Page 1452 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, could I have some order?
MADAM SPEAKER: Order!
MR HUMPHRIES: Let us put that to one side. Is it not possible for someone to come forward and say, "We believe that we can employ animals usefully in a circus in a way which treats them fairly, which gives them very large cages, and which does everything else that those who are concerned about animal welfare might call for"? Is it not possible in those circumstances that a circus could operate which is not cruel to animals? Surely, Mr Lamont, you must concede that it is possible that that could happen. If that is the case, we should not legislate to say that all circuses should be banned or that all circuses involving exotic animals should be banned because - - -
Mr Connolly: Just the animals; the circuses are fine.
MR HUMPHRIES: We effectively ban those circuses, Mr Connolly; of course we do. We ban them in the ACT, at the very least. You cannot expect them to leave the animals that they take elsewhere in Australia on the border and put them out to graze while they come in here and run half a circus. We are banning circuses in the ACT as we know them, with certain exceptions such as Circus Oz and things of that kind. That is what we are doing. Let us be fair about it. Do not pretend that you are going to see in the future circuses like the ones we have seen recently, if you pass this legislation. You will not.
Mr Kaine: We can always go over the border to Queanbeyan and see them.
MR HUMPHRIES: That is a very good point. What the Government does with this legislation does not prevent certain circuses being exposed to the people of the ACT. It only means that they will have to travel to see them, but that is another matter.
Madam Speaker, there is another fundamental logical flaw about this legislation which troubles me very greatly, and that is that we have here a distinction between exotic animals so called and other animals. The distinction appears to be that exotic animals, by definition again, suffer cruelly in circuses, whereas other than exotic animals do not suffer cruelly in circuses. The logic of that has not been explained to me up till now. Why is it that - - -
Mr Moore: I have just explained that.
Mr Lamont: Mr Moore just explained it quite clearly.
MR HUMPHRIES: No, it has not been explained satisfactorily. Why is it that a horse will be treated properly in a circus, or a camel will be treated properly in a circus, but not an elephant? The camels and the elephants, with respect, are treated in a very similar fashion by most circuses. They are both allowed to graze at certain times; they are both tethered in certain ways; they both do similar things, to some extent, in the ring. But you distinguish between the two of them. You say that it is impossible to treat an elephant fairly in the ring in a circus, but it is possible to treat a camel fairly.
There seems to be some notion that cheetahs, giraffes, lions, tigers and elephants, some of which have been bred in captivity and are fifth generation captives, if you like, somehow still pine for the open plains of Africa or India, or wherever
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .