Page 400 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ANIMAL WELFARE ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL 1993
MR STEVENSON (10.31): I present the Animal Welfare Act (Amendment) Bill 1993.
Title read by Clerk.
MR STEVENSON: I move:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
Madam Speaker, Canberrans support circuses. The large majority of people in Canberra - actually more than 60 per cent as against less than 30 per cent - did not agree that circuses should be prohibited from visiting the ACT if they had certain animals with them. Why was the will of the people ignored? Is it that there are members in this Assembly who believe that they know better than the people? Is this not the problem we have had through the ages - that politicians, rulers, those who have dictatorial ideas, or elitists have felt that the people are really to be controlled; that they are not to be involved in directing their public servants, but are to be controlled? It is interesting that those who believe that the people are to be controlled for their own good introduced a Bill that controlled animals for their own good.
The question of circuses in the ACT is one that can certainly be looked at by this Assembly, and it is a valid matter to debate. However, if people felt concern about certain aspects of circuses and that they warranted legislation, why did we not introduce legislation to handle those particular problems? If there were concerns about cage sizes, about the feeding of animals, about the treatment of animals, why were those concerns not looked at and debated? By definition, banning circuses implies that circuses simply cannot be trusted to treat animals fairly. If there were concerns, would it not have been more reasonable and more consultative to have listened to the arguments presented by people on both sides and to have acted on the arguments? Would it not have been better to have listened to the people of Canberra?
Mr Moore: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that that is an imputation against all members who voted on the animal welfare legislation. The implication is that we did not listen to the arguments, weigh them up and make a decision. I seek a withdrawal from the member.
MADAM SPEAKER: What standing order are you referring to?
Mr Moore: The one that deals with an imputation against a member, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: That is standing order 55.
Mr Humphries: You will rule that out, won't you, Madam Speaker?
MADAM SPEAKER: Were you speaking to me, Mr Humphries?
Mr Humphries: I was just inviting you, Madam Speaker, to make a ruling.
MADAM SPEAKER: I am here to do that. Mr Stevenson, you were pointing out that members here were not listening to the debate. Am I correct in interpreting what you were saying?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .