Page 1225 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 24 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ANIMAL WELFARE BILL 1992
Detail Stage
Clause 4 and proposed amendment thereto
Debate resumed from 16 June 1992.
MR LAMONT (5.41): I understand that Mr Moore has deferred to me to allow the debate to proceed. Madam Speaker, the other night, when this matter was most recently canvassed in the Assembly, I was surprised at the comments of the Opposition Whip when he said something which was disarmingly honest. After Mr Wood had stated that animal acts were demeaning, Mr De Domenico said, "Well, why do you want to ban circuses?". I must say that I was quite floored by this. Mr Wood said that exotic animal acts in circuses are demeaning, and the Whip said, "Why ban exotic animals?". What was the Opposition Whip saying?
Mr De Domenico: "Why ban exotic animals?".
MR LAMONT: It was not quite as simple as that. Was he saying that the fact that something is demeaning is not an adequate reason to outlaw it, or was he saying that he did not see how the enforced antics of circus animals were demeaning? I have a strong suspicion, Madam Speaker, that it was the latter; that the Opposition Whip does not think that circus acts are demeaning for the animals. I cannot argue with the Opposition Whip or others who share this view. Either you believe that animals are not there to perform antics for our juvenile pleasure or you do not. The barrier of insensitivity which the Opposition Whip erects is one I cannot breach. Notwithstanding this difficulty, I will persist.
Leaving aside the ontological question of the purpose of other species, there are other questions of the caging and training of wild animals which cannot go unasked. Mr De Domenico and others in the Opposition apparently believe that there is no cruelty in caging exotic animals in this way. "They are not wild animals", they say. "They have been bred in captivity for nine generations. Before you know it, you will be wanting to release budgies from their cages", they cry. Madam Speaker, leaving aside the bewildering fact that the Opposition seems unable to tell the difference between caging a great cat and caging a budgie, perhaps the opponents of my amendment could explain how the Bengal tiger which was shot in Sydney last week fits into their definition of domesticity. It hardly fits into that category. Of course, the caging of these animals for transport is cruel.
I have been criticised for underestimating the size of cages. What bunkum! When I said that cages were 20 feet by 9 feet by 9 feet, I deliberately overestimated the size to avoid the charge which was levelled at me. Of course there are cages which are bigger, but these are usually occupied by several animals at once - or, I presume, Mr De Domenico's budgies. I suggest that, the next time they are near a circus, those opposite go and look at what goes on behind the scenes. They will not only find animals in badly cramped accommodation but also find them exposed in all weathers, and usually lying in the stink of their own faeces and urine. That is unpalatable but true, Mr De Domenico. That is the condition that you will find them in.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .