Page 1455 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine: Why are they distinguishing?
MR DE DOMENICO: If not, as Mr Kaine quite correctly says, why are they distinguishing between horseracing and elephants or primates or whatever in circuses? Mr Moore is prepared to stand up and attest that all elephants, tigers, giraffes and whatever are cruelly treated. If we support his amendment we can bring in gorillas from wherever we want to bring them from, as big as they can be. Gorillas are all right, but we cannot bring in a little seventh generation, Australian born tiger which is treated quite nicely by the people who own it and love it, Mr Moore, because it is their livelihood in a lot of cases. It is all right to bring in a gorilla, but we have to get rid of the elephants and the tigers. What humbug! What double standards! Let us get real about this issue. That is what it is all about. So that is what Mr Colquhoun says about the racing situation. He goes on to refer to subclause 8(1), which says:
A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, deliberately cause an animal unnecessary pain.
He talks about pain. He goes on to say:
This Clause is expressed so widely that it opens up a Pandora's box ...
He continues:
That pain is caused to racehorses daily is undeniable.
I am glad to see that Mr Wright is in the audience here, because Mr Wright is a member of the Carbine Club, which supports the racehorse industry. He also happens to be the chairman of the RSPCA. One wonders what Mr Wright thinks of Mr Colquhoun's opinion. One wonders what the RSPCA thinks of Mr Colquhoun's opinion, "That pain is caused to racehorses daily is undeniable". So, if this Government is fair dinkum, if this legislation gets through tonight, we hope to debate the issue of whether we should ban horseracing. Let us see how many double standards you have, Mr Lamont. Let us see what you are going to do about banning horseracing.
Madam Speaker, as Mr Humphries said, quite correctly, there is legislation currently in tow here. If anyone mistreats any animal, whether it be a domestic animal, a primate, an elephant, a tiger or anything else, why has there not been a prosecution? The answer, Madam Speaker, is: Because this Bill is all about politics, about getting into bed, as I said before, with minority groups because of certain promises made by those minority groups, I dare say; it is nothing about anything that makes sense in this place.
We are the laughing-stock of this nation, Madam Speaker. We are the laughing-stock of this nation because in October, in Brisbane, Mr Wood, I believe, accepted an invitation to go to a national conference of Ministers who will try to debate national legislation on animal welfare, amongst other things, and codes of conduct.
Mr Wood: Oh, are we?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .