Page 1632 - Week 06 - Thursday, 13 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, that from what I hear outside they do not agree with Mr Lamont. He is quite well aware of it and, naturally, he has to object when somebody questions his presentation of this matter. It is easy to see that Mr Lamont has brought to this Assembly the rough and tumble tactics that he learned so well in the Transport Workers Union. I am astonished by his rudeness, his unrefined manner and his shallowness.
Madam Speaker, one distinctive feature of the debate on the Animal Welfare Bill 1992 must surely be that the Bill is not good legislation as it is currently drafted. It has divided the Assembly; it has divided the community; it has concerned many people dealing with animals. It simply is not ready. It is half-baked. Let us be really serious about the important matter of animal welfare. Let us get our heads together and come up with a genuine, balanced, realistic concern for animals. Let us get away from the grandstanding of Lamont and his kind.
Ms Ellis: Mr Lamont, if you do not mind.
MR WESTENDE: Mr Lamont. Let us see whether we can produce a model of bipartisan legislation. I feel sure that there will be give and take. I know that if commonsense prevails we will set a model for Australia to follow, instead of an embarrassment. Yesterday morning's radio program on 2CN ran three to one against banning animals in circuses. Surely that is a sign that the community would wish to continue to enjoy and see the circus in a traditional way.
Madam Speaker, I repeat some of the reasons why this Bill should be referred to a committee for a full analysis. We should not be spending so much time on this Bill. We should, instead, be talking to those organisations which will be badly affected by this Bill and consulting them about how problems associated with it can best be solved. If my motion is passed, adequate time will be available for the entire community, for all persons connected with the animal movement. It is rather a pity that some sections of the community have not come forward earlier, either through ignorance of the contents of the Bill or for reasons not known to us. Even at this late stage it is not too late to get their opinions or advice.
Hence, Madam Speaker, I have moved the motion to establish the committee. I will reiterate some of the reasons why we feel that it is necessary to have a committee. If members are concerned about cost and so on, it could even be referred to an existing committee. Referring the Bill to a select committee will allow it to be examined in detail. I have said before, and I will say it again, that it is lacking in precise terminology; it is lacking in definitions, such as what is cruelty, what represents unnecessary pain, what is undue distress, what is meant by confine, what is meant by confine in relation to a device or contrivance, and what is meant by alleviation of pain. Some of those we discussed yesterday; but I repeat, Madam Speaker, that we are talking about a Bill for which the codes of practices have not even been drafted. I have said to you before that this Government does not have a mandate. If they are really genuine about animal welfare, what is so wrong about drafting the code of ethics first and then presenting it either as part of or as an appendix to the Bill?
Madam Speaker, these are not only the views and concerns of the Liberal Party; they are the concerns of the majority of the organisations involved with animals. The RSPCA is concerned about the issue of inspectors. The Australian Bushmen's Campdraft and Rodeo Association are concerned that they have not been consulted. The racing industry came out strongly yesterday in favour of having
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .