Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 2012:

With reference to the illegal trade in wildlife, in and out of Australia:

(1) What is the process for dealing with an introduced wildlife disease that is not officially recognised as infectious in Australia.

(2) Is proventricular dilatation disease officially recognised as infectious; if so, when was it officially recognised as infectious.

(3) Is Customs aware of other potentially infectious diseases that may be introduced to Australia via the illegal trade in wildlife that are not currently officially recognised as infectious; if so: (a) what are the diseases and how are they spread; (b) what threat do they pose to native species; and (c) what is being done to prevent the introduction of these diseases.

(4) What is the process for officially recognising a disease as infectious.

(5) How are quarantine requests on wildlife enforced.

(6) If a disease is not officially recognised as infectious, how are quarantine requests handled.

(7) What is the process when a disease is diagnosed in Australia which is not officially recognised as infectious, but is in other countries.

(8) Does the department track international developments in wildlife diseases, what domestic risk analysis is conducted and what budget is allocated to this work.

(9) How does Customs proactively monitor and investigate wildlife smuggling activities.

(10) What assessment has been undertaken in recent years to estimate the volume of the illegal trade in wildlife.

(11) What has been the budget for wildlife smuggling investigations and activities for each year in the past 10 years, including 2012.

(12) How are the risks of official diseases and potential new diseases factored into the allocation of resources for wildlife smuggling activities and investigations.

(13) What measures are being taken to prevent wildlife smuggling and the introduction of diseases by wildlife smugglers.

(14) In the past 10 years: (a) how many instances of wildlife smuggling has Customs dealt with; (b) how many of these have led to seizures; (c) how many wildlife smugglers have been prosecuted and can the details of these prosecutions be provided; and (d) how many convictions have been made and what were the penalties imposed.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:

(1) For illegally imported wildlife, the Australian Government Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) biosecurity import policy is to euthanize the detained species in quarantine regardless of its disease status.

(2) 'Proventricular Dilatation (Macaw Wasting Disease)' is officially recognized as infectious through listing in Schedule 3 of the Quarantine Proclamation 1998 (Cth) as a quarantinable animal disease. Proventricular Dilatation has been listed since before 2008.

(3) Biosecurity matters are the responsibility of DAFF.

(a) Significant potentially infectious diseases that may be introduced through imported wildlife are listed in Schedule 3 of the Quarantine Proclamation 1998 (Cth).

(b) The threats that exotic infectious diseases pose to Australian wildlife species can only be inferred from the scientific literature and can only be verified in the face of an introduction.

(c) A range of quarantine measures prohibiting the importation of wild animals and their products are enforced at the border.

(4) Schedule 3 of the Quarantine Proclamation 1998 (Cth), which lists quarantinable animal diseases, is regularly reviewed by the responsible policy areas within DAFF.

Diseases become officially recognized through being made 'notifiable' under individual state and territory legislation. A national list of notifiable diseases, agreed to by Animal Health Committee, informs the state and territory listing. Notifiable disease listing considers diseases notifiable to the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) and diseases of concern or potential concern to Australia. State and territory authorities additionally proclaim diseases as notifiable under their legislation that are of specific concern to that state or territory. Infectivity is only one consideration taken into account when assessing whether to make a disease 'notifiable'.

(5) The principal Commonwealth legislation regulating quarantine is the QuarantineAct1908.

The Quarantine Act provides measures for, but not limited to:

  (i) the examination, exclusion, detention, observation, segregation, isolation, protection, treatment and regulation of vessels, installations, human beings, animals, plants, or other goods or things; or

  (ii) the seizure and destruction of animals, plants, or other goods or things; or

  (iii) the destruction of premises comprising buildings or other structures when treatment of these premises is not practicable; and

  (iv) having as their object the prevention or control of the introduction, establishment or spread of diseases or pests that will or could cause significant damage to human beings, animals, plants, other aspects of environment or economic activities.

States and territories also have their own legislative arrangements and the Commonwealth works with the states where incidences of biosecurity concern are detected beyond the border.

(6) See answer to question 1.

(7) See answers to questions 1 and 3 and 4.

(8) The Australian Wildlife Health Network (AWHN), an initiative of DAFF, provides on-going scanning for international developments in wildlife diseases. Scanning activities result in a weekly report on current hot topics provided to DAFF, and a weekly digest circulated to a subscription mailing list. Selected reports are also shared with the Australian Government Department of Health and Aging (DoHA), and the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC). These reports can inform domestic and import risk analysis. Scanning is one of a number of core responsibilities of the AWHN. Funding to cover all core activities is provided by the Wildlife and Exotic Disease Preparedness Program (WEDPP), a national partnership program managed by DAFF. In 20011-12 total funding from WEDPP for all AWHN core activities was $201 000 (GST exclusive).

DAFF funds Australia's OIE Wildlife Focal Point, who maintains contact with counterpart Wildlife Focal points in the region through regular workshops and meetings to track developments in wildlife diseases and be alert to potential risk to Australia. The budget for the OIE Wildlife Focal Point is part of the DAFF Wildlife Health sub program budget.

DAFF also provides funds to support FAO regional wildlife programmes and activities under the Partnership on Global Animal Health and Biosecurity initiatives 2011-2013. These wildlife projects seek to improve regional wildlife health capacity and to improve Australia's understanding of the role of wildlife, in emerging infectious diseases and specific disease that pose a risk to trade and public health in Australia and the region. The budget for 2011-13 for the wildlife component of the Partnership is $517 132.

DAFF provides a delegate to the FAO Scientific Task Force on Wildlife and Ecosystem Health which meets annually in the region to discuss international developments in wildlife disease. The budget for the participation in the Task Force is part of the DAFF's Wildlife Health sub program budget.

DAFF conducts biosecurity risk assessments before a particular species is approved for importation. International disease intelligence informing biosecurity risk assessments is gathered from a variety of sources, not limited to scientific publications, government documents and in-country missions. The budget for biosecurity risk assessments covers all species and not just wildlife. Announcements to conduct a biosecurity risk assessment are made on an irregular basis and consequently the resources dedicated to particular species vary.

(9) The Customs and Border Protection Service (CBP) advised that they utilise a number of strategies to address illegal imports and exports of wildlife. These include:

(10) SEWPaC has advised me that while some estimates of the extent of the global illegal trade in wildlife exist, due to its very nature, estimating the volume/​value of illegal trade in wildlife is difficult and the veracity of any estimates is difficult to determine. The same would apply to any attempt to estimate the volume of illegal trade of wildlife to/from Australia

(11) SEWPaC has advised me that there is no specific budget for Wildlife Investigations. SEWPaC employs dedicated compliance and enforcement officers and environmental investigators, whose duties include investigations of wildlife smuggling when required.

(12) SEWPaC has advised me to refer to the response to question 11 above.

(13) SEWPaC has advised me that they liaise closely with a number of national and international agencies to share intelligence on wildlife smuggling. Australia is currently the Chair of the Coalition Against Wildlife Trafficking (CAWT), which consists of government and non-government representatives from around the world. CAWT partners seek to address the growing threats to wildlife from poaching and illegal trade, working individually and jointly toward achieving the Coalition's goals. CAWT aims to focus public and political attention and resources on ending the illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products.

Also see answers to previous questions.

(14) CBP advises that:

(a) Between January 2002 and October 2012, CBP detected 7378 wildlife specimens.

(b) All of these wildlife detections resulted in seizure.

(c) CBP prosecuted 79 people in the last ten years. These typically resulted from detections of specimens imported or exported through international airports. These included reptiles and birds and their eggs in addition to a number of offences relating to the possession of illegally imported specimens.

(d) Prosecution was successful in 64 cases, resulting in $275 872.70 in penalties, 16 imprisonment sentences ranging from 2 months to 3.5 years and 15 good behaviour bonds and suspended sentences ranging from 2 months to 4 years.