John Cobb (Calare, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the member for La Trobe's motion. Firstly, in relation to something the previous speaker referred to, I am not sure 'canned' is a word I would use. 'Fenced', certainly, and obviously a fence, if it is not too big, makes sure they can be found. 'Canned' is a word I would not use. However, perhaps that is semantics. Such shooting is not something I would ever want to be involved in, and I am a person who owns rifles and does quite a bit of shooting—well, I used to. I do not get much time to now.

However, while I totally agree with what the speaker is talking about, I it is not something I would want to do. I think we have got to be very careful how we bring about a result on it. The countries which we are referring to, which are mostly African countries, have shown—and we have always known—that if you put a value on something you actually ensure its survival. I am talking about ordinary hunting and one thing and another. If you are a poacher in those parts of Africa where they do have a value on their wildlife then you are poaching at risk of your life because they will shoot you. The people who run those countries and run those parks go out there looking for poachers. You actually have to pay a lot of money for a licence to go out and legitimately hunt and take trophies home. All those things cost a lot of money and they do provide a lot of jobs.

While I totally agree with and empathise with what the member is saying, how we deal with it is very hard from our end. Those countries where that kind of hunting has gone on could stop the export of trophies far more easily than we. I am not quite sure how Australia could, and I would not want to stop ordinary, legitimate hunting because of it, because the countries concerned have too much to lose. I have known a lot of people that have gone over there. Certainly, I have never met anyone that has confessed to that kind of hunting. It is not hunting, that kind of killing, and I do not doubt that Australians have been involved in it. However, I think it would be a very small percentage of that kind of trophy that comes back to Australia.

I just think that for us to deal with this, it has first got to be dealt with by the country where it occurs. I am not quite sure how it would be done. We could pass a law saying you cannot bring back a trophy that has been hunted in an enclosure where the animal had no opportunity to escape et cetera. How in heaven's name would you ever make that a fact? How would you make that doable? I do not know. It is much more doable in the country of origin. But I do agree with the emphasis of what is being said. It is not something I would ever do. It is not something anyone I have ever gone out shooting with would ever do. It is a shocking way to deal with any animal.

Actually, what is being said not so much about the genetics but about the behaviour of animals, particularly wild animals, in that situation, definitely is true. You can see it any stock you would like to mention, not just wild ones. When you put them in a totally unnatural environment, their habits and everything changes—which is all bad. But I do know that in countries like Namibia, Botswana and the others hunting the proper way is a very big deal for them. It ensures the survival of the animal, because so much value is placed on it. The countries, the hunters, the game parks and everybody involved will hunt down poachers like nothing you have ever seen—and, as I understand it, they generally do not worry too much about taking them back for trial. They place a lot of value on their animals and you pay a lot of money to go there to hunt.

As I said before, I pretty much agree with the emphasis of the motion but I am somewhat at a loss to know how we can deal with it in Australia. I do think any pressure we can put on those countries where it occurs is fine, but they are not going to find it that easy to deal with either, much as it needs to be dealt with.

Debate interrupted.

Proceedings suspended from 13:31 to 16:00

See this speech in context