Page 1226 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 24 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
What about training these animals? You do not have to be an expert to realise that your average lion or tiger, as an example, does not roll over and play dead, let alone jump through burning hoops like some obedient dog who gets a pat on the head for his troubles. Let us look at what the experts have to say, Mr De Domenico.
Mr De Domenico: Who are the experts?
MR LAMONT: I am glad you asked. Alfred Court, the leading animal trainer of this century, regarded by the industry as such, described how to subdue a wild animal, as follows:
If an animal attacks, he must be given severe enough correction for him to realise from the first encounter that he is not the stronger ...
Court went on to explain what this actually means. He described what to do when a bear refuses initially to submit to his will, as follows:
I clenched my hand around the club and struck at the head with all my strength ... the bear had been struck where I had aimed, above the nostrils and between the eyes. Blood flowed from its mouth, its paws stiffened in a last convulsion and it collapsed.
This was Court's recommended approach in training exotic circus animals. Madam Speaker, how else, after all, could a wild animal be trained?
In the Assembly last night, members on this side were accused of getting their priorities wrong. Members opposite asked how we could legislate to prevent cruelty to animals when we were willing, according to them, to terminate the lives of humans because we were repealing the Termination of Pregnancy Act. In my speech last night on that matter, I made my position quite plain when I said that I did not believe that I could make moral choices for others. Madam Speaker, circus animals do not exercise free will; they do not have the ability to exercise that moral judgment. It is up to us to demonstrate our basic humanity in the way that we view and treat them.
The Opposition having made their argument, what should their position on this be? They say that we are hypocritical for supporting the prevention of cruelty to animals while supporting the liberalisation of abortion law. Surely their support for the retention of the existing abortion law does not mean that they must justify cruelty to animals. That is what they are doing. What a strange twist it is that they should claim that we are guilty of a profound cruelty; yet in its name they will perpetrate another. How sincere can they be when in their system of values they will trade one cruelty for another?
If there are weaknesses in my amendment, Madam Speaker, they are that it has taken until 1992 to make its appearance and that it does not go far enough. They are the two essential weaknesses. On a recent trip to the former Soviet Union I took the time to go and see the Moscow State Circus and several others circuses. That is the same place where the former Treasurer of the Liberal Party is about to go, I understand, on a study tour, is he not? I certainly hope that he has a look when he gets there, because with one exception, Madam Speaker, these circuses, the most famous in the world, have abandoned or are starting to abandon their use of exotic animal performances. There are now over 60 major municipal governments in Europe which ban animals in circuses. There are now over 50 local councils throughout Australia which also ban them outright.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .