David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Amendment to Lists of CITES Species, Declaration of a stricter domestic measure, made under subsection 303CB(1) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, be disallowed [F2015L00277].

This motion would prevent the Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, from moving African lions from appendix II to appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, known as the CITES treaty. Mr Hunt's decision to move African lions to appendix I is made under provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. It will have the effect of banning the importation of all African lion specimens into Australia, including those legally and sustainably harvested under fair chase conditions. This is ministerial overreach in a most authoritarian manner. It seeks to curtail activities in a foreign country based on the minister finding them distasteful. This is not the kind of governance Australians need. Disapproval is not a basis for government policy, and governments have to accept the fact that people do not want them interfering in their lives.

Supposedly, the minister's decision was motivated by a genuine attempt to help reduce the unethical practice of 'canned hunting' by not allowing the import into Australia of lion specimens obtained in this manner. The problem is that the ban will bring to an end the substantial financial support that Australian hunters provide to poor African villagers via hunting fees paid in the course of legally harvested free-range fair chase hunting. The regulation that this motion seeks to disallow does not distinguish between lion trophies gained through such hunting and trophies gained through canned hunting. But this is not the full explanation. Greg Hunt's decision was motivated by an intense personal dislike of hunting per se, promoted by animal rights activists who had been lobbying Liberal Party MPs. 'Canned hunting' was just a convenient shroud to mask a ban on the importation of all lion hunting trophies.

Documents obtained under Freedom of Information reveal multiple errors by the Department of the Environment in its advice to the minister. This advice was a mass of misinformation and obfuscation, as I shall show with three examples. First, the ministerial brief stated that canned hunting is allowed in South Africa. This is simply not true. Canned hunting was explicitly prohibited by South Africa's Threatened or Protected Species Regulations in February 2007. Second, the ministerial brief stated that African lions meet the criteria for listing on CITES appendix I. This also is not true. A comprehensive report prepared for the CITES Animals Committee meeting in May 2014 expressly stated that the African lion does not meet any of the three biological criteria required for listing on appendix I and is appropriately listed in appendix II. Third, the ministerial brief stated that a 'precautionary' approach in relation to lion conservation decisions was warranted due to uncertainty regarding the lion's population size and distribution. This is also not true.

The report to the CITES Animals Committee again expressly stated that precautionary measures are unnecessary because adequate information to assess the status of African lion and the impact of trade already existed. The report, a product of systematic analysis of the most recent scientific data available, stated that the population of African lions is not small, according to the accepted CITES definition; the species does not have a restricted area of distribution; and there has not been a 'marked decline' in the population, according to the accepted CITES criteria.

Jason Wood, the Liberal MP for La Trobe who lobbied Minister Hunt to implement the ban, is an outspoken opponent of canned hunting. Unfortunately, Mr Wood has, either by design or ignorance, failed to differentiate canned hunting from hunting wild lions. If Mr Wood read the Biodiversity Management Plan for the African Lion, recently released by the South African government for public comment, he would see that canned hunting of lions is in no way comparable to hunting wild lions. It is curious that Mr Wood steadfastly refuses to accept the collective professional expertise of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the IUCN but instead accepts anti-hunting dogma from animal rights activists.

Well-managed trophy hunting is fully supported and endorsed by the IUCN, the CITES treaty and the Convention on Biological Diversity, the CBD. Australia is a signatory to all three agencies. These respected organisations all recognise that well-managed trophy hunting is sustainable, generates much-needed funds for wildlife conservation and anti-poaching programs and provides employment and an income for thousands of low-income people living in rural Africa. Just recently—in the last few days, in fact—Zimbabwe lifted restrictions on big game hunting imposed after the killing of Cecil the lion, no doubt recognising that the ban was counterproductive to furthering the conservation of big game and deprived local communities of much-needed income. Minister Hunt's decision to ban the importation of the African lion is not only an act of cultural imperialism but also a suppression of sustainable use, a central tenet of effective conservation held dear by the IUCN, CITES and the Convention on Biological Diversity. If Mr Hunt is so affronted by the concept of sustainable use, then perhaps he should withdraw Australia as a signatory to these organisations.

Finally, I want to read a few comments about Minister Hunt's ban from two of Australia's internationally recognised professional wildlife management experts. Professor Michael Archer, at the School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of New South Wales, commenting on Hunt's announcement, said:

While all his prayers and ill-informed comments are probably well-intentioned, he clearly has no idea that IUCN advocates Conservation through Sustainable Use strategies as demonstrably among the most important compatible conservation strategies ...

In stopping sustainable hunting many vital programs that would continue to have positive conservation outcomes, with wildlife being valued and hence cared for by local communities, will collapse.

At some point this wisdom, which is in fact promoted by IUCN, must sink in to people like the Minister who appear to have no understanding about the importance of Conservation through Sustainable Use …

Professor Grahame Webb, founder of Wildlife Management International in Darwin said:

Mike Archer is 100% correct in his assessment. The real question is whether Minister Hunt is aware of the reality and chose to ignore it, or whether he is not aware of the reality and simply waded into the issue in ignorance. Another dark day for science-based and evidence-based conservation.

Today I have outlined the ill-informed basis on which this decision has been made and how Minister Hunt has turned his back on scientific evidence and fact. Science and evidence must prevail over the misleading emotive rhetoric which has served conservation matters so poorly in the past. For the sake of lions and their survival, I urge senators to support the disallowance motion.

Jo Lindgren (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in favour of protecting the African lion and other animals by supporting the ban on importing and exporting trophies. I congratulate the Hon. Greg Hunt, Minister for the Environment, for his stance on this important issue. One of the measurements of a society is how we treat animals. Regardless of how powerful or agile they may be, they have little protection against a rifle or other human weapons and even less protection when placed in a fenced-off area.

We want to be seen as a modern 21st century developed nation that has a raft of animal welfare laws

But now some of us want to ignore what happens in other countries and to encourage cruelty and unnecessary killing in the name of sport. I ask: where is the sport in canned hunting? One could hardly call himself or herself a hunter if the animal is lured, baited or caged. We were all horrified at the greyhound racing live baiting scandal and we were all shocked by the other appalling treatment of animals in Australia, and yet some not only want to turn a blind eye to what happens outside Australia; they now want to be allowed to bring their gruesome trophies back into the country.

For those who state conservation and the need to cull: while at times this is legitimate, it needs to be undertaken by properly managed programs in the hands of professionals who have no need to boast about hunting canned animals. And for those who state that income goes to aid in the development of developing nations: feel free to donate to charities; feel free to go and volunteer and bring back pictures of wild animals, not trophies of misery. I am sure $50,000 would go a long way in a school or a village. Build much-needed infrastructure rather than exchange money for an endangered species's life. Development does not come from a quick buck, it comes from hard work—hard work that a community can take pride in and own. Hunting, canned or otherwise, does not create a resilient local industry, does not give villages future direction, does not encourage localised economic development and it certainly does not create civic pride. Economic participation is zero. It creates another form of welfare, where a cash grant is given to a community for them essentially to do little other than to provide some accommodation and a guide. That is not development. It is not nation-building. It is not capability development. It is welfare based on cruelty to animals.

Money not well earnt is potentially money not well spent. What is there to stop basic human greed when animal after animal is sold by communities to make a quick, easy buck? They only need to overstate the number of animals available to have permission to sell wild animals for hunting, while all the time not having to look to the future and develop inclusive industries for their communities. With so many people finding this abhorrent, it will not encourage a broad-based tourism industry with greater employment potential. Canned hunting—where a lion is bred in captivity, becomes reliant on humans for food and even grows to trust humans, is contained in a fenced-off area and is placed in a position where death is a certainty—is not sport. It is not a skill. It is unfair, it is unethical. It is a vile killing and nothing else.

What comes after canned hunting? Wild hunting, and when you cannot find game fairly, you find game unfairly? To say that it is a well-regulated industry is a fallacy. With no disrespect to those developing nations, we have seen that the rule of law struggles in many of these countries. Naturally, they will prioritise their struggling law enforcement resources to human populations, leaving their wildlife as a low priority. We as a developed nation have a duty to support their law enforcement to actively prosecute illegal activities. We have recently seen evidence that hunting is not a well-regulated activity—when a male lion known as Cecil was lured away from his sanctuary, shot with an arrow, wounded and in pain for 40 hours and tried vainly to survive while a trophy hunter returned to his camp, had a meal and a good night's sleep, only to return the next day to finish off his prey. How is this any different from an injured possum being thrown to the ground and laughed at or being used to blood a greyhound? Why is that not okay here in Australia but perfectly fine when we set foot overseas?

Let us be realistic. It does not take much to arrange documents claiming to be from a legal entity in a developing nation that states that the wanton killing was legal. They may even be from a legal entity but inappropriately paid for. A line must be drawn in the savannah. This ban shows the world that we do not support this cruel and unethical practice. I stand in full support of maintaining the ban on bringing hunting trophies into Australia.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor does not support this disallowance motion. Every year foreign hunters export the carcasses of 665 wild lions from Africa—an average of nearly two lions every day. In Zimbabwe, the country where Cecil the lion was killed just last month, hunters exported 49 lion trophies in 2013 alone. Since Cecil's death in early July it is likely that at least a dozen other lions have been shot by trophy hunters. Banning the import and export of lion specimens—implemented following robust public consultation—is an important step towards greater protection of the African lion, and is welcomed by Labor.

A century ago there were some 200,000 African lions prowling the savanna. Now, according to the last complete assessment in 2012, there are as few as 32,000 left—that is 200,000 down to 32,000—living on less than 20 per cent of the land that they used to roam on. They are considered vulnerable by the IUCN Red List, and last October the US Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to list the species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Labor believes it is effectively impossible to justify the continued hunting of a species that has declined by more than 80 per cent in the past 50 years by invoking benefits to local communities and by mentioning that areas leased to hunters increase the scope of habitat available to wildlife beyond that available in protected areas. Therefore, Labor cannot support this disallowance of the ban of importing lion specimens or lion hunting trophies. Research has also shown us time and again that trophy hunting of African lions is a threat to the survival of lions in the wild. On top of that, it simply does not flow that there are any social or economic benefits to local communities from trophy hunting.

I am aware of awful reports that travelling Australian wildlife volunteers have unwittingly worked in African shelters to help hand-raise lions and other animals that were later used for canned hunting, where relatively tame animals are lured before waiting hunters with meat and are then shot with rifles or crossbows.

Personally, I find the act of hunting for pleasure or trophies unconscionable and I find it is sad that many trophy hunters resort to the default argument that killing animals is good for conservation. Countries that are active in the trophy-hunting trade have seen the biggest decreases in lion populations, putting genuine conservation efforts at risk. Recent studies have shown that in areas in which trophy hunting has been permitted by government authorities, lion populations have severely declined even in the absence of other threats.

Research also found that the social and economic benefits of trophy hunting do not flow to local communities. Research published by the pro-hunting International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization found that hunting companies contribute only three per cent of their revenue to communities living in hunting areas. And according to a 2013 report by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, trophy hunting accounts for 0.27 per cent or less of the GDP of each African country in which it is conducted.

Labor supports the appropriate use of powers under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to further the protection of threatened or endangered species around the world and therefore does not support this disallowance motion.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to put a different attitude on this. First of all, why would you want to shoot a lion? That would be the last thing I would want to shoot, but some people do. I remember back in the 1970s when I sheared about 100 sheep a day, I would get paid $40. I bought myself a 0.17 calibre rifle, the same calibre as an air rifle, specifically for shooting foxes. I would shoot two foxes each night and skin them. I would get $40 for the two fox skins, the equivalent of a full day's shearing wage. Given I was not a gun shearer, 100 or 120 a day was my limit in those days.

People do go trophy hunting, shooting these animals. I think what happened to Cecil the lion was a disgrace. It was shot with an arrow, lured out of the national park and then left for 40 hours until it was put out of its misery. That is a disgraceful act. No-one should be shooting animals in national parks, especially lions with the need to keep their numbers up. Canned hunting is a disgraceful act. It was banned years ago. Canned hunting is where they drug the lions and let them out of a cage. They have no hope of survival. People shoot them and then bring the trophies back.

These days farming lions goes on. They might be on 10,000 acres and past their breeding cycle. Someone might want to pay $50,000 to shoot a lion and then have the animal stuffed and brought back to America or Australia. It is something I would never do but the reason I think this regulation is over the top is that it takes so much money out of the poor communities that rely on this activity to put food on their plates—whatever they eat; I have never been to Africa—to look after very poor people and to give them a job.

Canned hunting is disgraceful. Luring animals out of national parks is disgraceful. I would never want to shoot a lion. I have shot many wild pigs and many foxes in my day and will continue to do so. Imagine if you were out on a station in western New South Wales or western Queensland and wild dogs were killing your sheep, and if some American doctor came out and said 'I'll pay you $50,000 to shoot that dingo on your property' and you want the dingo gone. Dingoes are nothing but animal killers, the way they prey on lambs, and now in Queensland wild dogs are killing calves as they are being born. It is a huge cost to agriculture and to the export of our food supply. If they want to pay $50,000 and take the trophy home, then so be it. The reason I do not agree with this regulation is that it will take money out of the communities where they farm lions, where they protect their numbers and run a business.

If my wife and I ran a business on our farm and allowed the wild pigs to breed up, which we would never do, we could charge people to shoot wild pigs. Wild pigs do tremendous damage to our country through soil erosion, the death of animals and the destruction of fences. They are a huge cost to agriculture in Australia. For people who do want to shoot lions for trophy, if they play by the rules, so be it. They are the rules of that country. It brings money to those places. It is something I would never ever do and would never want to do, but I do not want to see us cutting money off from poor people. Not allowing the trophy to be brought back to Australia still does not stop the lions being shot. An Australian can go there and pay to shoot a farmed lion that is on a 10,000 acre property, hunted down or whatever. I do not know why you would want to do it, but people do. Then they cannot bring the trophy back. That will probably prevent them from doing it and that will leave it to wealthy people from western countries to go over there to do exactly that.

The other problem I have is that Ray Hammond at Guyra has informed me that when the guillotine came down on the day the minister announced this, they could not bring the trophies, the lions which had already been shot, back to Australia. It takes months to get an export permit out of a place like South Africa by the time the lion is stuffed and prepared. It might be 42 days to get the permit to bring it into Australia. Those trophies are now not being brought in. The minister should have been given extended time to allow trophies to be brought here. The hunters have paid their money.

As I said, I would never want to shoot a lion or any such animal, but I disagree because it cuts off money from the people who farm lions for a business. They rely on that money for income. They are very poor communities, in Zimbabwe especially. We know how their economy has gone after the disgraceful things their government has done over the last 10 years. That is why I have some reservations about this regulation.

I will not be crossing the floor. I will not be supporting the disallowance. I just want to put on the record that people have the right to go to the farmed lion areas—not canned, not nation parks—where they farm the animals for an income. I see nothing wrong with that.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Monday of this week was World Lion Day, a special day to celebrate the wonder of this majestic species. I think all of us have enjoyed lions in every way—they are just such extraordinary animals—from storybooks for young children to enjoying wildlife documentaries. There are many species in the world that are incredibly unique, but the lion figures in so much mythology and in so many childhood stories and scientific studies that have brought wonder and enjoyment to so many people.

I think it is very understandable that a worldwide day has been established. Then we heard a few weeks ago about the shocking killing of the lion, Cecil, that has mobilised so many people around the world. Why were they mobilised? Because of such extreme cruelty done to one animal. That speaks volumes, that people do care and that they value it when governments like the present government make these changes to regulations so that there is increased protection for this important species.

We have this disallowance before us, and the Greens will certainly not be supporting it. I think that if the mover, Senator David Leyonhjelm, had any decency he would have withdrawn this disallowance motion, particularly after what happened to Cecil the lion. That really did highlight public opinion and how important this change is—the change that he now wants to disallow with his attempt to change that section of the EPBC Act.

Other members have spoken in the debate on aspects of how this industry works. Indeed, it is an industry; it has nothing to do with conservation. People who promote this canned hunting and the spin-offs associated with that use issues to do with conservation as cover, but that is certainly not the intent here. It actually works in completely the opposite direction.

First off, I have a few comments on canned hunting. I think people have heard that canned hunting is described as 'shooting fish in a barrel' because that is just to try to get it across to people that it is not hunting; it is something that has been manufactured. Largely, what we are talking about here are rich, white men going to these countries to shoot elephants, rhinoceros, lions and probably other extraordinary species that one finds in Africa in a way in which they know they will get a result. They will be able to kill the animal. Then they stuff the parts of the animal—the paws of the lion and its head. In the case of elephants it is even parts of their feet that are stuffed so that they may become tables. I just find the whole thing extraordinary, that it is something that people would want to do.

I certainly cannot call it a sport; I can barely even call it hunting. That is why people have come up with this description, 'canned hunting'. Again, I emphasise this: there is no conservation benefit in this. It is actually a negative in terms of conservation. And there are no benefits to local communities. I noticed that an earlier speaker, Senator John Williams, made out that there were benefits that go to local communities. He had no basis for that, or evidence to back that up. I think it is important that the impact it does have on local communities is set out.

Firstly, research published by the pro-hunting International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation and also by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation—and this has been supported by other researchers in the area—have found that hunting companies contribute only three per cent of their revenue to communities living in hunting areas. Obviously, that is an average—in many cases there may be some that are higher but there are a lot which are much lower. The vast majority of their expenditure does not accrue to local people and businesses. We find that the firms involved, government agencies that might be trying to drive this and some individuals who are looking to make a profit out of it have few links to local communities near lion habitats. This is quick money and often big money for those pushing behind the companies, and the locals are left in an even worse situation—often with the lion's habitat destroyed.

Canned hunting is also often called 'trophy hunting'. Trophy-hunting advocates present the industry as very large. They cite figures as high as $200 million in annual revenue. But in the context of national economies—and we are talking about Africa here—the industry is tiny, contributing at best a fraction of a per cent of the GDP. Nature based tourism does play a significant role in national development. This is where countries like Australia can assist countries in Africa to develop that side of their tourism. That is the way this should be going. This is a debate that we should not be having in the 21st century. This is the big, white hunter going to Africa and killing these majestic species. It should have ended long ago.

Nature based tourism, as I said, does play a significant role. Across the countries which have been investigated, trophy hunting revenue was only 1.8 per cent of tourism revenue while nature tourism is bringing increasing amounts of financial benefit to local communities.

Conservationists and many MPs, particularly in countries across Europe, are pushing for the European Union to ban the import of lion parts—the heads, the paws and the skins—as trophies from African countries. Sadly, it is not just lions. As I said before, the situation for elephants remains very serious. The European Union has banned trophy-hunting imports of elephants from Tanzania and Mozambique. I understand that it is also banned in Botswana. Unfortunately, the European Union has not placed a full ban on trophy hunting; that is a campaign that continues. I congratulate Botswana's government. It is a very poor country, and it has brought in a self-imposed ban on trophy hunting—further confirmed after the death of the lion Cecil. So this is a huge campaign, and again I congratulate the government for taking this action.

We needed this change to the law. Why did we need it? We needed it not just because of issues of cruelty but because of issues that are literally about the future of this species. There are 32,000 lions left in Africa. North Africa no longer has lions. They are already extinct in that part of that huge continent. The numbers in West Africa are in the hundreds, possibly 500. In central Africa, east Africa and southern Africa, the numbers are obviously higher. But 32,000 overall is not a huge number of animals for this species.

You heard earlier from an earlier speaker in this debate that this species has gone from being classified as vulnerable to being classified as threatened. The lion population is in serious decline. This is an issue that should concern all of us. Anyone who stops to think about would have to find this shocking. While the lion is not our native species, so many of us have grown up with lions in our children's books—just reading about lions, just appreciating this creature that is at the head of the food chain in Africa. Certainly it does engender some fear at times, understandably; they are a tough species looking after their young. The wonder of life that is encapsulated in the lion species is something that we should not threaten in any way. Certainly trophy hunting does that.

I will mention a few more details about this industry. When I read about the tragedy of Cecil the lion, and then saw it, I checked out some of the issues going down with this industry. It really is deeply shocking. Lions are being bred purely for people to come along and kill them. That is not hunting at all. I do not think hunting of wild animals should occur in any form. But it is particularly wrong that they are captured in a certain area and then there is an absolute guarantee that the big white hunter can come in and kill off a few of these majestic big cats.

Research that has been done in this area has found that there are 160 farms in parts of southern Africa that are legally breeding more than 5,000 big cats per annum purely for this canned hunting market. Really that is quite sick. In South Africa in 2012 canned hunting was so popular it generated US$70 million. And, again, barely any of that money stays with local communities. This is money that is quickly going overseas or to big companies in Johannesburg and other key parts of South Africa.

Regulation of this industry is virtually nonexistent. What it comes down to is: if you have the money to pay, you buy a dodgy permit and you can go off and shoot these animals. What happens then? You shoot the animal; you take the skin; you take the head; you have your trophy; you go home. I guess you then put it on your wall and invite your friends over. I mean, really!

But there are other aspects. It is not just trophies. There is also a trade in the bones of these animals. The lion bone trade is part of a lucrative medicine market in China and parts of South-East Asia. The concern here is that the canned hunting market of lions is actually providing cover for an illegal trade in wild lion bones and tiger bones also. This is another very worrying aspect of how this industry is playing out.

There is yet another aspect. Many of you would have heard about the puppy farms in Australia. We now have cub farms as a spin-off of this industry. This is to supply lion cubs. How cute are little lion cubs! You do want to cuddle them. They are absolutely gorgeous. So I can understand that people want to go along and pat a little lion cub. As part of this industry people are breeding up the cubs so that people can come along and pay good money—bring their children along—to pat a lion cub, in fact many lion cubs. It is a tourism attraction. They actually have these petting parks.

It is presented again that this is something wonderful for conservation because these poor little lion cubs have been orphaned and now we need to ensure we conserve the species. 'Come along. You can pat a lion cub. We are looking after it.' The implication is that it will go back out to the wild. But virtually none of those lion cubs go back out to the wild. By far the majority of them have been bred specifically to go to these petting farms. It is something that is very abusive. It is done in the name of conservation but it is factory farming at its worst.

Also, what happens to the mothers, the lionesses? It is very unnatural in terms of the way the lionesses are treated—like with puppy farms here. Often lionesses are giving birth to two and three litters per year, which is well beyond the pattern of a lioness in the wild. Again, this is deeply wrong. Then the breeders remove the cubs from the mother lionesses at a very early age, disrupting the whole natural way that prides of lions, these most beautiful animals, live. I have read that in some cases the cubs can be taken off the mother within an hour. That is another form of cruelty.

There was cruelty in the way Cecil was shot; there is cruelty in the whole notion of canned farming and canned shooting; there is cruelty in the way hunting is undertaken; and there is cruelty in the way these lionesses are treated.

I noticed, when the mover of this disallowance, Senator Leyonhjelm, spoke, he said that the people who were against canned hunting had an 'intense personal dislike' of hunting. That is quite an abusive phrase. It is again trying to misrepresent these people. Yes, we do strongly oppose canned hunting. But think about why it is done. It is not some intense personal thing. It is actually very objective. What we are saying is that these animals should not be treated so cruelly; bred purely to be shot, for the pleasure of someone who has the money to kill these animals, in a very easy way. They will get their shot sooner or later, and then they can cut up the animal and take it home in parts. That is what people are objecting to. It is very objective in terms of how they have made their decision. Yes, they might feel very concerned and upset by it, but it is certainly a judgement that they have made on a very reasoned basis. It is also a judgement has been made for biodiversity reasons. We know the loss of species around the world, the loss of our glorious biodiversity, and all of us should take a stand on that. That is another reason people are speaking out against the cruelty to lions and other wildlife in Africa and why all of us should vote against this disallowance.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make a short contribution to this disallowance motion. As Senator Lindgren so clearly articulated when she made her contribution, I think society is judged by the way we treat our animals. To shoot or maim an animal for entertainment is a pretty sad indictment on mankind. And to suggest this is okay because the animals are actually bred for this specific purpose I think to some degree actually makes it worse. To have an artificial environment created where you put animals in a confined space and you make them behave in a way that is unnatural to how they would behave in the wild and then to turn around and shoot them for sport is one of the most heinous things I can possibly think of.

Society accepts that the humane use of animals for food and for clothing is an acceptable thing to do. I think we all accept the fact that we have to eat and have to be clothed and that using animals for a specific purpose, as long as they are reared and killed in a humane way, is something that society accepts. Society does not accept canned hunting, and I cannot see that there will ever be a time when society does.

I think the contributions of others that have risen and spoken on this particular disallowance motion and against the position that has been put forward by Senator Leyonhjelm—that this practice should be allowed to continue and that we should continue to import the by-product of this activity—have been very good. It is an abhorrent activity, and even things like duck hunting, which has received quite a lot of adverse publicity in this country, is better than this. At least the animal gets to live in the wild and gets a sporting chance and at least the hunter's intent is to take that animal home to eat. This is not the case with the canned hunting.

