Page 1233 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 11 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In relation to the term "boxing", clause 20 clearly creates an intention contrary to the definition of boxing contained in clause 3. In clause 20 the term "boxing" would take the ordinary dictionary meaning - the act of fighting with the fists, with or without boxing gloves. But then it expands that definition to the use of the feet. It should also be noted that the heading to clause 20 is "Kick boxing contests prohibited". There is no mention there of martial arts generally. Before a person could be convicted of an offence under clause 20 it would be necessary for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person was engaged in a boxing contest in which a foot or other part of the leg was used to strike an opponent, not that the person was engaged in any physical activity in which a fist may or may not be used in a particular manoeuvre. Again, it is essentially limited to a boxing contest. The term "contest" would also be given its full dictionary meaning.
Madam Speaker, beyond that we, of course, need to look at section 11A of the Interpretation Act, which specifies that in interpreting a provision a construction that would promote the object underlying the Act should be preferred to a construction that does not. The underlying object of the Boxing Control Bill is to control boxing contests, not martial arts generally. Section 11B of the Interpretation Act provides for the use of extrinsic material in interpreting an Act, which means that anyone in doubt as to what is meant by the definition of boxing can peruse the debates of this place, and it will be abundantly clear to them that the intention of the Government in bringing this Bill forward and the intention of the Assembly, if it is minded to take a sensible course of action, is to ban kick boxing. It would be abundantly clear that it is not the Government's intention to ban martial arts generally.
Madam Speaker, members should vote on the perceived merits or otherwise of kick boxing, not this red herring that the clause may have unintended broader consequences. The clause is limited to kick boxing in its title. It relates to boxing involving feet or other parts of the body, not any form of activity involving other parts of the body. The clear intention which can be gained by looking at the statements of the Minister and other members speaking is that the clause is limited to a ban on kick boxing. So let us look at the merits of kick boxing rather than have this spurious argument that the Government has some intention, in an underhanded way, to introduce a provision that has more general consequences. The provision is limited to kick boxing.
MR CORNWELL (8.26): I am delighted to hear the Attorney-General's reassurance, but unfortunately the Minister's presentation speech does not say what the Attorney-General has just said. The Minister's presentation speech says:
Kick boxing and similar contests are effectively banned under this Bill.
Is it any wonder that we find in an article in the Chronicle of 3 May:
A Government bill to control boxing could inadvertently ban karate and other martial arts tournaments in the ACT.
Mr Moore: No, it will not, because it is going to go down. But it would have.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .