Page 1488 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
this point anyway, and look at this amendment. What does it mean? What are the net effects of it? I submit that if you do that you will support Mr Westende's amendment because it is eminently sensible.
MR LAMONT (10.40): I rise to speak in opposition to Mr Westende's amendment and also to address some of the issues raised by Mr Kaine. Assuming that he was reported correctly in the Canberra Times last Sunday, and if I have understood what he has said tonight in presenting his arguments, this is one of the more novel ideas to come out of the Liberal stable. It is suggested that because people's livelihoods are involved in the use of these animals the legislation should, rather than impose an immediate ban, set a phase out date of eight years from now so that circuses can gear down their animal operations. That, I understand, is the thrust, both of what Mr Westende said on the weekend and of what he has said again here this evening, and that has been parroted by Mr Kaine.
I suppose I should be at least somewhat grateful to Mr Westende because his idea at least implies some recognition of the fact that animal suffering is taking place and that something should be done about it. So do not let anybody accuse me of being ungenerous. To the courageous members opposite, Mr Westende, congratulations. Congratulations on your rather belated conversion on the road to Damascus; well done. Unfortunately, though, this idea simply will not work.
Madam Speaker, I make no secret of the fact that I would like nothing better than that the ban should spread across Australia like wildfire. Unfortunately for the animals involved, that is not going to happen. This area of policy is largely in the hands of municipal governments, so there is unlikely to be any blanket change to the law. Each will have to go through its own process of change, as we have done. In the event that State governments were to take up the cause, our own process, which started four years ago, would have to be repeated in each case. I imagine that the larger States would take even longer than we have to come to this conclusion. So there is likely to be gradual change for at least a number of years - probably longer - in which the circuses can learn, as zoos have done, to change their ways.
If this is so, I hear Mr Westende protesting, why not signal that timeframe in the legislation? The reason is that there is a great deal of difference between setting in train events for circuses to change and saying to the circuses that there are no limits to their operations now but in 10 years' time we are going to be really resolved about making them give up these animals. If the last seven weeks has taught us anything about this issue, it is that the circus industry does not, of itself, change that dramatically over long periods.
I believe that in the last seven weeks we have seen a shameful use of the gullible emotions of children to obfuscate the issues involved and to challenge the democratic authority of this Assembly. That circuses fear a spread of the ban is at least a recognition on their part too that this ban is not merely an extremist plot. Mr Deputy Speaker, were we to give them a target date of, say, eight or 10 years, you could guarantee that, come the day in eight or 10 years' time, the number of exotic animals in circuses would undoubtedly have been dramatically increased, not decreased. The cry from the circuses would then be, "But how can you close us down when we have all these unwanted animals?". No thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a practice which needs to be stopped. If it takes 10 or 20 or 30 years, it is better that we get a start at ending it now rather than trust the word that in the past has not delivered, in my view, any substantial change.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .