Page 1451 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would argue, Madam Speaker, that what Mr Lamont is doing is making an assumption - indeed, Mr Moore, in supporting that amendment, has made the same assumption - that it is impossible to treat animals in a circus in any way but cruelly, in any way but in a way which we would deem to be inappropriate. I think, Madam Speaker, with the greatest respect, that that is making a very large assumption which is not borne out, and which could not be borne out, by the range of experience which is possible in a circus in this day and age. Mr Moore, for example, spoke about circuses necessarily being travelling circuses. I would put to you, Madam Speaker, for example, that it is quite possible to have a circus which is not travelling, as I understand that some circuses in the world are not in fact travelling circuses.
Mr Lamont: In the ACT.
MR HUMPHRIES: Maybe, in the ACT at the present time, there are not any non-travelling circuses. But you cannot say that there would not be at some point in the future. Is it not possible that the conditions about which we are talking at present might not exist in respect of some other circus?
The point I am making, Madam Speaker, is this: If Mr Lamont, and Mr Moore, for that matter, are concerned about the conditions of animals in circuses, then prescribe animal welfare legislation which says that it is an offence to be cruel to animals. Do not say that any circus, by definition, no matter how well run it is, must be necessarily an institution which is cruel to animals. Mr Lamont nods his head; yes, that must be the case.
Mr Lamont: It is.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Lamont's imagination is very limited. The fact of life is that we have - - -
Mr Kaine: He has a closed mind - - -
MR HUMPHRIES: He has indeed. As Mr Kaine has said, he has a closed mind on this matter. We are being lazy here. We are being lazy about this. We are saying that we cannot conceive of a circumstance where a circus could exist where animals are fairly treated. Consider how stupid that statement really is if you think about it carefully. We are not saying, "We impose on you conditions which you must meet". We are going one step further and saying, "Even if you can satisfy us that you can meet the conditions we lay down in legislation to deal with animals in a fair and proper way, even if you can meet those standards, we are still going to ban you because we consider that circuses are, by definition, incapable of providing fair treatment to animals". That is just not tenable. That is poor legislation and it is unfair to those who conduct circuses.
Mr Lamont says, "No, no, circuses at the present time do not do that". I would certainly take issue with that. I disagree with you that circuses in Australia at the present time are not good to animals. I contend, as do others who have taken the trouble to look at this matter, including in the past at least the RSPCA, that circuses in this country treat their animals fairly. But let us put that to one side.
Mr Lamont: Ask the executive director, who is sitting in the gallery. Ask the executive director of the RSPCA.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .