Page 1474 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
save them. Again, it is an indication of an attitudinal change within society. Likewise, I believe that attitudinal change is required in relation to the confining of exotic animals. Ecotourism around the world is growing at an enormous rate, and so it ought to. Our attitudinal change to the care of our environment and our eco-environment is very important. People will want to travel to far parts of the world on an ecotourism basis, but they will not want to go to the plains of Africa if none of the endemic animals are there.
That again is an indication of what I mean when I talk about the need for attitudinal change and recognition that it is occurring within the community. It is not a question of cruelty; it is a question of appropriateness. What right do we have, as one of thousands of species on this earth, to use exotic animals purely for cheap entertainment? What we ought to be doing is working and fighting together to ensure their existence. Think about the game parks in Africa; think about the problems the rangers have in Zimbabwe; think about the problems we are going to have in ensuring that the African elephant exists in years to come. I hate to think that in future the only way a child in this society is going to see an elephant is standing on a barrel in a circus.
There is no way that, in making those comments, I have no feeling for the circus families historically; but as a society we ought to be encouraging them to diversify and helping them to do that, encouraging them not to be scared of diversifying. The thing that has upset me most about the debate from the Opposition is that some people over there just cannot see what we are talking about. I hope to heaven that they start to.
MR HUMPHRIES (9.45): I have been listening to this debate patiently, waiting for the specifics of the case against circuses to be made out so that I and my colleagues can see exactly what it is about circuses that is alleged to be unfair and cruel. I have been referred by Mr Wood, the Minister, to the existing provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and he made reference to the so-called inadequacy of the provisions of that Act. I have looked at the particular clause to which he referred, and I think it is extremely comprehensive. I would be very surprised if acts of cruelty of the kind Mr Lamont spoke of do not fall within the ambit of that provision. In other words, if there were acts of cruelty going on in circuses in the ACT, they would certainly be caught by the provisions of the existing Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Apparently that is not good enough, and we are going one step further.
What exactly is the case against circuses? Let us get down to tintacks. Mr Wood was good enough to mention some criteria that he considered put circuses in the league of being unacceptable. He said that animals in circuses were caged, confined, hobbled and trained and that this established a case of inhumane treatment of animals. Let us look at each of those in turn. The first criterion was the caging of animals. Mr Wood will be well aware that circuses are not the only place where animals are caged. They are caged all over the place in our community. They are caged in bird cages in peoples' homes. They are caged in egg production farms. They are caged in zoos. They are caged in laboratories around the country, where experimentation on animals takes place. They are caged in some peoples' homes. For example, when people go out they put dogs in cages. Caging is neither illegal nor unusual.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .