Page 1453 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
they have come from; whereas ponies or camels, which also are originally from similar places, do not have that same instinctive feel for the places from which they originated. The logic is very hard to understand.
Mr Lamont: When the horse runs down the street you do not get out the gun and shoot it.
MR HUMPHRIES: That is a strange interjection, I must say, Madam Speaker. I really cannot understand the purpose of that. There is no logical basis on which to distinguish between exotic and non-exotic animals in this Bill. In fact, Madam Speaker, I would have had much more difficulty arguing against this provision if it had said, "No animals should be used in circuses"; but you do not do that. You say that exotic animals are not allowed, but non-exotic animals are; and I say, Madam Speaker, that that is just not well based in logic.
Madam Speaker, some opposite obviously have no concern and no compunction about driving this institution out of our Territory. Some of them feel that it is perfectly all right to take this step because they have the ears of certain radicals who believe that it is appropriate to take these kinds of drastic steps. They are radicals, Mr Connolly; they are in that category. They take steps which many in this community would not see as appropriate.
I think Mr Moore said that the market for circuses is dying or the market for circuses is dwindling. You did not go down to Tuggeranong the other night and see the hundreds and hundreds of people in those circus tents saying, "Yes, we are enjoying this. This is a good form of entertainment and we do not feel that the animals we are watching are suffering as they perform for us". I was there and I watched a performance, and I certainly felt that those who witnessed that experience enjoyed it and did not feel that they were exploiting animals by doing so. This point has to be made: Surely the onus is on those who proposed this legislation to prove that that kind of thing is going on. If you believe that animals are unfairly treated or cruelly treated, point out the cases and prosecute under existing legislation; but you cannot, because it does not happen, and you are left in the position of saying, "We cannot prove anything against circuses, so instead we will just ban it".
MR DE DOMENICO (8.25): I concur with what my colleague Mr Humphries said. Let us have no doubt about what is going on here tonight. If people do not want to attend the circus - let us be honest - they have a very democratic way of expressing their feelings, and that is by not going.
Mr Connolly: What if the elephant does not want to be caged and shackled?
MR DE DOMENICO: Did he tell you? Do you actually talk to animals? Let me go on. It is not a funny issue, might I say. What we are debating here tonight is not the fact that we are banning certain animals from circuses but the right of any government to completely wipe away, with a stroke of the pen, not just someone's livelihood but someone's lifestyle. That is what the issue is all about. The Government has no mandate to do it.
We hear a lot of things about consultation in this house. Why did Mr Lamont refuse bluntly to talk to the circus people? He might have disagreed with them; perhaps he would have. Why did he refuse bluntly to talk to them?
Mr Kaine: Because he did not want to learn anything.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .