Page 1705 - Week 06 - Thursday, 13 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR LAMONT (5.31): The debate has centred around the essential elements of the degree of cruelty which exists with the caging, hobbling and permanent transportation of these exotic animals which are not able to be released into a more natural environment for their own health. If, all of a sudden, somebody started training and using armadillos, for example, in circuses as part of the circus troupe and the conditions, et cetera, were regarded as being inappropriate, an instrument pursuant to this clause, disallowable by this Assembly, could be made by the Minister.
MR HUMPHRIES (5.32): Madam Speaker, this proposed new clause obviously extends the provisions of clause 51 to allow the Minister to prescribe other animals for the purpose of the ban on circus animals. Obviously, there is an argument about whether that be done by the Minister in a regulation or whether it be done by the Assembly voting in formats such as this.
I think it is not overstating things to say that we have had tremendous controversy about this provision in the last few weeks, particularly in the last three days. It has been a tremendously volatile issue for this community. Frankly, Madam Speaker, I would rather that the initial debate, if we were to extend the definition of prohibited circus animals to include other animals, should again occur in the context of this Assembly, not in the context of the Minister deciding that he wants to ban a particular sort of animal and then our coming back maybe two months later to decide whether or not we agree with his ban.
The fact is that you have caught all the traditional circuses in Australia at present with this ban. There are no circuses I know of that use animals that are going to come to the ACT, now that we have this ban in place - none at all.
Mr Connolly: Even the armadillo circus.
MR HUMPHRIES: I have never heard of an armadillo circus, and I do not think you have either, Mr Connolly. The point is that we have effectively imposed this ban. It is possible, I suppose, that somebody could decide to form an armadillo circus for the express purpose of defeating the ACT Government's legislation, and the Minister might decide that armadillos are poor, oppressed creatures who pine for the open plains of Africa or India, like cheetahs, lions and tigers.
Mr Wood: South America, actually.
MR HUMPHRIES: Or wherever. They probably pine for the incubator where they were born in captivity, but let us put that to one side. They pine for something else some way away and the Minister decides, "Yes, I am going to ban armadillos in circuses in the ACT. The armadillo circus coming to the ACT next week shall be banned". Madam Speaker, I think we know that that is not going to happen. I think we know that most of the circuses have already been caught.
But there may be shows that use domestic animals like horses and dogs which might come to the ACT and which might call themselves circuses. If the Minister were to propose to ban certain sorts of ponies, or fiord horses, or whatever it might be, I would want to have a say on that matter; not after you have made the decision to ban the circus, not after - - -
Mr Lamont: You will, because the instrument is a disallowable instrument.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .