Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share 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.