Page 1486 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Moore: But it is a disallowable instrument in this Assembly.
MR KAINE: Well, maybe; maybe not. I do not know what he means. If he thought that there were other animals that ought to be banned, why did he not identify them? Does he not want zebras in zoos, for example? If he does not want them in zoos, why did he not say so? Interestingly enough, zebras, by no definition, could be domestic animals. As far as I know, they have never been domesticated. But he does not want them excluded from zoos, apparently, because he has not included them in this.
Mr Lamont: Circuses. This is about circuses.
MR KAINE: Circuses. I am sorry; I have a fixation about zoos. I have that fixation because I am worried about our little zoo down on Mugga Way. We are talking about clause 4, Madam Speaker, and, by their own definition, an animal may not be confined by any device or contrivance which impedes or prevents freedom of movement of the animal.
That means that you cannot put any sort of animal in the Mugga Lane Zoo. The people who are running the Mugga Lane Zoo had better look out because as soon as this is passed their zoo becomes illegal. The confining of animals down there, by putting a fence around them, impeding them with a device or contrivance, becomes illegal. If a fence is not a device or a contrivance, I do not know what it is. If they put a fence around an animal in the Mugga Lane Zoo they are guilty of an offence which, by your definition, members of the Government, is going to cost them 10 grand, or a year in gaol, or both. This, Madam Speaker, is an absurdity. That is why I say that, if we had had the debate that we have had tonight before the Bill was voted on in principle, none of the thinking people in this room would have voted for it in principle; they would have thrown it out where it belongs.
When we get down a little further on the definitions, we discover that, if anybody goes down to the National Aquarium and throws a line into their trout pool and pulls out a trout, the management is guilty of an offence that is going to cost them $10,000 or a year in gaol, or both.
Mr Lamont: That is such a long bow that not even you could carry the arrow.
MR KAINE: It is not a long bow. You said that people should read the Bill. You should read it. We are talking about definitions, Mr Lamont. Listen carefully. "A game park" means premises where animals are confined and the taking or killing of those animals as a sport or recreation is permitted on payment of a fee. Fish are defined as animals, according to your definition, and at the National Aquarium they are confined in a game park under that definition.
Mr Lamont: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition would address the amendment that is before the chamber and not waffle on about matters that come up elsewhere in the Bill.
MR KAINE: You ranged far and wide, Mr Lamont, and you had 20 minutes to do it.
Mr Lamont: Madam Speaker, I seek your ruling on the point of order.
MADAM SPEAKER: I believe that you will be relevant, Mr Kaine.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .