Page 1467 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
have a greater affinity with human behaviour than does an elephant or a tiger, but surely Mr Moore can see that the greater intelligence of the apes is the very thing that is the source of their suffering. A circus might be able to house a monkey more easily than an elephant, but that does not mean that monkeys suffer any less for being different from those other animals. The particular trauma of apes is well documented. The Australian Veterinary Association, for example, last year highlighted the fact that monkeys displayed the greatest pathological disturbances of all circus animals. In its report to the Liverpool City Council it noted that circus apes could become "neurotic". Madam Speaker, I seek a short extension of time.
Mr Kaine: No; we have already been quite indulgent, I think. He has already spoken three times. He spoke once when he introduced his amendment.
Leave not granted.
Motion (by Ms Follett) agreed to:
That Mr Lamont be granted an extension of time.
MR LAMONT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also thank my fellow members who supported that proposition.
There are regular reports of monkeys and chimps playing with their own faeces and throwing them at each other. This is an act which, I am reliably informed, is definitely acute neurotic behaviour for all the animals, including the Opposition, Mr Moore now thinks - - -
Mr De Domenico: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask Mr Lamont, the pariah of virtue in this place, to withdraw the word "animals".
Mr Connolly: It is not really a point of order. It is certainly an assault on the English language - a pariah of virtue. I think he means a paragon of virtue.
Mr De Domenico: How do you know what I meant, Mr Connolly?
MR LAMONT: Madam Speaker, I withdraw any inference which may have implied that my colleagues opposite were fit to be chimps. I will repeat that statement, Madam Speaker. There are regular reports of monkeys and chimps playing with their own faeces and throwing them at each other. This is an activity which, I am reliably informed, is definitely acute neurotic behaviour for all the animals Mr Moore now thinks are so compatible with circuses.
The second issue I take up with regard to Mr Moore's proposal is that there is no likelihood that a code for apes would receive sufficient priority for it to be drawn up, in my estimation, in anything less than five years. The major focus of the code regime to be considered by the animal welfare Ministers later this year is intensive farming practices. Circus animals, as I understand it, at this stage are not even on that agenda. It may be that that will come on the agenda, but it certainly will not be with a high priority. Mr Moore believes in protecting apes only by the use of a code and not by a ban. He is also going to have to believe that it is okay to continue to be cruel to apes for a very considerable period, if that is the case.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .