Page 1237 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 11 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE (8.36): We are debating the whole Boxing Control Bill. A focus of a lot of the debate has been clause 20 of the Bill. I think that most members, including previous speakers, feel - I certainly do - that the Bill has a great deal to offer. It deals with what are potentially very dangerous sports. The thing that makes them different from most other sports is that they set out as their object to cause some offence to another person, to actually act in a violent way towards another person. Mr Berry, in his answer to a question today, contrasted that with people chasing a bladder around a paddock with no sheep on it. It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that potential violence is the reason why we need to look for a way to control this activity that some people refer to as sport. From my perspective, I do not see a great deal of sport in somebody punching somebody else's head in.
I feel that the way the Bill is constructed to control boxing through codes of practice is appropriate. But it has all the hallmarks of somebody saying, "Yes, but how are we going to handle kick boxing? Let us put a ban on kick boxing. How are we going to do that?". I can imagine a bureaucrat saying, "But you cannot do that; it is already covered", and being told, "No, no. We want a ban on kick boxing. It has to happen. Go and do it". So then it was added in, and we have clause 20 - "Kick boxing contests prohibited" - under Part V, "Miscellaneous". Then someone said, "Okay, that makes good sense. But we cannot put that in without a definition". So they went back and added a little bit to the definition of boxing to clarify the kick boxing situation. This Bill has all the hallmarks of that. Fortunately, Ms Szuty has been astute enough to pick it up and prepare an amendment that will remove that part of what appears to me to be a late addition and to allow the codes of practice to operate. That is certainly the appropriate way to go.
Wayne Berry's presentation speech on the Bill is full of contradictions, Madam Speaker. All the reasons he gives for controlling and regulating boxing, training, bouts and competition are exactly the same reasons as apply to regulating kick boxing. I thought this Government had learnt some lessons about bans and prohibition. They do not achieve anything other than sending an activity underground, where it can flourish without regulation. This action is often dangerous and could result in young people being wrongly trained in backyards and not subject to the codes and discipline that are associated with the martial arts. I have taken time out lately to visit martial arts training sessions, as have quite a number of members. In uncontrolled conditions there is a far greater risk of what Mr Connolly referred to - young people being a danger on the streets or being loose cannons in our community.
The reasons why kick boxing should be regulated and controlled are the very same reasons that we seek to have boxing controlled under codes of practice, and that is to ensure the safety of the participants; to ensure that training is safe, disciplined and based on strict codes of conduct or codes of practice; and to ensure that all those participating are registered and have exposure to their appropriate association's rules and expectations - and if we are referring to clause 20 they are the World Kickboxing Association's expectations and rules.
Without the regulation and control, I think we run the risk of encouraging unsound and dangerous practices in this sport and thereby increasing the danger to our community. Of course, that danger is encouraged somewhat by a certain style of film that is regularly shown in our cinemas and is available on video.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .