itch/scratch reflex in puppies is absent until about 8 days' age & not adult-like until 2 – 4 weeks.
We suggest that Amendments be deferred until acceptable wording is agreed, eg., " … may be performed only by Veterinarians or properly trained, accredited persons …" OR "… only by Veterinarians for therapeutic or prophylactic (preventative) purposes" (to fall in line with WA & NT).
Professor Hales goes on to say that the wording:
As proposed by the Govt., " … in the interests of the dog's welfare." is
- so broad as to be unworkable.
- unenforceable due to inter-state differences.
+
It is noteworthy that—
- the UK, a country often regarded as leading the way in animal welfare matters, is considering deregulating aspects of the Veterinary business such as minor operations including tail docking, so that they may be performed by properly qualified, non-veterinary people.
- Sweden has already reversed the ban on docking some breeds because of injuries.
I wanted to put on the record that that is the message coming from the Royal New South Wales Canine Council Working Party on Tail Docking. The third issue I want to raise tonight relates to agricultural animals. A number of members raised this issue in the debate. The bill does not cover agriculture, but I am concerned that it might be regarded as doing so. If this were to be used as an opportunity for animal welfare people to drive a wedge and start a process to implement changes in the management of agricultural animals, we need to be aware of that fact so that we can put an immediate stop to any such process before it gets up a head of steam.
Though I note that it is not the intention of the bill to cover agricultural practices, we need to consider some possible impacts should that process occur. Of course, docking of the tails of all lambs is a day-to-day management practice of all sheep producers in Australia. Mulesing of female lambs is done for health purposes—to stop fly strike and so on. Castrating of male lambs and male calves and other agricultural animals is a normal, day-to-day practice undertaken by all farmers on a routine basis. Ear tagging and ear marking lambs and calves is a routine agricultural practice that occurs daily on farms in New South Wales. Fire branding of calves takes place on every cattle farm in New South Wales.
My concern is that animal welfare people might say that those procedures are also painful for animals and should be banned. We all know they involve some pain, but I carry them out on a regular basis on my farm. All farmers take care when doing these things, but they must be done for the purposes of welfare of the animals and good stock management. If I were required to get veterinarians in to do those operations on our agricultural animals, it would cost me probably $50 or $60 for every calf that needed to be branded, ear tagged or castrated—a cost that the agricultural industry simply cannot afford. It would be absolutely ludicrous to consider that, at some stage down the track, agricultural animals should be subject to the sorts of provisions contained in this bill to address concerns similar to those that have been expressed tonight about the tail docking issue.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Would the RSPCA go down that track?
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: The RSPCA has already indicated that it is concerned about some agricultural practices. Certainly, animal welfare groups have attempted to impose their wills on agriculture. That is why it is important to put this matter on the record tonight, to make sure that the bill is not regarded as a step up the ladder for those people who would seek to advance their personal agendas in relation to the management of agricultural animals. With those few words, I have to say that we will not be supporting the bill. However, I am pleased that I have been able to make my contribution to the debate tonight.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) [8.47 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this important debate. In his speech the Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggested that veterinarians may not be the best persons to perform the tail docking procedure. He said, in part, that lay practitioners who perform tail docking more regularly might actually be better at this surgical procedure. Whilst we understand the point that the honourable member makes, we believe the issue is not simply a matter of determining who is best at performing the procedure, but also who is best placed to consider the whole of the dog's welfare interests. In both cases, but particularly when it comes to the dog's welfare interests, we believe that veterinarians are the best people for the job.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also sought a commitment to review the implementation of this ban. I thank the honourable member for his suggestion and for his contribution in this respect. I make it clear that I agree to this sensible proposal, and I will instruct NSW Agriculture to conduct an annual review to consider any supportable and convincing evidence brought forward of a systemic adverse animal welfare outcome in a group or breed of dogs. So we will have that annual review in relation to the ban.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Who will conduct the review?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It would be the department. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised the possibility of breeders taking dogs to Western Australia for the docking procedure. Mr Ian Cohen pointed out that in fact this was unlikely. It should also be pointed out that tail docking is not legal in Western Australia. It is restricted to veterinarians only for therapeutic or prophylactic purposes. The legislation has been in place in Western Australia for some months, and to date there is no evidence that tail docking is taking place carte blanche: the legislation prevents it. I point out that at the 2002 Primary Industries Ministerial Council [PIMC] all the States and the Commonwealth agreed to implement a ban on tail docking. This legislation, following extensive consultation, is the result of that agreement.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: But it ain't the same.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, each State has slight variations. But an annual review will answer some of the questions raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Comments have been made tonight about the differences between the legislation in the various States and Territories and the potential for confusion. The aim of the bill is to capture the spirit of the decision made by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council as closely as possible, and stay in step with legislation introduced in other jurisdictions. Given that each jurisdiction must introduce its own legislation, naturally some issues will arise about uniformity. However, the bill captures the spirit of the resolution of the PIMC to ban the tail docking of dogs.
The bill gives effect to a national ban. Legislation to restrict tail docking of dogs has been introduced in Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory in accordance with the resolution of the PIMC. Victoria's regulation is ready for gazettal before 1 April, which was the agreed deadline. Tasmania has moved to introduce legislation similar to that introduced in South Australia. It has been suggested that the wording of the proposed defence "in the interests of the dog's welfare" is too broad and open to interpretation. This is not an issue. First, tail docking will be restricted to veterinarians only. The veterinary profession is highly professional, and veterinarians can reasonably be expected to act appropriately and to comply with standards set by the profession.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is the veterinarians who have said it is too broad.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have heard what they have said, but I am explaining that it is not quite the case. Second, a veterinarian will need to be able to demonstrate to his or her peers that the decision to dock a dog's tail was taken in the interests of the dog's welfare. In Western Australia and Queensland, where similar legislation has been in place for a number of months, there do not appear to be any problems about interpretation. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised concern that the ban would place an unreasonable burden of proof upon the person who is prosecuted for breach of the ban, for example in the case of naturally occurring bobtail dogs. For the reasons stated by the Hon. Amanda Fazio, they should not present any enforcement difficulties.
Section 12 of the Act imposes strict liability upon the person charged with docking the dog's tail. This has always been the case. The amendment to section 12 does not change that position. However, it provides a defence to registered veterinary surgeons who performed the procedure on the dog, having first assessed that it is in the interests of the welfare of that dog. The defence is clear as to whom it applies. It is also clear as to what assessment veterinary surgeons must make when confronted by a dog owner who requests the removal of the dog's tail. No unreasonable burden is placed on the veterinary surgeon. Veterinary surgeons are called on daily to make similar judgments in a range of areas.
Although the Deputy Leader of the Opposition speculated that the passage of the bill would have a flow-on effect to the tail docking of other domestic animals, I can assure the House that that is not the case. I refer also to comments made by other members in this House. In response to the point raised by the Hon. Rick Colless, there is no intention of interfering with necessary husbandry procedures performed by the farming community. The reasons for tail docking of other animals differ from species to species.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Did you say that the liability is with the person who does the docking rather than the person who has the animal? Is that what you were saying was the defence for people who had animals with bobtails?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to bobtails and potential problems of proof as to whether the dogs were born that way or had their tails docked. Some breeds are known to regularly or occasionally give birth to bobtail puppies. This is a genetic abnormality that has been selected for by inbreeding in some lines or breeds of dogs. For example, one type of Australian cattle dog is born with a bobtail. Pembroke corgis and Australian shepherds may also be born with bobtails. If owners or breeders are concerned about prosecution it should be a simple matter to avoid such problems. Keeping notes about the birth by taking photographs of newborn pups and showing the animals to reliable witnesses soon after birth should provide enough evidence to prevent any mistake in enforcement action being proceeded with, especially in breeds where the occurrence is uncommon. Radiographic evidence may also be helpful in determining whether a dog was born with a short tail. It is a question of what the courts will deal with.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is the same stuff that Amanda gave us. It is not a proper answer, Minister.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I think it is very much a proper answer. One cannot be certain in any circumstances whether it is a genetic abnormality or whether it is bred in the dog.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: And that is the concern that they have.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: But surely the breeders would be able to keep some evidence of it. What is wrong with that? There is no difficulty with that. The reasons for tail docking of other animals differ from species to species, but these are not related to cosmetic reasons as they are with some dogs. For example, tail docking of sheep is carried out to reduce the risk of fly strike. Anyone who has seen a fly-blown sheep would be aware that it is a major animal welfare problem that may lead to the death of sheep. Tail docking of sheep is recognised as a preventative measure, which is in the interests of the sheep's welfare. It is not carried out to produce a desired appearance. The bill is concerned with the tail docking of dogs and has no flow-on effect to livestock.
Cosmetic tail docking of dogs is no longer an acceptable practice. This is confirmed by the support received for this bill from the Australian Veterinary Association and other animal welfare groups, together with the resolution of the Primary Industries Ministerial Council to introduce a nationally co-ordinated prohibition on tail docking of dogs by 1 April 2004. The bill will remove a defence against prosecution that currently applies to veterinarians who conduct tail docking for reasons other than the welfare and interests of a particular dog. The bill, therefore, prohibits routine or cosmetic tail docking of puppies, but makes available the defence to tail docking where the procedure is performed by veterinary surgeons in the interests of the dog's welfare. There cannot be a reasonable justification for continuing the painful practice of cosmetic tail docking of puppies within New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 23
Mr Burke
Ms Burnswoods
Mr Catanzariti
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Cohen
Mr Costa
Mr Della Bosca
Mr Egan | Ms Hale
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Jenkins
Mr Kelly
Mr Macdonald
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Ms Rhiannon | Ms Robertson
Ms Tebbutt
Mr Tingle
Mr Tsang
Dr Wong
Tellers,
Mr Primrose
Mr West |
Noes, 11
Mr Clarke
Ms Cusack
Mrs Forsythe
Miss Gardiner | Mr Gay
Mr Oldfield
Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce | Mr Ryan
Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Harwin |
Pairs
Dr Burgmann | Mr Gallacher |
| Ms Griffin | Mr Lynn |
| Mr Obeid | Ms Parker |
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:42:50 : Update this page