Page 1238 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 11 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Having looked at the statistics, it seems to me that kick boxing bouts are less severe on competitors than boxing matches are. Kick boxers are knocked unconscious - and that is bad enough - 45 to 50 per cent less frequently than boxing competitors.
I am not enthusiastic about either sport but it seems totally inconsistent to regulate one code and not the other, which happens to have a higher safety record. An average of 10 boxers per year lose their lives from causes directly related to boxing competition. That is according to the World Kickboxing Association. To date, there have been no deaths directly attributed to full contact kick boxing, as Mr Cornwell indicated. To argue for exclusion of kick boxing because it is potentially dangerous is ludicrous. Rugby players suffer by far the highest number of severe injuries and even deaths every year. The second on the list of hazardous sports is hockey. Mr Cornwell referred to that and to Dr Charlesworth in particular.
Should these sports be banned or should they be controlled? If we are looking at the statistics on sport, we may as well look at the sport with the highest mortality rate and ask whether we should ban that sport. What is it? It is lawn bowls. Perhaps we should prohibit lawn bowls. That raises quite a number of considerations. Mr Berry, you probably would not find a higher injury rate than you do in jogging. We know the impact that jogging has. It does not appear to have damaged Mr Berry's feet and knees too much, but his brain is another question. I will come back to that. The current safety record in kick boxing across the world may well be due to the fact that kick boxing is regulated by strict rules. Maybe those rules are not strict enough for us. Maybe we need to look at them. I believe that control is the appropriate approach.
The Bill as a whole, which I am delighted to support in principle, goes about dealing with boxing in the correct way; but there is a huge inconsistency in clause 20, which is why that clause has drawn so much attention. Mr Berry's Bill is inconsistent. If safety is the desired outcome, then surely the action to take is to control, to monitor, to regulate and to educate.
I would also like to draw attention to clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill - "Female boxing contests" and "Approval for female boxing contests". The explanatory memorandum makes it very clear that, because the New South Wales registration scheme does not provide for the registration of females to engage in professional boxing contests, these clauses are a way to achieve that. I congratulate Mr Berry on making sure that the legislation is non-sexist, but I think you will agree with me that, on reading the Bill as it stands on its own, it appears to be just the opposite. It appears to be particularly sexist. I think it is a pity that it was drafted in this fashion. I draw attention to that. Mr Berry might choose to comment on it.
Madam Speaker, one of the things that I have noticed in the Labor Party in particular is that when things start going wrong for them, when they have made a mistake in adding something like this in, their arguments tend to go out the window and instead they use personal attacks. Tonight we have had two interjections from Mr Berry that I draw particular attention to. Earlier he said words to the effect of, "Kate Carnell does not care about her own kids" - an appalling statement. Another appalling statement he made was, "Michael Moore is going to promote violence". Both of those statements are absolute rubbish, and that is why I raised the issue about whether his jogging is actually getting to his brain.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .