Page 1236 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 11 April 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We would like to see the government commit to the hypothecation of a percentage of funding from Tabcorp to animal welfare organisations, but we accept that these kinds of decisions are made through the budget process. We also support a review of the responsible investment policy to consider whether negative screening should be expanded to include additional industries such as gambling. However, despite these additional calls, we will be supporting the government’s amendment, because it highlights our ongoing commitment to both the greyhound racing ban and gambling harm minimisation in the territory. We will be supporting the attorney’s amendment today.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (11.31): I have been inspired to contribute to this debate on the back of the Attorney-General’s contribution, as well as that of the crossbench government minister who, of course, has a bet each way. The difference is that with his bets he always wins. He always wins when it comes to the Greens. Whether they are a crossbencher one day and in cabinet the next, supposedly criticising the government but then voting with them on every single occasion, the truth is that they have a very tight coalition opposite. It is interesting that Mr Rattenbury should say he does not have a beef with the individuals involved; they are just acting in an immoral way, according to Mr Rattenbury.
They are in an immoral industry doing immoral things, yet Mr Rattenbury says he does not have a problem with them. That does not stack up. It does not stack up that they can be doing something that he condemns yet he does not hold them accountable. It is totally inconsistent. He may say it is not personal, but you tell that to the hundreds of people who depend on this industry. It is very personal for them. It will be very personal for them in 19 days time when their livelihood is stripped out from underneath them.
Mr Ramsay made a contribution talking about the dogs that get injured and the couple of dogs that have died recently. Just imagine if you did a “replace all” in that speech and took out “greyhounds” and put in “thoroughbreds”. The exact same case could be made. How many times do you hear of a horse not running next week because it is injured? How many times do you hear of a horse not running because it needs to be rested? How many times do you hear of a horse not running because it is not at its peak—in effect, it is tired? Is Mr Ramsay going to apply this same standard to thoroughbred racing? People in the thoroughbred industry should be very concerned because the same ethical argument Mr Ramsay makes against greyhounds could be made against thoroughbreds.
We on this side of the chamber strongly disagree with what Mr Ramsay is saying. We think the vast majority of people in the greyhound industry do the right thing. If Mr Ramsay had ever been out to the track he would see that the dogs love running; it is an innate part of their being. They love running. Yes, there is the odd injury and, yes, some have even died, but you could say exactly the same thing of so many other pursuits of humans and animals.
Mr Rattenbury is very interested in the Liberal income stream, but he is not so interested in his coalition partners’ income stream. How many times has he done a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video