Page 1481 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CORNWELL: How can you differentiate between what you claim is the treatment of some animals, selective animals, in a circus and other animals in terms of what you perceive to be cruel, which, I might add, is undefined? I suggest - to use Mr Wood's words - that if you leave it undefined lawyers will indeed be able to drive a bus through it. It will, in fact, be a real bonanza for the law.
I was interested to hear Mr Connolly's comments about the need for simplicity in legislation. I idly flicked through this Animal Welfare Bill and I found what I do not regard as a simplistic phrase at all, something called "undue distress". What exactly does "undue distress" mean? Perhaps Mr Connolly might tell me later, in simplistic legal terms, of course, just what "undue distress" means. I am afraid I do not understand it, Mr Connolly, and it is in your Bill.
Mr Connolly: You do not need to define every term.
MR CORNWELL: Oh, "You do not need to define every term", he says. I acknowledge the interjection. I see; we are going to have selective terms. Of course, this is the problem with the whole Bill, because it is directed at selective areas. Mr Wood talked about community perception. The community perception, thanks to Mr Stevenson's poll, indicates that some 58.8 per cent of people are against - - -
Mr Connolly: Be careful of these Dennis polls.
MR CORNWELL: All right. The fact is that Mr Stevenson has quoted this. You may not agree with the figures, but 58.8 per cent of people said that they were against banning the circuses and 28.5 per cent were in favour. Mr Wood goes on to say, "Well, just because it is not over 50 per cent, eventually we will reach 50 per cent or more". Mr Wood, you are going to have a long time to wait, at 28.5 per cent.
Once again we have this Labor Government seeking to change by law something which is not supported by the majority of people in this Territory. Once again the Labor Party has this hang-up - that is the best way I can describe it - towards wanting to control everybody's life. They have now got to the stage where, even with circuses, they are attempting to say what young children will watch or what they will see and what they will allow their parents to take them to see. Any of you people who have any doubts about this should have heard the roar at the circus when I mentioned this matter to the people concerned. The parents were not happy about you people telling them what they will watch and what they will not watch. Mr Humphries refers to it as tokenism; I call it nannying. I find repeatedly that this Government seems determined to control people's lives in this Territory. This, I believe, is yet another example of it. I do not support it. I believe that in the long run the people of this Territory will turn against this brand of socialist control.
All I can say in terms of this Animal Welfare Bill, in conclusion, is that it is, in fact, an exercise in, I believe, duplicity and, indeed, hypocrisy. You have selected certain circus animals only for your attention and you have failed to address the wider ramifications. You have certainly failed to address the issue of animal welfare itself because, as you all know - and Mr Lamont, who claims to be the expert, perhaps more than anybody else - the question of animal welfare extends far beyond a few exotic species of animals in circuses.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .