Page 1450 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
towards a monkey or a domestic dog is irrelevant. We are not contemplating, nor should we be, that circuses owning any domestic pets be banned. We must keep in mind that the aim of the legislation is to protect the welfare of the animal.
In summary, it is a shame that primates have been included in the blanket exotic animal definition, as I believe them to be highly interactive and, provided with the basic requirement for that species, they are natural animals to cooperate with humans. Therefore, it seems to me that they ought not be barred from working in circuses, provided that an appropriate code of conduct can be developed and followed. As stated earlier, as far as I am concerned there are no convincing arguments for the retention of large cats or elephants in the circuses. The very nature of the circus - its mobility, its performance and economic requirements - works against the very basic needs of these species. Even if the circuses were committed to providing the most beneficial of circumstances for these animals, they would not be able to do so as they have no option but to confine and transport these animals incessantly. With that in mind, Madam Speaker, I now move, as an amendment to Mr Lamont's amendment:
Proposed new definition of "prohibited circus animal", paragraph (a), omit the paragraph.
The effect of that is to remove the word "primate" from the definition, so that circuses would still be able to use primates but would not be able to have the big cats or the elephants as part of the circuses in the ACT. In doing that, Madam Speaker, I am very conscious of the fact that there is also proposed new clause 51A, which would allow the Minister to reintroduce primates as a species that could be banned. I would encourage the Minister to use that option in 12 months' time if the code of conduct is not appropriate or if the monkeys are not handled appropriately. In 12 months' time, if that is the case, I would be prepared to support him should a motion of disallowance be raised in the Assembly.
MR WESTENDE (8.12): I foreshadow that I will be moving an amendment to Mr Moore's amendment to proposed new subclause 51(3).
MADAM SPEAKER: Has it been submitted in writing, Mr Westende, or will you do so?
MR WESTENDE: Yes, Madam Speaker.
MR HUMPHRIES (8.14): Madam Speaker, while Mr Westende is preparing his amendment, perhaps I could speak on this matter of Mr Lamont's generally.
MADAM SPEAKER: Yes, of course.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, I feel that the proposal put up by Mr Lamont with respect to the banning of exotic animals in circuses is sloppy legislation. The fundamental question before the Assembly has to be how we can best protect the interests of, in this case, animals, and provide that acts which are considered unacceptable in our society of the late twentieth century are, in fact, the standard that we adopt and incorporate in this legislation. That is the basic question ahead of us. There are, of course, a number of ways of achieving that. In this case Mr Lamont has chosen to prescribe certain activities and say that these activities are not consistent with the fair treatment of animals in our community.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .