Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to draw the House's attention to the efforts of four outstanding Novocastrians who, thankfully, this year received the due recognition of the Order of Australia at the Australia Day honours awards. The first of the people I would like to acknowledge is Mr Kevin Berger from Newcastle East. He is the founder and executive director of the St Philips Christian College's DALE program. Indeed, the member for Blair accompanied me on a recent visit to that school, which has run some tremendous programs for students who are at risk and have special needs. It has a separate program for young mothers seeking to complete the Higher School Certificate. This is much deserved recognition for the work Kevin has done.

The second Novocastrian I would like to acknowledge is Margaret Sulman, a volunteer at the Calvary Mater Newcastle hospital since 1992. She has had an extraordinary range of roles in the hospital and certainly has helped to coordinate the hospital volunteer program and fundraising efforts.

The third person is Norma Clarke of New Lambton, who has had more than 50 years of service to lawn bowls.

Finally, there is Mr John Rumball, recognised for his long and various contributions to the ambulance service and the Hamilton Returned Services League and for his chairmanship of the Hunter Melanoma Foundation from 1996 to 2000. We are deeply indebted to each of these Novocastrians for their service.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was honoured to be amongst the very many mourners who attended the funeral of former member for Hunter, Eric Fitzgibbon, the Saturday before last. As his son, Joel—who has so ably succeeded him in that seat—noted in the chamber today, the one thing that stands out more than anything else about Eric Fitzgibbon was his commitment to his local community and the fact that he could very sincerely say he is one of us.

At that service we heard of some immensely funny moments in Eric's life. We also heard that he was someone not afraid to push forward with often controversial issues, but he always did so with the clear intent of helping better his local community. It was a time we remembered that leading up to his death Eric, unfortunately, suffered from dementia. Like so many people in our community, many of whom will be known only to us in our hearts, it is, in the words of Hazel Hawke and others, a very long goodbye.

I feel terribly sad for the Fitzgibbon family, a very notable clan in their local community. I am sure that the hearts of all of his local community and of this parliament reach out to them at this very difficult time.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded. The chair will be resumed at 5.45 pm.

Sitting suspended from 16:46 to 17:45

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Canned hunting is the practice of intensely breeding and domesticating lions within confined areas in South Africa, in particular, in order to create easy targets for tourist hunters, and I support the member for La Trobe in condemning this practice. It is barbaric killing for macabre trophies. Hunters from all over the world, but notably from the United States, Germany, Spain, France and the UK, go to South Africa and send home lion body parts, such as the head and skin preserved by taxidermists, to show off their supposed prowess. The animals involved are habituated to human contact, often hand reared and bottle-fed, so are no longer naturally fearful of people. Such animals will indeed approach people expecting to get fed but instead receive a bullet or even an arrow from a hunting bow. This makes it easy for clients to be guaranteed a trophy, and thus the industry is lucrative and popular.

There is a spurious argument made that somehow hunting brings conservation funding into a country through hunting permits. Yet this has been shown to be patently false. The steepest declines in lion populations have been in countries with the highest hunting intensity, and it has been shown that the funds reaching the local community are minuscule. Born Free USA, along with the Humane Society International, the Humane Society of the United States and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, commissioned economists at large to investigate the facts. That study, published in June 2013, shows that the trophy-hunting industry makes a minimal contribution to national incomes.

It is an absolute scandal that the continental lion population has fallen from an estimate of over 75,000 as recently as 1980 to around 32,000 in 2012, with a further concern that the numbers could now be as low as 25,000 distributed over only 22 per cent of their historical range. This demonstrates that African lions require increased international protection from all threats including over utilisation for commercial or trophy hunting. Between 1999 and 2008 offtake for recreational purposes was unsustainable by any standard in at least 16 of the 20 range states trading in wild source lion parts.

An Australia Institute report has shown that the economic impact of an Australian restriction on the import of African lion trophies would be minimal because trophy hunting plays a negligible role in African economies, lion hunting is a minor part of the trophy-hunting industry and trophy hunting makes a minimal contribution to rural development. The Australian Institute identifies the trophy-hunting industry as a small part of the African tourism industry. By contrast, the overall tourism industry generates over $13 billion in countries with lions and trophy hunting represents only around two per cent of tourism revenues.

The member for Calare asked in the debate: what can we in Australia do? In response, I support the member for La Trobe's proposal that all animals listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the CITES appendices I, II and III to which Australia is a signatory, are banned from being imported into Australia. I also concur with him that we should change the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to not only stop imports of canned hunted African lion body parts but also stop all species listed under the CITES Appendix 1, Appendix II and Appendix III from being imported unless specifically approved by the Minister for the Environment.

As the member for La Trobe outlines on his website, video footage of this practice depicts many distressing scenes including one of a lion lying on the ground where, at close range, a not-so-skilled or brave hunter takes several shots to kill the lion. The lion does not try to escape as it does not regard the hunter as a threat, due to past positive contact with humans. This cruel and barbaric activity needs to be stopped and a change in the law, preventing the importation of animal trophies resulting from canned hunts, will help achieve this while also assisting in protecting the future of international wildlife.

The idea of killing animals for sport is frankly barbaric and medieval but, if people really want to do it, then at least we should have a level playing field. The lions have teeth and claws; so give the hunter an appropriately sized knife and fire up the lions a bit before the contest by not feeding them for a couple of days. That would be fairer.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker Griggs, and I must say it is a pleasure to see you back in Canberra. I know you have much wildlife in your territory. I too rise to join with the member for La Trobe and other members to condemn the act of canned hunting across the world and the importation of such trophies into Australia.

I begin by asking members to imagine an animal which has been taken from its mother at birth and raised by humans—not because there is anything wrong with its mother or because it is in the best interests of the animal; simply because it can be taken and to do so, unfortunately, guarantees a very lucrative international business trade. The animal is then raised in captivity until one day it is taken outside and left to wander aimlessly inside a large fenced enclosure until someone—who has paid up to $50,000 to the person who took this animal from its mother—is allowed to kill it with a shotgun, a handgun or sometimes even a crossbow. This is not something hunters are doing as part of a conservation effort; it is simply so they can guarantee they will be able to go home and put a trophy on their wall. In my mind they cannot really call that hunting. With this in mind, I will highlight that I am not opposed to hunting in its true form and, in particular, hunting for conservation purposes, but I am against this atrocious act of canned hunting.

As my fellow members have stated, canned hunting is where animals are raised in captivity for the purpose of eventually becoming trophy kills for foreigners wanting to mount a lion or other animal on their wall. It is a despicable act of cruelty but one which continues to be allowed in many countries around the world, most notably in South Africa. For example, in South Africa there are about 4,000 wild lions; but what many Australians do not know is that there are many more than double that number in captivity.

The member for La Trobe next to me—and I again applaud him for this motion—has done significant work in his electorate and at the national level to raise awareness of canned hunting and the amount of trophies Australians have been allowed to import under the Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. I again commend him for his efforts. While these trophies have been imported under this act I do, however, highlight that Australians' exportation and—most importantly in this instance—importation of wild fauna and flora is guided by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES, which Australia joined in 1976 and which 180 countries are a party to. The aim of CITES is to ensure that the international trade in wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. This is particularly important for those animals which are endangered.

I would also highlight that canned hunting in countries such as South Africa is predominantly by people from European countries, not Australia. But this does not negate our responsibility to prevent the importation of trophies into our country to ensure we do not inadvertently support this atrocious activity. As the member for La Trobe stated, the number of wildlife trophies and body parts imported into Australia from 2010 to 2014 included over 40 different species, consisting of 93 hunt trophies and 1,027 body parts. Although the concept of canned hunting itself is distressing to many Australians, it is also the less blatant cruelty that takes place to these animals which Australians need to be aware of, as well as the fraud which is happening right under our noses. These animals are raised in captivity, so for these farm owners to continue their trade—which is worth approximately US$200 million in Africa alone—the animals are regularly crossbred or inbred, leaving them to suffer from such issues as rickets, back problems and eyesight problems.

Australian volunteers are also being conned by these farm owners. As my colleagues have stated, Australian volunteers are spending about $700 per week to travel to South Africa in the belief they are looking after animals such as lion cubs which will be returned to the wild. The reality is they are inadvertently aiding canned hunting, which is illegal in Australia. The member for La Trobe, as I said, has already done much in this space, including working with the Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, to actually ban the importation of rhinoceros body parts. The minister has also now announced that he intends to extend this ban to the importation of lion parts and lion trophies into Australia, an act which I fully support.

On this basis, again, I applaud the member for La Trobe's call for the importation of animals or animal parts which have been killed under these conditions to be banned and the minister's actions to date in seeing these actions are implemented.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I begin by commending the member for La Trobe for bringing this matter to the House—a matter that is not often spoken about or widely known in the community until someone draws attention to it. And as others have said, it quite rightly refers to the hunting and killing of wild animals that effectively are already in captivity but are allowed to roam freely within large farms and wildlife reserves. As other members have pointed out, the whole animal, or parts of it, are then displayed as a trophy for the hunter when he goes back to his own place.

I understand from one report that a fee of somewhere between $10,000 and $50,000 can be paid per animal to the conservation park owner for the pleasure and privilege of going out and shooting these defenceless animals. As the member for Wills pointed out earlier on, we have seen a dramatic drop in lion numbers–I want to talk a bit more about that if time permits.

I also understand that this is becoming a growing business within Africa. In South Africa there are already some 160 farms already up and running and raising animals for these very purposes, often drawing support from genuine volunteers who believe the animals are being raised to try and increase the numbers of particular animals and not for the purpose of later having them hunted.

Between 2001 and 2006, the figures show that 1,830 lion trophies were exported from South Africa—I use lions, because they are probably the predominant animal that seems to be the focus of the discussion. In the next five years, from 2006 to 2011, the numbers skyrocketed to 4,062 parts exported. This is the number that is known to the government. I have no doubt that there would be cases of animals being hunted, a fee being paid and it all being done underhand, and the figures are never recorded, and the animals are shipped off to a country that perhaps is not a signatory to any of the protective measures that are in place. Or they deal with the animal through the black market for which I understand, particularly in Asian countries, there is a huge demand, not just for the display of the trophies but in fact as a food source. The animals supposedly have special qualities which make them very attractive to certain cultures.

The fact of the matter is that it is a growing practice and, whilst the farmers of these conservation zoos would quite often argue that in one sense by doing this they are protecting the animals in the wild, the figures point to a different picture. In fact, since canned hunting has come into play, the number of lions running freely has also dropped, so it is doing nothing to protect the true wildlife of the country at all. Indeed, it puts a higher bounty on the wildlife outside of the conservation areas because, as they become scarcer in number, their value also goes up. Figures of up to $100,000 per lion are now charged for the pleasure of killing a lion that is truly in the wild.

Whilst here in Australia we are signatories to the CITES convention and we do what we can, the truth of the matter is that even in Australia we have, I believe, limited statistics available to us as to what is happening. I tried to go through the statistics that the Parliamentary Library provided for us, but it was clear that even then we were not getting a true picture of what may or may not be happening with respect to these animals in Africa.

This goes to the heart of another bigger and more serious matter; that is, the permanent loss of wildlife, fauna and flora that is occurring as a result of human activity right around the world. While we are dealing with one particular aspect of it, the reality is that wildlife is here for a purpose.

I understand that last year Australia hosted the World Parks Congress here in Sydney. Thomas Freedman, in an article, made it clear that the earth's natural environment is worth saving and the protected forests, national parks and marine sanctuaries are the 'basic life support systems that provide the clean air and water, food, fisheries, recreation, stable temperatures and natural coastal protections that sustain us humans'. They were his words, not mine, but he is absolutely right. The animals being treated this way in conservation parks are just part of the big picture of destruction occurring right now throughout the world. Whatever we can do to stop it we should.

Debate adjourned.