Page 1448 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ANIMAL WELFARE BILL 1992
Detail Stage
Clause 4 and proposed amendment thereto.
Debate resumed from 24 June 1992.
MR MOORE (8.01): Madam Speaker, it is a shame that this proposed amendment to the Animal Welfare Bill came so late after the Bill was tabled in May this year. It is also a shame that the proposed amendment only singles out circuses and suggests an outright banning of "exotic" animals, and then only after it was first suggested to ban all animals, without looking at the species-specific needs and the possibility of creating sound codes of practice to be included in the regulations to ensure the welfare of all animals.
The arguments raging regarding the animals in circuses have largely been anthropomorphic or defensive. It is regrettable that the real issues have been clouded by this approach to legislation. Fundamentally, if the issue had been approached with an understanding of animal behaviour, I believe that we would have been more productive and the circuses probably would have felt less victimised. Before making decisions on cruel practice we must understand the social and environmental needs of each species, because what is cruel for one may not necessarily be cruel for another.
I sincerely hope that this issue convinces the Minister, Mr Wood, to make a very constructive contribution to the national conference on animal welfare. I hope that the ACT experience results in species-specific codes of practice being adopted as part of regulations throughout the whole of Australia; and I hope that it covers all operations, not just circuses. I presume that the debate tonight will, at least to a certain extent, focus on animals that are used in the racing system.
Codes of practice for the protection of animals have been developed to address animal welfare and protection in the rodeo industry, in national health and medical research, and in other areas. Coupled with an overseeing ethics committee, and where the codes are in the regulations and therefore enforceable, these codes have assured a standard of practice that is based on the needs of the animal. I hope that Mr Lamont is as excited about developing these codes of practice as he has been over the banning of animals in circuses. If he is genuine in his enthusiasm for animal welfare, no doubt he will put the same energy into developing those codes of practice as he has put into this issue on circuses.
What are the real issues? They are the protection and welfare of animals in our society, whether in circuses, on the back of a truck, in a zoo or wherever; and, secondly, perhaps, the education of our society through examples of what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. The moral arguments are strong for the latter issue, that is, whether or not it is healthy for a community to be shown submissive, trained, wild animals performing unnatural and behaviourally aberrant tricks, I would agree; but I also argue that it is equally unhealthy for us to be viewing gratuitous violence on our TV screens and in films. But do we legislate, or educate, or do both? Given that current opinion is changing as we become more educated on these matters, the circuses themselves must have to come to terms with the realities of a changing market; they simply will not continue to attract audiences if they do not adapt to conducting performances without exotic animals.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .