CHAPTER 7 - EXPORT OF LIVE WILDLIFE
Introduction
7.1 The most controversial of all issues relating to the commercial utilisation of wildlife is whether
Australia should allow the export of live native animals for personal or company profit. There is no
statutory provision in Australia to allow for the export of live native animals and to do so would require
amendment to the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982. While many
conservationists and animal welfare groups believe that this ban should remain, there is a growing school
of thought in favour of the removal of the ban, in part or in total. The debate that has arisen over this
issue has become very much polarised and, aside from issues relating to animal welfare and
environmental impact, arguments centre on whether allowing live export would undermine illegal activities
(smuggling). [1] Thus consideration of the question whether live exports should be allowed requires a
prior consideration of the subject of illegal trade in wildlife.
Evidence of Illegal Trade in Australia
7.2 Illegal wildlife trade is a global phenomenon. Internationally, the trade is purported to be worth
between $6 and $12 billion annually, [2] second only to the drug trade and greater than trade in illegal
weapons and in people (illegal immigrants). The reason for this is thought to be in part due to the
relatively low punitive risk of wildlife smuggling compared to other forms of illegal trade: penalties relating
to drug smuggling are far greater, per equivalent dollar value of consignment, than they are for bird or
reptile eggs and courts appear reluctant to impose maximum penalties for infringement of wildlife
regulations. [3]
7.3 The magnitude of illegal activities in Australia has not been quantified accurately because of the
covert nature of the trade. However, it is thought to be relatively small, though possibly increasing. [4]
While much smuggling may be carried out by individuals who traffic in a semi-organised manner, there is
also evidence that international criminal groups are becoming increasingly involved in wildlife smuggling.
[5] When successful, smuggling of Australian wildlife may be highly lucrative. Unsourced figures suggest
that some Australian species sell in America and Europe for exorbitant sums (such as $100,000 for a
mating pair of palm cockatoos, $40,000 for gang-gangs and Major Mitchell cockatoos, and $20,000
for Australian pythons). [6]
7.4 The types of animals most commonly subject to smuggling include many species of birds (particularly
the brightly coloured or rare species), reptiles (snakes, lizards, goannas, etc), sea shells, insects (notably
spiders and scarab beetles) and, increasingly, mammals (sugar gliders, for example). While the financial
incentives for plant smuggling are not as great, the illegal removal of flora nevertheless occurs and in
some instances (such as the removal of fox-tail palm seeds from Cape Melville National Park [7]) there
are strong incentives to carry out illegal trade. Shipments of wildlife are smuggled out of Australia by
post, commercial plane, light plane and ships. Eggs are frequently carried out by individuals, secreted in
specially modified clothing. Much smuggling of wildlife is carried out by international tourists and
detention rates would appear to be quite low. [8]
7.5 Direct evidence of smuggling operations in Australia is found through the interception by customs
officials of consignments of wildlife carried either bodily or in baggage. Indirect evidence is also found
through wildlife distribution houses, principally in Europe and America, which list hundreds of exotic
species for sale and which must have entered the country illegally at some earlier stage. The fact that new
species of Australian reptiles regularly appear on American sale lists is evidence that sufficient animals
are being successfully smuggled out of Australia to establish captive breeding programs overseas. As an
example, recent years have seen the addition of several species of knob-tailed geckos (lizards) and
dwarf monitors (goannas) to the lists in America. [9] Loss of species and destruction to habitat is also
indirect evidence that wildlife is being taken illegally.
7.6 A major study of wildlife crime in Australia, Wildlife Crime Policy and the Law, carried out by Mr
Don McDowell, concluded that there was a 'thriving' wildlife trafficking industry. [10] However, while
this study examined wildlife crime in detail, with the exception of a list of Federal prosecutions under the
Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 (summarised in Table 7.1), the
author was unable to quantify in any way the extent of undetected illegal trade, its impact on wildlife
populations and habitats, or its direct economic impact. As can be seen from Table 7.1, either the extent
of illegal trade is not large or, if it is large, the ability of surveillance authorities to detect wildlife crime and
to achieve prosecutions, is not great.
| Year | Total Number of Animals Involved in Prosecutions |
|---|
| 1984 | 16 birds, 11 reptiles (2 cases) |
| 1985 | 18 reptiles, 16 reptiles (2 cases) |
| 1986 | 9 birds, 135 reptiles (2 cases) |
| 1987 | 57 reptiles, 4 snakes (2 cases) |
| 1988 | 32 birds, 8 bird eggs (2 cases) |
| 1989 | 2 birds, 27 birds and 11 reptiles, 32 birds, quantity of marine shells (4 cases) |
| 1990 | 1 snake, 3 birds, 26 birds, 4 birds, quantity of animal skulls and heads (5 cases) |
| 1991 | 3 snakes, 1 bird, 40 lizards, 91 bird eggs, 40 bird eggs, 150 dead butterflies, 93 butterfly pupae & caterpillars
(6 cases) |
| 1992 | 16 birds, 47 bird eggs, 37 bird eggs, 36 bird eggs, 74 reptiles, 1 lizard, 2 snakes, 19 reptiles, 49 lizards, 2 birds,
5 bird eggs (11 cases) |
| 1993 | 2 birds, 2 birds, 24 bird eggs, 24 bird eggs, 5 bird eggs (5 cases) |
| 1994 | 32 marine shells, 380 insects, unspecified quantity of birds, 23 turtles, 10 lizards, 14 insects, 2 birds, 1 snake, 27
bird eggs & unspecified quantity of bird eggs (10 cases) |
| 1995 | 1 bird, unquantified number of lizards, unquantified number of reptiles, unquantified number of birds eggs,
58 reptiles (5 cases) |
| 1996 | Unquantified number of reptiles, unquantified number of birds, 4 reptiles, 2 turtles (4 cases) |
Table 7.1 – Adapted from Appendix 3 of McDowell, D 1997 Wildlife Crime Policy and the Law -
An Australian Study AGPS, Canberra, pp. 171-184.
7.7 In Australia a number of organisations and individuals have devoted considerable resources to
documenting illegal trade in wildlife. These include the Native Bird Liberation Alliance and, in particular,
TRAFFIC Oceania. In a recent report produced by TRAFFIC Oceania on Trade in CITES listed
Birds to and from New Zealand, it was found that:
- export of CITES listed birds has escalated since 1989;
- currently over 600 birds per year are exported;
- there has been a steady stream of birds intercepted at the New Zealand border and
circumstances suggest that New Zealand is being used as a laundering point for export to other
countries;
- exported birds are primarily endemic species destined for markets in Europe, the USA and
increasingly Japan;
- many of the birds are common in Australia and are capable of being bred in captivity, some are
restricted in range or are difficult to breed;
- because export from Australia is banned, the birds command a high price overseas;
- there are indications that international smuggling networks are involved; and
- owing to anomalies in the wording of the relevant New Zealand legislation, few prosecutions have
been achieved. [11]
7.8 Two individuals who gave evidence to the Committee, Mr Bill Zinglemann and Mr Raymond Hoser,
have also collected a very large amount of information about illegal trade in wildlife from Australia. Both
Mr Zinglemann [12] and Mr Hoser [13] believe that organised wildlife crime is assisted by official
corruption in state government departments in NSW, Victoria and Queensland. [14] Although
considerable evidence has been produced in a number of official inquiries, there have not been any
charges laid against government departments, nor have there been any successful actions taken against
Mr Hoser's published allegations. [15]
7.9 Wildlife protection laws undoubtedly benefit some high profile and desirable species, such as koalas,
platypus, dugong and the rarer parrots. For the vast majority of species however, there is no evidence to
suggest that deliberate taking from the wild by hobbyists or smugglers has ever been or is likely to be a
significant factor in determining the status of wild populations. [16] According to conservation planner,
Mr Melvin Bolton:
Catching smugglers at airports with reptiles or parrot eggs in their underwear has popular support but it
is not likely to have much impact on the status of most wild populations. The reported prosecution of a
person for trying to export two of the commonest species of cage-birds is hardly relevant to the status of
the species in the wild. [17]
7.10 Furthermore, the total impact of smuggling on wildlife in Australia appears to be relatively
insignificant when compared to the impact that habitat destruction has had on wildlife. To put smuggling
in perspective, Mr Melvin Bolton summed up the relative contribution of the two types of impact: ' …
the collateral damage of legitimate human activities has a vastly greater impact on most wild species than
does deliberate wildlife persecution'. [18]
7.11 Herpetologist, Mr David Millar, also argued in evidence to the Committee that the environmental
impact of wildlife smuggling activities was relatively insignificant in Australia. Following an analysis of the
detailed information provided by McDowell, [19] Mr Millar commented: '… the rate of detection of
reptile fauna being smuggled overseas would hardly suggest a serious problem'. About several of the
described smuggling attempts he noted: 'the species reported to be involved were all abundant and most
were the ubiquitous shingle back skink. These are so commonly bred overseas that they do not
command particularly high prices so one must wonder about the sophistication of such enterprises'. [20]
Environmental Impact of Illegal Trade
7.12 The desire to have exotic plants and animals for personal display and the financial rewards for
providing rare wildlife to collectors, has led to an enormous global trade in wildlife which presents a
considerable threat to the continuance of biodiversity. The commercial capturing, killing and collecting of
plants and animals represents the second major reason for the disappearance of wildlife, after habitat
destruction. The environmental impact of this trade is particularly significant in third world tropical and
subtropical countries where poaching is an entrenched way of life.
7.13 Birds in particular are subject to illegal harvest from the wild to such an extent that, in some
countries, many preferred species are now threatened with extinction. For example, parrot expert, Mr
Joseph Forshaw, noted in evidence to the Committee that the two greatest threats to wild birds
throughout the world were habitat loss and trapping for the live bird trade, the latter 'now having reached
alarming proportions'. [21]
7.14 The Native Bird Liberation Alliance provided evidence from Europe which claimed that 'each year
at least four million wild birds are captured for the European pet trade'. At that time (1991),
three-quarters of birds trapped in countries such as Argentine and Senegal, and transported to Europe
died in transit. [22]
7.15 In addition to the problem of species loss through poaching, and damage to habitat, there are a
number of other deleterious consequences of wildlife smuggling;
- there is potential for native species establishing themselves as pests in the country to which they
are transferred (brushtail possums, for example, are rampant in New Zealand and cause
considerable environmental damage);
- because there is no control over quarantine procedures and smuggled wild-caught animals
frequently carry disease, there is considerable potential for the transmission of disease, (for
example, the disease psittacosis, which may be fatal to humans, is carried by Australian birds);
[23]
- there is no regulation or monitoring of animal welfare and many animals are subject to inhumane
conditions during capture and transit, some of which die during the process; [24] and
- because smuggling is an illegal activity with at times quite high financial incentives, there is often
associated with it unsavoury elements of criminal behaviour (drugs and firearms smuggling). [25]
7.16 Finally, it appears that while much of the evidence about illegal shipments of wildlife leaving and
coming into the country is conjectural or insubstantial, there have been sufficient prosecutions for the
conclusion to be drawn that 'something is happening'. [26] However, curiously, despite the potential for
impact on wildlife populations and the concern expressed by many people that detrimental impact may
be occurring, there has been very little done in this country, or elsewhere, to measure that impact. [27]
Clearly it would be useful if the Government could include a measure of this impact is its review of
environmental legislation.
Arguments in Favour of Retaining Prohibition
7.17 Quite a number of groups and individuals opposed lifting the ban on export of live native wildlife.
These groups included all Animal Liberation Branches who put submissions to the Committee and many
of the conservation groups listed at Paragraph 2.41. In addition, many individuals wrote to the
Committee objecting to the proposition that live native wildlife be exported. The reasons given for
opposing live exports are as follows.
Legalising Trade Will Not Prevent Smuggling
7.18 There are a number of arguments against the concept that allowing legal trade will undermine illegal
trade in wildlife. The main argument is that because the cost of captive breeding is much higher than wild
harvesting, illegal trade has a cost advantage and will therefore continue even if trade is legitimised. The
HSI noted that Australia has had a ban on live wildlife trade for 30 years and claimed that this had given
Australia a strong international reputation. The HSI believes that legal trade will provide a 'front' for
illegal trade to continue. [28]
7.19 In the World Action Plan for Parrots author Dr Noel Snyder stated that: '… the costs of captive
breeding (or ranching) tend to be much higher than those of unregulated wild harvest, and so as long as
substantial cost disparities remain, unregulated wild harvest will likely continue'. [29] Because of the
rarity of Australian fauna and flora, illegal exporters were prepared to go to significant efforts to remove
live animals from the country. [30]
7.20 Parrot expert Mr Joseph Forshaw concluded in his submission: 'There can be no doubt that legal
export of harvested or captive-bred parrots will be more costly for both exporter and importer than is
the smuggling of eggs. Consequently I foresee little or no decrease of smuggling as a result of relaxation
of existing controls on export'. [31] To support this view, Mr Forshaw cited the case of imports where
there has been an upsurge of illegal activities coinciding with the freeing-up of legal importation. [32]
However, it should be noted that the opposite view, that if birds were readily available in aviaries there
would be no incentive to take from the wild, was also argued in evidence to the Committee by
aviculturists (see Table 13.2).
7.21 The second major argument used to support the view that allowing legal trade would not reduce
illegal trade in wildlife, was the suggestion that as prohibition was removed from some species, smuggling
operations would shift to other, rarer species (see Table 13.2). The Department of Environment
anticipated that 'any deregulation in trade in particular species will lead to pressure on species that are
not currently in trade'. [33]
7.22 The third argument is that legal trade provides a conduit and a market for illegally acquired animals
[34] and that enforcement agencies may have difficulties distinguishing permitted species from
non-permitted species. Mr Simon Habel, Director of TRAFFIC Oceania, gave the following example:
The difficulty arises in terms of monitoring the whole process,the administrative arrangements, and the
fact that in many cases where you have legal trade it does not necessarily stamp out the illegal trade,it
often acts as a bit of a cover. Let us say, for argument's sake, that you are shipping out 500 galahs. It
would not be very difficult to maybe put in 10 Major Mitchells and the Customs person may not have
any idea that they are there. They look very similar if you have a large amount. [35]
7.23 However, aviculturists do not agree that legal trade will allow 'laundering' of wildlife. Mr John Allen
of Avi-Ark commented:
There is a common furphy that holds that export of prescribed birds will permit laundering of poached
birds and the export of banned species disguised as prescribed species.
Identification of wildlife is advanced and ranges from DNA profiles of blood or feathers samples,
permanent banding and tagging. … Much of this technology is, to those in the industries, passe.
All trade will most likely be, as it is now on a limited scale, via international airports and guarded by state
and federal police, customs officers and state and federal quarantine and wildlife enforcement officers.
Identification of species is arranged prior to shipping by arrangement with a local expert and the
container is sealed. … It is ludicrous to suggest that trained zoo staff and specialist inspectors based at
the international airports cannot designate to a taxonomic class. [36]
7.24 In Western Australia, the Department of Conservation and Land Management believes that the
success of programs such as the Naretha bluebonnet (see Paragraph 13.44) illustrate the fact that
market forces can be used to assist the survival of a bird species which was being traded illegally and,
through a legalised breeding and distribution program, was now not subject to poaching. With the
success of the program the Department concluded: 'The advent of DNA identification technology has
largely removed the concern that legalising native bird commercial activities would provide a cover for
illegal operations'. [37] Other examples include the Golden-shouldered parrot and Hooded parrot which
because they can be bred so successfully in captivity, have been saved from being collected illegally from
the wild. [38]
Impact on the Environments of Other Countries
7.25 The potential for species exported from Australia to either become pest species or to transfer
disease to another country was highlighted in a number of submissions [39] including that from the
Department of Environment which noted:
… it is important to consider the potential impact that Australian actions may have on the environments
of other countries. Although Australia is often referred to as a “disease free” country (particularly from a
quarantine perspective) the country has its own endemic diseases, such as psittacosis (an avian virus,
found in birds such as parrots, which has been transmitted to humans and is potentially fatal). The export
of live native plants and animals, (including germplasm and embryos etc) has the potential to transmit
diseases from Australia overseas, and could also establish pest plants and animals in foreign countries.
[40]
7.26 Article 8(h) of the Convention on Biological Diversity provides that 'each Contracting Party
shall, as far as possible and appropriate: prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien
species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species'. Australian wildlife agencies and academic and
research institutions may be best placed to advise on possible pest potential of certain native organisms,
but the relevant authorities of the importing country are best placed to determine whether or not any
particular import poses an unacceptable risk to the importing country. [41]
Reduction in Tourist Potential
7.27 A number of submissions questioned whether, if Australia's wildlife was a major international tourist
attraction, it was in the national interest to allow the export of native animals to zoos and private
enterprise. In arguing the case for continuing to prohibit exports of live animals, Dr Frank Carrick noted
that now most African countries take the view that the economic benefits from nature-based tourism are
so great, that they will not allow export of animals except in circumstances where there are clear
conservation benefits to the species involved. [42]
7.28 Nascaring Wildlife Carers saw the commercial farming of wildlife as a danger to the potential for
nature-based tourism. In their view: 'With wildlife being turned into livestock, there will be virtually
nothing for tourists to see, hence very little reason to visit Australia. … If wildlife is farmed, [it] will
become no more attractive to a tourist that a cow in a diary [sic]'. [43] Similarly, Miss Karen Bevis,
Wildlife Campaign Coordinator of Animal Liberation (Victoria), stated in evidence to the Committee:
Native species cannot be used as a source of food and income and still command respect. The export of
our native species for food, as pets and other commercial items is likely to be detrimental to the tourism
industry as this lowers the status of the animal, making it less exotic and mysterious. [44]
Enforcement is Simplified
7.29 The National Bird Liberation Alliance, and others, believe that the only way in which to stop the
removal of birds illegally from the wild is to prohibit all live trade throughout the world because ruthless
dealers would always find ways to circumvent restrictions and licensing schemes. As explained by Mr
Simon Habel, Director of TRAFFIC Oceania:
At this stage, it is basically illegal, which makes enforcement extremely simple. If it is a live bird coming
out of Australia, for example, a cockatoo, then it is illegal. When you start having some sort of a mix
where you have certain species which are legal, some which are illegal, you can run into all kinds of
particular problems with enforcement. If this were to occur, more resources would need to be placed to
look at this type of situation. [45]
7.30 Humane Society International Director, Mr Michael Kennedy, argued that the failure of bans in
preventing illegal trade was not a fault of CITES. The fault lay with nations that were unable, for political
or financial reasons, to invest sufficient resources in enforcement. [46]
Animal Rights
7.31 Animal rights groups are opposed to the export of live native animals on the basis that, in their
opinion, animals have an inviolable right not to be interfered with in any way. Because smugglers do not
keep records there is no information on the size of the problem in terms of the number of animals
removed from the country, or how many die in the process. However, ironically, the consequence of a
thriving trade in smuggling is the inability of government or animal welfare agencies to regulate the
conditions of transport for live animals which are removed illegally.
Arguments in Favour of Allowing Live Exports
Prohibition Does Not Equal Protection
7.32 There is clear evidence around the world that prohibition does not translate directly to protection of
wildlife. Because there are already sizeable populations of Australian native animals in private collections
through Europe and America and many exotic birds now in Australia, it is clear that prohibiting trade in
wildlife has failed to prevent some wildlife from being removed from Australia. In fact, some witnesses
argued that prohibition has led to an increase in smuggling.
7.33 That banning trade does not work as a mechanism to protect wildlife is evidenced by the fact that
many species listed by CITES on Appendix I have continued to decline in numbers, despite a complete
ban on their commercial use. [47] Through highly lucrative poaching activities, desirable species such as
tigers and rhinoceroses have declined rapidly in numbers since CITES listing and, according to some
people, look set to continue towards extinction. In the meantime, poaching of species such as crocodiles
which have been accepted back into the trade world, is at an all time low. [48]
7.34 Furthermore, not to use wildlife, or to make it illegal to use wildlife, does not necessarily help to
conserve that species. An example of this was given by Mr Keith Cook, Director of Australian
Crocodile Traders Pty Ltd:
To my knowledge there is not one major species that everybody is worried about,one that is on the
brink of extinction,that has been helped by banning the trade or the consumptive use of it. We have had
the black rhino banned now for 25 years, but the numbers have just dwindled away to nothing. Banning
does not work. It is as simple as that. There is not one shred of evidence out there in concrete terms that
non-use of wild resources under a legal framework necessarily results in their survival. [49]
Prohibition Creates Demand
7.35 The act of prohibiting legal access to a species may actually create demand for exotic animals
simply because of the legal unavailability of the species and thereby encourage smuggling. Ms Deborah
Pergolotti, a representative of the Cape York Herpetological Society (CYHS), gave this example:
The Hyacinth Macaw, in particular, was upgraded to CITES Appendix I several years ago. I think it
would have been six to eight years ago when it was upgraded. The Hyacinth Macaw is the world's
largest parrot. It is entirely cobalt blue except for a yellow periopthamalic ring and a yellow bit along the
mandible. It is a very, very large bird and it commands an experienced person to handle one. …
In Brazil in the mid-1980s, Charles Munn had done studies of the bird in the wild and at that time there
were estimated to be only 2,500 in the wild. Since then the numbers have climbed a little bit to about
3,500. There are thousands of them in the United States and most of the time they are kept as single pet
animals. Before the species went to Appendix I it was on Appendix II and at that time the US price for
that bird was $7,000 each. Within a few days of CITES upgrading the species to a prohibited trade
status, the price went from $7,000 to $14,000 and the last I heard it was $US20,000. … because it has
been prohibited from trade for a long time, the value goes up. [50]
Legalising Trade Undermines Smuggling
7.36 The argument that legalising trade undermined smuggling is based on the belief that prohibition has
not worked, that it in fact creates demand, and that if trade was legalised the incentives to engage in
illegal activities would be considerably reduced. [51]
7.37 A number of submissions presented arguments against the belief that commercial utilisation of
wildlife will lead to an increase in smuggling. The CYHS, for example, listed it as 'Fallacy #5' stating:
It is actually the lack of utilisation and properly regulated trade which leads to smuggling. When it comes
to prohibitions, there will always be a small minority who flout the law for personal gain. … The
Australian Government – with its long-time ban on wildlife export and its excessively expensive,
deliberately inefficient and overly bureaucratic legal bird importation program – has created the perfect
climate for rampant smuggling to occur. While certain entities in the Australian government continue to
uphold a climate of prohibition or create deliberately inept conflicts of policy between departments,
smugglers will continue to laugh their way to the bank. [52]
7.38 As an example of policy conflict, the Society described how the Wildlife Protection Authority had
introduced a National Registration Scheme for exotic birds which was aimed at combating the smuggling
of birds into Australia by shifting the onus of law onto possession rather than by eyewitness of a
transaction at the national border. Yet at the same time, AQIS announced that they believed that there
should be a moratorium on all parrot imports through the legal import program. The CYHS concluded:
'The left hand of government is trying to stop smuggling while the right hand is putting up barriers to legal
trade … who benefits by these policy conflicts? The smugglers'. [53]
7.39 Mr Raymond Hoser, who believes that illegal trade in wildlife is assisted by corrupt bureaucrats,
argued that if smuggling was reduced, corruption would be reduced also. [54] In supporting legalised
trade he stated:
The way I see it is that we have to have a situation whereby it is easier for the average law-abiding
person to comply with the law than not, but at the moment we do not have that situation. …We need a
regulatory system to protect the animals, but not one that is so restrictive and unnecessarily restrictive
that honest, law-abiding people are encouraged to break the law. [55]
7.40 Mr David Millar noted in his submission that one of the options canvassed by McDowell in
considering ways to minimise illegal market opportunities was to 'tackle the market itself', and 'explore
ways to provide what the market needed through government involvement'. [56]
7.41 In his submission to the Committee, Associate Professor Michael Tyler argued that the present
legislation, which prohibited the export of live native animals for commercial gain, was 'flawed and
lacking any social or scientific justification'. [57] He argued that there was no logic in allowing many
hundreds of some species which were agricultural pests to be culled, yet prohibiting one single living
specimen to be exported, while at the same time an illegal trade flourished. Professor Tyler argued that
instead of the current system, the criteria for approval to export should be whether such export had any
impact on native populations and whether the importer had the facilities and expertise to maintain the
species overseas.
7.42 As a case example, Professor Tyler described the green tree frog which was abundant throughout
much of Australia but which was much sought after as a pet by keepers in Europe and North America;
there was no justification for prohibiting the export of the frog for commercial gain and, in fact, controlled
export was likely to halt illegal trade in the species. [58]
Other Benefits Derived From Legalised Trade
7.43 Proponents of legalised trade in wildlife claimed that a number of benefits could accrue from such
activities. These include:
- the generation of export revenue and flow-on economic benefits to Australia;
- information gathered by breeders is relevant to birds in the wild and the management of them;
- increased incentives to maintain and breed rare birds would help expand their gene pool;
- a levy on exports may return money to conservation; and
- the export of native birds would be a source of education to people overseas which may result in
an increase in inbound nature-based tourism.
7.44 There is potential for conservation benefit to wild populations if there is a reduction in illegal
activities but the degree to which this occurs depends on the extent to which smuggled wildlife is being
sourced from the wild, as opposed to being sourced from captive-bred populations. While it is clear that
at least some smuggled wildlife comes from the wild, it is not clear what proportion (see Paragraph
13.15).
Adequacy of Laws Relating to Wildlife Crime
Need for a National Approach
7.45 According to the evidence presented to the Committee and recent reports on wildlife crime, [59]
inadequacies in state and Federal legislation and differences between wildlife statutes in the various state
jurisdictions make protection of wildlife difficult and present opportunities for the laundering of illegally
acquired animals. There are strong arguments in favour of at least complementary, if not uniform laws
across Australia.
7.46 There are significant differences between states in legislation relating to wildlife trade. These
differences include variations in the powers of enforcement personnel, licensing provisions, penalty
provisions, different levels of protection for individual species and different requirements for interstate
trade. According to the evidence, they do nothing but facilitate crime.
7.47 Should the export of live native wildlife be allowed, the legislative framework in all states would
need to be made compatible so that the source of the export could be documented as legitimate. [60]
Problems Relating to Enforcement
7.48 The Department of Environment regards wildlife crime as 'a significant organised crime industry,
second only to the illegal trade in narcotics'. [61] But while the Department has an intelligence and a
coordination capability, it has little investigative capacity. In addition, while Australia has appropriate
legislative structures in place which prohibit export of live wildlife, enforcement has declined considerably
in recent years. According to the Department:
The current enforcement regime leaves room for improvement as there is no capability within Australia at
present for any monitoring of shipments. An inability to undertake appropriate investigations will result in
possible ecological damage, including loss of biodiversity, and certainly in a loss of revenue. [62]
7.49 TRAFFIC Oceania believes that enforcement of wildlife crime in Australia is 'at an all-time low'
because the Australian Customs Service had reduced its activities in the area of investigation and other
Federal or state agencies had not moved to fill the gap. TRAFFIC Oceania noted that the wildlife
protection section of Environment Australia had almost no investigative capacity and was 'seriously
understaffed'. [63] According to TRAFFIC Oceania, 'little has been done to improve enforcement of the
[Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982], and in fact enforcement has
gone backwards'. While the activities of the ACS have been curtailed, resources provided to the
Wildlife Protection Section of Environment Australia have not been increased and no attempt has been
made to 'harmonise the disparate activities of the various state agencies'. [64]
7.50 The Humane Society International also noted that enforcement was already under-resourced and,
should live trade be legalised and the export market increase, the agencies involved would not be able to
cope. [65] This view was also shared by Mr Forshaw who noted that despite a high level of illegal trade
there were very few smugglers caught and even fewer prosecutions because of legislative inadequacies.
[66] A number of other submissions also commented that there was a lack of effective monitoring of
wildlife use and enforcement of law. [67]
7.51 In a 1992 report on a review of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports)
Act 1982 it was found that there were a number of problems with enforcement of the regulations relating
to trade in wildlife including: lack of adequate enforcement resources and expertise at entry and exit
ports to effectively monitor the range of wildlife products entering and leaving Australia; training
programs for enforcement officers were inadequate to meet their needs; monitoring and compliance in
relation to inspection of establishments involved in exporting wildlife products was virtually non-existent.
[68] The report concluded that many opportunities existed for provisions of the Act to be flouted,
bringing it into disrepute. This also meant that businesses which did comply were disadvantaged. The
report recommended that considerable attention be given to strengthening enforcement arrangements,
increasing resources for ensuring compliance and reducing illegal trade.
7.52 Enforcement problems may also be created by differences between state and Federal jurisdictions
in the powers of enforcement personnel. In addition, differing licence conditions, differing penalties,
different levels of protection for species and different requirements for interstate trade all contributed to
problems with enforcement. [69] In addition, enforcement under the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of
Exports and Imports) Act 1982 is made difficult by the fact that the legislation lacks a reverse onus of
proof for ownership of wildlife, while state legislation did have this provision. As explained by Mr Joseph
Forshaw in evidence to the Committee:
A lot of the difficulty in apprehending smugglers is due to the inadequacy of Commonwealth legislation.
Commonwealth legislation does not have what we call the reverse onus of proof. Wildlife legislation,
virtually all over the world, has the reverse onus of proof. In other words, somebody who keeps wildlife
has a licence to keep legally acquired wildlife and a condition of that licence is that they have to be able
to prove they legally acquired it. New South Wales, in giving licences to aviculturists, continually
recommends that aviculturists keep all their bills of sale, they keep evidence of where they bought the
birds, et cetera, which is very, very sound advice.
In the Commonwealth legislation the onus of proof is on the law enforcement officer to prove that these
birds were illegally acquired, and that is virtually impossible. That is why these birds that we know have
been illegally smuggled in are able to be advertised widely for sale. My understanding is that the
Commonwealth DPP has advised that unless you catch them at the barrier then you cannot prove they
were illegally acquired. [70]
7.53 While there was much criticism of the reduced resources for enforcement of wildlife crime, the view
was also presented that too much emphasis was placed on smuggling for too little return. In evidence to
the Committee, Mr John Weigal of the Australian Reptile Park pointed out that the number of reptiles
estimated to be smuggled out of Australia each year was about 2000, which represented 0.0005 of a
per cent of reptile mortality in Australia. [71]
7.54 There was also the view expressed that enforcement was concentrated in the wrong area.
According to Mr Raymond Hoser, NSW wildlife protection agencies were expending a considerable
effort regulating amateur biologists and hobbyists who wished to keep wildlife for amateur studies and
that the effort was very much out of proportion to the impact that the activities of amateur collectors and
keepers had on biodiversity:
If you want to keep a lizard or a snake in a tank or a cage, you are going to have to go through a lot of
red tape. We are not talking about sustainable use of wildlife, we are talking about a few hundred being
taken out of the wild nationally out of populations numbering the billions. The government has basically
outlawed that. What they have done is created a huge, enormous, great bureaucracy called wildlife
departments and enforcement branches that run around the capital cities, mainly nabbing little schoolkids
aged 14 who have a carpet snake without a licence. That is the sort of mentality of what has been going
on.
