Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement I present the committee's report entitled Inquiry into the trade in elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—The number of elephants in Africa has declined rapidly over the past century. A little over 100 years ago their population was estimated to be five million. However, a census in 2016 estimated that the number had declined to around 350,000. Further, it found that African elephant populations had declined a further 30 per cent between the years 2007 and 2014. In the last century we've witnessed a 95 per cent decline in that species.

In recognition of this ongoing problem, in 2016 the international community agreed to a non-binding resolution that called upon all CITES members to implement a domestic trade ban on elephant ivory. Since that time, a significant number of countries have implemented a domestic trade ban on elephant ivory. The world's largest consumer of elephant ivory, China, implemented its ban in 2017. The world's primary exporter of elephant ivory products, the United Kingdom, is currently in the final stages of reviewing legislation that will implement a domestic ivory trade ban. The United States legislated its ban in 2016. Australia is yet to introduce an equivalent ban. The recommendations of the committee are that the Australian Commonwealth states and territories, through the Council of Australian Governments, develop and implement a national domestic ban on elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn; and that the domestic trade ban should be consistent with those implemented in other like-minded international jurisdictions.

However, I would like to note that the international trade in ivory was actually first banned in 1989, and the 2007 CITES agreement, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted a moratorium back in 2007, yet this was not successful in stopping the poaching. To the contrary, since the moratorium was in place, there has actually been an increase in demand and, as I mentioned before, there's been a further 30 per cent decline in elephant populations. The committee also notes that there are no known examples in human history where efforts to eliminate demand for a product by governments simply legislating to make it unlawful have succeeded. The committee notes that there is a risk of such bans resulting in a perverse outcome: that ivory could become rarer and could be viewed as an inflation-proof investment, fetching higher prices and actually increasing demand and increasing illegal stockpiling. However, we do note that the evidence indicates that the bans recently implemented in China have had the effect of reducing demand.

It was the view of the committee, in supporting the ban, that publicly visible trade in ivory or partial legalisation of that trade undermines all attempts to change public attitudes and all attempts to stigmatise the ownership of ivory products. Government bans are not going to save the African elephant. What is going to save the African elephant is if we can make it socially unacceptable and create a stigma throughout the world that to purchase or own ivory products is taboo. That is the reason the committee supports Australia joining China, the US and the UK in implementing a likewise ban. I thank the House.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Hughes, who will move that the House take note of the report.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned.