Page 402 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Berry: Even you do not believe that, Dennis.
MR STEVENSON: I believe that as well. Mr Berry said, "You do not really believe that". That is interesting because my next comment was going to be, "I believe that as well". I believe that most people in Canberra believe that. Why would we not believe that, Mr Berry? Have you spent any time, as I have, with the circus folk? That is a valid question.
I ask Mr Berry to explain, when he gets a chance to talk about this, whether he has spent any time with the circus folk. Does he understand the circus folk, who travel around in fairly confined units, get up early in the morning and often work late at night doing what they love? They certainly would not do it if they did not love it. They do not do it for the money. They do what they love. They love working with circus animals and working with people, because what else is there?
Some people believe that there should be a total ban on the use of animals by all people and all industries. Some believe that the circus ban in the ACT is the thin end of that wedge. Some people would ban horseracing, trotting and dog races. Some would ban poultry farming. Some would ban fishing, meat consumption, the use of silkworms for silk and the use of sheep for wool. Some would ban companion animals. Some would ban zoos. Some would ban circuses, against the will of the people of Canberra. These people set up situations and try to get people to react emotionally to their arguments. The only defence against this dangerous few is freedom of speech and freedom of action - something that has certainly not been allowed with the banning of circuses in the ACT. Many people believe that the wrong circus was banned.
In the ACT at the moment horseracing and many of the practices associated with it are illegal. I do not believe that any charges have been laid against trainers, strappers, jockeys, managers or owners in the industry. Nevertheless, the law exists, and one wonders about a law that exists but is not upheld. Let me read from a letter from Jim Colquhoun. It is from Colquhoun Murphy, barristers and solicitors, representing the racing industry. Mr Colquhoun, on behalf of the racing industry, says, in talking about the Bill that became the "animal farewell" Act, the Animal Welfare Act:
The racing industry's difficulties with the Bill in its present form are threefold.
1. LACK OF DEFINITION OF AN ACT OF CRUELTY.
Clause 7 of the Bill provides:
"A person shall not without reasonable excuse commit an act of cruelty on an animal.
Penalty $10,000.00 or imprisonment for one year, or both".
Some conduct which occurs during a horse race will prima facie be an act of cruelty. For example the use of a whip by a barrier attendant, the use of a whip by a jockey, the use of a tongue tie by a trainer and the use of hobbles in a trotting race could (and perhaps would) be considered acts of cruelty by a magistrate or judge or jury.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .