Page 1688 - Week 06 - Thursday, 13 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Humphries, I tried repeatedly to bring you back to that question. I defer to your - - -
Mr Humphries: I was being asked to address the question - - -
MADAM SPEAKER: Excuse me; I am speaking. I find it very difficult to rule in your favour when I found it so difficult to keep you in order; but you will take your final four minutes and proceed, please.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, this provision clearly has problems. It clearly will catch a number of people in certain circumstances where they will conduct procedures on their pets. In such circumstances they will potentially find themselves prosecuted.
Mr Wood: Go back to your Education Minister days. Remember what happened then.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order!
MR HUMPHRIES: They will find themselves prosecuted in certain circumstances. A school, for example, which conducts vivisection - - -
Mr Wood: When you were Minister schools were taking sensible steps.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! Mr Humphries will address his comments to the Chair and proceed to address his comments to the Chair only, and there will be order. Continue, Mr Humphries.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, I have addressed all my comments to the Chair so far.
MADAM SPEAKER: Proceed.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, there is clearly a problem with this clause. It will clearly result, on occasions, in persons conducting experiments or procedures on animals, which quite evidently will be caught by this procedure but which will be done innocently, with the intention of only assisting their animals. Farmers, for example, or people in homes who conduct random operations on their animals with the best intentions in mind can come a cropper because, for some reason, it is not in accordance with accepted animal husbandry practice. We cannot all be amateur veterinarians; we cannot all make the right decisions. Yet when this poor soul makes that error of judgment - we are talking about an error of judgment - - -
Mr Berry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member is not speaking to the amendment. The amendment is in relation to the penalty, and it is argued that the penalty is too high. So, how on earth can you argue that the clause is wrong?
MR HUMPHRIES: No, the penalty should be lower; that is what I am saying.
MADAM SPEAKER: I will ask you to consider the standing order regarding relevance as you continue, please.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .