Page 5154 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 28 November 2017

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

values on this issue. When you hear about what the Premier of Victoria said, or when you hear about what the opposition leader in New South Wales has done, it is like chalk and cheese, having regard to the elitists that we have opposite.

Indeed there are numerous unions sticking up for Labor values. Professionals Australia director and the right faction party convenor, Dave Smith, has said that there is very little evidence to justify the ban and that the ban seems to be almost entirely based on emotional reasoning. Even the AWU, the ETU and numerous other unions have actually stood up for their members.

It is interesting that today, from the Greens and from the government, we have heard an explanation that it is a commercial operation and that it simply supports animal exploitation. Further to that, I note that in the gallery today we have members and staff of the RSPCA. It is interesting that the Greens would say that animal exploitation should not exist, yet we also have the RSPCA with approved meat chicken farming schemes. Surely, farming chickens for meat is the very definition of animal exploitation. Surely, all farming for meat is the definition of animal exploitation. One hundred per cent of animals that are farmed for meat end up being killed. It seems some of those people opposite do not have a problem with that, yet they do have a problem with one in 1,000 dogs dying as a result of the greyhound industry.

If that is now going to be the benchmark, that one in 1,000 means the industry is shut down, that does not bode well for farming, does it? It certainly does not bode well for equestrians. It does not bode well for the thoroughbreds. It does not bode well for harness racing. There are huge inconsistencies in what this government is proposing, and what the Greens are leading.

They also say that death and injury are a by-product of the industry. If death and injury are a by-product of the industry, why are they not standing up to end farming in Australia? Of course, it would be crazy to do that, but it is also crazy to end greyhound racing on the back of very flimsy arguments.

Further to this, as someone who actually has gone to the track, and as someone who knows greyhounds pretty well—and related breeds—I know that these dogs love running, and they love racing. They love running around that track.

There certainly have been people interstate that have done the wrong thing. They have done terrible things. But as Luke Foley said in New South Wales, they should be cleaning up the industry, not banning it, because the core activity is actually okay. The core activity of running around a track is what the dogs love doing. It is actually a very natural pursuit, dogs running around a track. You could argue that it is a more natural pursuit than thoroughbred or harness racing. But neither the government nor the Greens will actually take on those industries because they are much more powerful industries. The government and the Greens will not take on farming because they know that is an outrageous proposition. But if death and injury being a by-product for animals is the problem, how could you possibly have RSPCA-approved meat chickens?

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video