Page 1489 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In addressing some of the issues raised by Mr Westende when he presented his amendment, I want to cover the question of the critique provided by Animal Liberation. Mr Deputy Speaker, when the Assembly discussed this matter seven weeks ago members had in their possession a copy of a document showing a list of incidents of particular cruelty to animals. The list was compiled by Animal Liberation's president, Mr Tony Clunies-Ross. That list - an extremely good document, in my view - was the subject of a critique from the circus lobby which purported to rebut each one of Mr Clunies-Ross's allegations. The Opposition has now sought to use this critique to claim that allegations of cruelty in circuses are without basis. As I have already said elsewhere, whatever the veracity of these claims, the fundamental fact is that the unavoidable aspects of circuses, which demand the caging, chaining and lengthy transporting of animals, constitute cruelty which circuses can make no excuses for.
Just to set the record straight, I have in my possession a critique, prepared again by Mr Clunies-Ross, of the circus lobby's critique, in which Mr Clunies-Ross refutes in detail every point made against his original list. To save the Assembly's time, I propose to table the document. However, if members would prefer, I am prepared to read it into Hansard in its entirety.
Mr Kaine: No thanks.
MR LAMONT: Thank you for that. The crucial point of our purpose, Mr Deputy Speaker, is the challenge Clunies-Ross makes to the circus lobby, in the last paragraph of his letter, to take him to court over his allegations. Note that he has made them more than once and, if they are not true and are not defendable in a court of law, he would clearly be guilty of defamation. So the challenge is there. If they are not true, if they are, in fact, defamatory statements, there is a process at law by which the circus lobby or any other individual can seek a remedy if they believe that they have been defamed. To date, the circuses have remained silent on that matter.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table for the Assembly a document headed "Response to Circus Fans of Australia's 'Critique of anonymous article: List of incidents involving Australian circus animals'".
Leave granted.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is: That Mr Westende's amendment be agreed to.
MR LAMONT: I beg your pardon, sir; I still have, I think, two minutes left. Mr Deputy Speaker, I propose to make this my last contribution to this lengthy debate.
Mr Humphries: Hooray!
MR LAMONT: I think that the members opposite should be thankful, for to be humiliated any further would just wash them once again. Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Perry and other supporters of animals in circuses are fond of saying that if their treatment of animals was cruel people would not attend in the numbers they do. Leaving aside the fact that those numbers are certainly down on years gone by, whether or not people attend the circus is hardly proof that circuses are not cruel.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .