Page 1487 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR KAINE: I am trying to point out to Mr Lamont and to others, after looking at the definitions in this Bill, that they have defined themselves into a hole where people carrying on legitimate business enterprises in this city are going to be subject to a $10,000 fine or one year's imprisonment, or both.
Mr Connolly: That is twaddle. The zoo is covered by clause 9. There is nothing wrong with confining an animal.
MR KAINE: If you look at clause 18, subclause (3), the definition of "game park" - - -
Mr Lamont: Mr Connolly, do not worry. This is the ring-a-ring o'roses they have been playing all week.
MR KAINE: It is not ring-a-ring o'roses. People sitting in the visitors gallery and people out there in the wider community ought to be aware of what you people are doing in this Bill, because that is what it means. You can weasel your way out of it, but that is what it says unequivocally.
Madam Speaker, Mr Westende is trying to get some sense into this definition. If we are to have animals that are going to be prescribed in terms of whether they can be held in a circus or not, at least let us have some logic to it. What he is saying is that we will not have cheetahs, giraffes or pumas. There are none of those now, but he has separated them from the rest. Then he says that beyond the year 2000 we will not have any of these others either - elephants, lions, tigers or leopards. Those are the ones that are in fact in zoos now. That seems to me to be a reasonable breakdown of the definition. It does allow decisions to be made by the owners and operators and users of these animals as to what on earth they are going to do with them. That seems to me to be eminently reasonable.
Members have been talking about the changing attitudes of society. I do not disagree that attitudes are changing. Let us accept that. Perhaps attitudes about animals in circuses and zoos are different from what they were 10, 20 or 50 years ago; but to lower the boom and say, "Tomorrow you cannot have those animals" begs the question of what on earth they are going to do with them. Somebody facetiously said, "We are going to turn them loose like the camels out in Central Australia". Well, I have a better idea. Turn them loose in Namadgi and it will keep the hikers away, at least for a while; but they will not last long in the wild anyway.
What are these people going to do with these animals if you lower the boom tomorrow? Let us have some reasoned, logical approach to the question. Let us accept as fact - I do not accept it, but let us accept it for the purposes of the argument - that attitudes out there in the community are changing. Okay; let us approach it in a logical and sensible way, and let everybody get out of their present situation in a sensible way, with some sensitivity and some decency. I do not agree with the general proposition of cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer. This is what this attempts to do.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Kaine, your time has expired.
MR KAINE: All I am saying to people is that before we vote on Mr Westende's amendment, they should think about what it means. Set aside the emotional debate that has been taking place all night, most of which has been irrelevant to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .