Page 1232 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 11 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
see well-controlled exhibitions of skill between two competitors, then so be it. But to state that the contests are violent and we therefore will not tolerate them at all flies in the face of logic. If that were indeed the case, then boxing itself would be banned - a course of action which has not been proposed.
No other State or Territory bans kick boxing, although I have been informed that some people in New South Wales would like to ban the sport. This view is more a reflection of that State's inability to adequately ensure that the competitions take place with adequate protection for competitors. In New South Wales the regulations call for foot and shin padding, gloves, a groin protector, long trousers and a mouthguard. However, as these protective items have not been described in the regulations in the same way as the weight and padding for fist boxing gloves have been described, contestants are getting away with wearing ankle strapping and elasticised bandages as protective shin and foot pads. This situation is farcical and one which New South Wales authorities need to urgently address. This is no reason why the ACT should ban the sport and become an island of prohibition in a sea of acceptance.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, at the in-principle stage of this debate, I would like to foreshadow an amendment that I will be moving to the Boxing Control Bill at the detail stage, when I will seek to change the reference to kick boxing in clause 3 to make boxing inclusive of the sport and not exclusive of it. I also foreshadow that I will be voting against clause 20 of the Bill when it is debated at the detail stage.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (8.21): Madam Speaker, I am rising just to refute an argument that Mr Humphries injected into the debate. He seems to have two strains to his argument. One is that he does not want us to ban kick boxing and the other is that the Bill, as it currently stands, would not only ban kick boxing but also ban all other forms of martial arts. That argument is nonsensical and needs to be refuted.
I say by way of introduction that, while I am not responsible for sport and I cannot tell you about the number of injuries sustained by people in kick boxing and boxing contests, I can as Minister for police tell the house that there is an increasing incidence of young Canberrans being violently assaulted by other young Canberrans using kick boxing techniques. As this so-called sport is increasing in its popularity it is having an impact on the streets, where people are using the techniques that they are learning somewhere to quite viciously assault other young Canberrans. Members opposite, who are seeking to defend this violent form of sport, may want to consider that. When we see further incidents like this it will be, I guess, on their heads, because they have had the opportunity to move on this and outlaw this inherently violent form of activity which is having its impact on the street.
Madam Speaker, the argument of Mr Humphries that we should ban all forms of martial arts is based on clause 20. Nowhere is there any indication that the Bill has an intention to exercise control over martial arts other than boxing. Clause 20 itself prohibits a person from engaging in a boxing contest in which a foot or other part of the leg is used to strike an opponent. Mr Humphries stressed the words "contest in which a foot or other part of the leg may be used to strike an opponent", saying that that could be used to describe some forms of activity in judo or tae kwon do. So it could, but the operative part of the definition is "a boxing contest".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .