Page 1236 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 11 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly: This is a new thing. We had not seen kick boxing assaults until the last year or so.
MR CORNWELL: Mr Attorney, I am surprised that you would have the temerity to say in this house, in relation to clause 20 of your lousy Bill, that the heading states "Kick boxing contests prohibited". Anybody with any knowledge of legislation knows that those headings are not part of the legislation. What you said is totally misleading, and you should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting it, sir.
Mr Connolly: You look at the whole package in construing an ambiguity.
MR CORNWELL: Come on, do not try to weasel out now. At least have the decency to get up and apologise to the Assembly. You went on to say that the prosecution would have to prove that any martial art that might come under an interpretation of this Act in fact did fit the legislation. In support of that you suggested that the court would take into account the presentation speech in the Assembly or, indeed, perhaps Mr Berry's press release dated 5 May, which says, "Martial Arts Not Affected By Boxing Control Bill". Thank you, Mr Berry. We welcome that.
The only problem is that I do not think most people in the martial arts area would want to end up in court in the first place and have to rely upon your media release or, indeed, some questionable interpretation put down here in relation to kick boxing. The fact is that the martial arts people are as concerned as the Kickboxing Association is with this legislation. The Kickboxing Association has a 43-page list of official WKA rules. WKA stands for World Kickboxing Association, Mr Berry, in case you do not understand. Therefore, we are not dealing with some fly-by-night organisation. We are dealing with a responsible organisation which, I suggest, you are quite improperly trying to ban without any justification at all.
I have had discussions in relation to trying to exclude martial arts from the Bill entirely rather than have this clause 20, which, irrespective of the heading, is vague. I was told that it was far too difficult. Under those circumstances I believe that the Government has defeated its own argument. If it cannot find sufficient words to exclude the martial arts, the question remains that they may be incorporated at some time. If two or three years down the track some officious bureaucrat decides to take action against some martial arts activity because they think it might be within the realms of kick boxing, we do not want the matter to end up in court. There is no need for any of this.
The final point I would make, Madam Speaker, is this: If you feel so strongly about the violence of kick boxing, why do you not ban boxing altogether? After all, that is violent as well. The reason you will not do it is that it is an Olympic sport - and, after all, Sydney is competing for the Olympics next time round. I would suggest that on that basis alone, Madam Speaker, this is a nonsense piece of legislation, and it really should not have the backing of any responsible person in this Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .