Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I am sure that the Minister for the Environment and Heritage would be devastated if I did not move to take note of this document, which is amendments to the schedule on the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. If there is one area that the current environment minister likes to highlight his role in, it is the ending of commercial whaling or the continuation of restricting it and preventing it from growing once again.

The amendments to the schedule that have been tabled extend by one year the moratorium on commercial whaling that applies under the convention. The moratorium applies throughout the 2006-07 season and is consistent with Australia’s strong opposition to commercial whaling. The federal government, this minister and, indeed, some of his predecessors have done a strong job in trying to maintain the moratorium on commercial whaling and in helping to generate international criticism of those nations that, in effect, are flouting the convention.

A couple of key points do need to be emphasised. Firstly, we need to recognise that maintaining this ban on commercial whaling is getting harder each year—and that is even before we take into account the blatant flouting of the convention by Japan. However, I do think that, as a nation, to make our arguments and our case as strong as possible we need to be very clear in our reasoning of why we are opposing commercial whaling and we also need to ensure that we do not undertake other actions that might weaken our argument and its consistency.

There are two very strong reasons, in my view, why commercial whaling should continue to be prohibited and why we should continue our pressure on winding back the commercial whaling that does occur except in very limited indigenous hunting circumstances. Of those two arguments, one is the environmental impact. The science is very strong and very clear about the very damaging effect that commercial whaling has had on the survival of a number of species of whale. The second reason why commercial whaling should continue to be opposed is the appalling suffering that is inflicted on whales when they are slaughtered.

I read reasonably widely on this, because I think it is a key part of the argument not just against whaling but also in looking at trying to be consistent in our approach. I know that Minister Campbell held a joint conference with Greenpeace, which is an interesting coalition, expressing very strongly his abhorrence of the suffering involved by whales—and I concur with him on that. But, to give full strength to our argument, I do think we need to recognise that we do not do as well as we should in Australia with preventing unnecessary suffering of many other animals that we ourselves exploit commercially.

The Japanese have a regular habit of pointing to Australia’s monumental slaughter of kangaroos for commercial purposes in Australia. Enormous numbers, thousands upon thousands, are slaughtered each year. Certainly there are many assertions that that is done as humanely as possible. The minister has stated that, if we did not do that, it would also be inhumane because many would starve or die of thirst as a result of overpopulation. Frankly, I think that argument is very much overstated. However, the other side of it is that, even where the slaughter is done humanely, there is enormous consequential death—which is not humane—of joeys.

But there are many other animals, including wildlife, on which frankly we can improve our performance regarding their humane treatment and with improved animal welfare standards. The more we do that, the more we will strengthen our hand, our consistency and our intellectual honesty regarding our opposition to whaling—and that is something that I think we need to do. As well, it all links to the positive economic benefits of having whale tourism. However, unless we can link it all to the environmental and the humane animal suffering arguments, we will have difficulty in winning this debate into the future. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.