Page 1229 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 11 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
To answer the Minister's point that this is not a criminal offence, I read on:
Penalty: $5,000 or imprisonment for 6 months, or both.
It sounds pretty criminal to me. If that is not a criminal offence, what is? Let us go back to the words here:
A person shall not ... engage or participate in a boxing contest in which a foot or any other part of the leg of a contestant may be used to strike his or her opponent.
What is a boxing contest? The definition clause, clause 3 of the Bill, is not of great assistance here because, although "boxing official", "boxing contest" and "boxing" are defined, the definition of "boxing" in particular specifically excludes kick boxing. It states:
"boxing" means fist fighting or any other style of fighting (other than kick boxing) ...
The definition clause has no value. So what is boxing in terms of this legislation? My dictionary says - I am paraphrasing here - that boxing is fighting with the fists or hands. If this Minister bothered to go out to the community and talk to some of the people involved in martial arts in this Territory he would quickly realise that it is integral to many martial arts that people in fact fight or spar with their fists or hands and with their feet. I have been to several demonstrations of several martial arts since this Bill was introduced into this place, and that is clearly what is occurring. People are clearly fighting - you might say that they are sparring; that is only another word for fighting - and they are using their fists or their hands and they are using their feet. Under that definition those martial arts, in my view, would clearly be banned.
I would expect the Minister to have been flexible enough to have taken that concern on board, to have attempted to save his kick boxing ban by at least agreeing to compromise somewhere along the line and defining this rather more tightly. He has not bothered. I am afraid that for that reason I certainly will be strongly supportive, and my party will be strongly supportive, of the amendments to be put forward by Ms Szuty in this place to delete clause 20 from the Bill and to delete the reference to kick boxing from the definition clause.
Clearly, there is no justification for taking this step. The Minister's poor planning, his poor execution and his total lack of consultation have not resulted in a good Bill. In my view, that is good enough reason for us to reject that part of the Bill. I still have not seen any clear justification for the substance of the Bill dealing with boxing, but through my own devices I have satisfied myself and my party that the other regulation in the Bill is an appropriate way to go.
There is one final very good reason why we should reject that part of the Bill dealing with kick boxing. Today the Minister was asked in question time, "Is it the case that the Government proposes to ban kick boxing because it is dangerous?". We have to assume that, because he has not actually said so. Is it the case that he wants to ban kick boxing because it is dangerous and, if it is, how much injury has occurred in that sport in, say, the last 10 years?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .