Jo Lindgren (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share 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.