But it is not just about lions; it is about any animal that is slaughtered, killed, maimed, teased or tormented for the purpose of sport. This is the thing that we should be condemning. Any country in the world, any person on this earth who thinks it is okay to kill, main, hurt or scare an animal for the simple pleasure of a sport, without any intention whatsoever to use that animal for food is an absolute disgrace.

So I condemn the farming of wild animals for the purpose of killing them for sport and I commend the minister for the action that he has taken in moving this particular regulation. I support the minister's action and I support every other speaker today who stood up in support of banning the importation of this particular by-product into Australia.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to address some of the issues in relation to this disallowance motion on behalf of the government. The regulation in question before the chamber is one that means that African lions would be treated as though they are listed under Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. This convention, known as CITES, is a convention in which Australia is one of some 180 signatories. CITES is specifically aiming to ensure that international trade in wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. Approximately 5,600 species of animals and 30,000 species of plants are listed under the CITES convention, and the species are listed on one of three appendices to CITES according to how threatened they have become through trade. Appendix 1 is the most restrictive list and is applied to the species most threatened by trade.

Australia's national environment law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, gives effect to the requirements of the CITES convention. In accordance with CITES and the EPBC Act, Australia may introduce stricter domestic measures that restrict trade in certain CITES-listed species. The mechanism for giving effect to a decision to put in place a stricter domestic measure for a CITES-listed species is a declaration in a legislative instrument. Such a legislative instrument is of course disallowable, and that is what we are debating today—the instrument that was created by Minister Hunt in relation to the importation of African lion parts that Senator Leyonhjelm has moved a disallowance motion on.

This has come about because of genuine community concern, and I do want to acknowledge in this debate the member for La Trobe, Mr Jason Wood, who is in the chamber. The member for La Trobe campaigned extensively and argued passionately for this regulation to be brought in for this protection of African lions.

He deserves all credit for that and obviously is passionate enough about it that he has come to the chamber to witness this debate around the proposed disallowance of the regulation. The government does not support the disallowance. We obviously stand by the decision taken by Minister Hunt at the encouragement of the member for La Trobe and others, because we believe that it is important as a government to offer this additional protection to African lion species. This will prevent the trade in African lion parts, except for a limited number of circumstances such as scientific or conservation purposes.

Extensive consultation on the ban was undertaken by Minister Hunt and the government more generally with the African lion range states, businesses, hunters, conservation organisations and researchers. Existing measures in South Africa do not prohibit canned hunting of African lions. South Africa prohibits canned hunting of a number of species, including leopards and cheetahs, but not lions. Canned hunting as has been discussed in the chamber is when lions are raised in some form of captivity and hunted within fenced enclosures, where the odds of course are stacked in favour of the hunter. Of the 18 African lion specimens imported to Australia as hunting trophies for both commercial and personal use between 2010 and 2013, all originated from South Africa where the canned hunting of lions is not prohibited, and 15 were declared as being captive bred.

A Department of Environment analysis concluded that other options to specifically target canned hunting would not be effective given the challenges in determining whether a specimen was obtained through canned hunting versus other measures. And because canned hunting, we believe, is a deplorable activity, we took this action as a government to protect African lions from this barbaric practice by banning the import and export of trophies through the use of this regulatory measure.

This practice can hardly be called hunting, as other speakers have considered, let alone be called a sport. It is cruel and barbaric and we want it to be a thing of the past. We have seen more recently, as other speakers acknowledged, the public outrage that has followed the killing of Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe. Australians do not support this type of brutal activity against these majestic creatures. The ban importantly sends a signal to the international community that we do not support this cruel and unethical practice. Many major international airlines have joined the fight against this trade with Lufthansa, Emirates, British Airways, American Airlines, United Airlines and Delta Air all banning hunting and trophy shipments. It has attracted international attention with members of the EU parliament calling upon their jurisdiction to take a lead from Australia, which has of course brought attention to the issue of canned hunting within South Africa as well.

I welcome the contribution of many speakers from different sides in this debate where they have indicated their support for the government's stronger actions to protect African lions. I welcome the fact that their indications suggest Senator Leyonhelm's motion will be unsuccessful, as it should be. And I urge all senators to vote against this motion to ensure that the ban on the importation of these parts of African lions remains in place and that we actually send a very strong message of support from this Senate for this ban and a very strong message that we will not condone this unfair, unethical and barbaric treatment of lions.

Question negatived.