The situation with the laws,and it is likely to happen in New South Wales and elsewhere,is that you have
a massive enforcement effort towards prosecuting people for taking wildlife from the wild,be it snakes or
lizards,in such an infinitesimal amount. We are not even getting to the sustainable use level. We are
talking about such minuscule amounts that pale into insignificance simply by comparison with what is
killed by cars on the roads. [72]
Support for Export of Live Wildlife
7.55 Quite a number of significant submissions to the Committee supported the concept of allowing the
controlled export of live, captive-bred animals from Australia. These submissions included:
- the Northern Territory Government which stated: 'there must be a provision [made in the Wildlife
Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982] for the export of live Australian
wildlife'; [73]
- the Queensland Government which stated: 'The [Senate Committee] Review should recommend
removal of the current unwarranted restraints upon export of native wildlife produced by closed
cycle breeding'; [74]
- the Western Australian Government which stated 'export of live native wildlife should be
considered on its merits, including conservation and animal welfare grounds, rather than via a
blanket ban'; [75]
- the South Australian Government which noted that 'it is feasible to have a restricted trade in
captive bred abundant species and wild caught abundant species'; [76]
- Mr Melvin Bolton, conservation planner, who recommended export of second generation and
subsequent generation captive-bred animals; [77]
- Associate Professor Michael Tyler (frogs); [78]
- Dr Grahame Webb and Mr Michael Vardon of Wildlife Management International (NT); [79]
- Dr John Wamsley, Earth Sanctuaries (platypus); [80]
- Queensland Council of Birds Societies and the Australian Avicultural Federation; [81]
- Northern Territory Cockatoo Breeding and Research Centre (Mr Phil Reader); [82]
- Northern Territory Parrot Breeding and Export Centre (Mr P McGrath); [83]
- Wimmera District Council (pest birds); [84]
- Casuarina Parrot Gardens (Neville & Enid Connors); [85]
- oZSnake Victoria (Mr Lee Bolger); [86]
- Queensland Insect Breeders Association; [87]
- Kimani Aviaries (Ms Diana Anderson); [88]
- United Bird Societies of SA; [89]
- Western Victorian Cockatoo Control Committee; [90]
- Australian Reptile Park (Mr John Weigal); [91]
- Mr David Millar (reptiles); [92] and
- Mr Lyall Naylor (biologist). [93]
7.56 In addition, several major reports have also recommended allowing exports of live native wildlife
under certain circumstances:
- The ACIL report for RIRDC which recommended a trial export program of certain species of
birds and reptiles (see Paragraphs 13.64 and 14.14 respectively) . [94]
- The Industry Commission report, A Full Repairing Lease, reviewed the submissions to this
inquiry which, after discussing the 'Case for Change', recommended (13.1): 'The Commonwealth
should permit the export of live wildlife for commercial purposes that have been grown, or
harvested in accordance with an appropriate code of practice or management program, provided
appropriate conservation, cultural and animal welfare concerns have been adequately addressed'.
[95]
Opposition to Live Export
7.57 There is equally a number of groups which oppose the live export of native animals. These groups
primarily comprise NGOs and are generally those listed at Paragraphs 2.30, 2.34 and 2.41. The only
state government to have a stated policy opposing live exports was the Victorian Government which
supports Federal Government policy 'not to allow live trade in native birds'. [96] Other groups or
individuals opposing live export of wildlife included:
- SA Ornithological Association; [97]
- Wildlife Foundation (ACT); [98] and
- Mr Joseph Forshaw (parrot expert). [99]
Private Versus Public Rights to Export
7.58 The Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 provides that approved
institutions such as zoos and research establishments can apply to export live native wildlife where the
export is for the purposes of an 'inter zoological gardens transfer' or for the purposes of 'prescribed
scientific research' by a 'prescribed scientific organization'. While the legislation does not specifically
exclude private zoological gardens and private scientific organisations, in practice approvals are not
given to private individuals or non-government businesses.
7.59 While some organisations are opposed to commercial export of live native wildlife, they support the
legislation in allowing government organisations to export. The RSPCA, for example, is 'opposed to the
export of native species of animals unless this is from a public facility in Australia to a public facility
overseas approved by the Commonwealth Government'. [100] The RSPCA believes that the ban on
exporting native animals should stay in force, with the only exceptions to this being cases where there is
genuine benefit to the conservation of the species or the welfare of individual animals. [101]
7.60 The Zoological Parks Board of NSW believes that the provisions of the Act that allow the export
of native animals only from approved zoos and scientific institutions is an appropriate one. As defined by
the Director of Scientific Policy and Research, Dr Jack Giles, such institutions could include private
zoos, if they were accredited with the Australian Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria. [102]
7.61 However, the government policy of not allowing transfers between private institutions leaves
unanswered the question 'why should governments be given this right, and not private enterprise?'. While
little defence of the status quo was provided to satisfactorily answer this question, considerable
evidence was placed before the Committee that private enterprise should also have this ability. Chief
proponent of increased private wildlife activities was Dr John Wamsley. In discussing his proposal to
export live platypus to Japan (see Paragraph 18.12), Dr Wamsley claimed that the main reason for not
allowing the proposal to go ahead was 'this wonderful belief in Australia that the private sector is
crooked and the public sector is honest'. [103]
Issues Which Need to be Resolved if Live Exports Were Allowed
7.62 If trade in live native wildlife is to be approved, a number of issues would first need to be resolved.
A major issue centres on the question of which species would be most appropriate to consider. [104]
The evidence suggested that these could include birds that are already well established in captive-bred
populations and a number of captive-bred reptiles, plus possibly the green tree frog.
7.63 While the Humane Society International opposes the live trade of wildlife, it believes that any
proposal to trade a species should meet four criteria: benefit to conservation, economic sustainability
(including no cost to the public), minimisation of cruelty, and the scientific needs of proper management.
[105]
7.64 The South Australian Government noted that a number of problems could be encountered if live
exports went ahead, including:
- identification of animals;
- inspection of premises;
- inspection of consignments;
- uniform policy across Australia;
- establishing a secure history of animals;
- standards of animal welfare in captivity and during transport; and
- a user pays system. [106]
7.65 Wildlife scientist Mr Roger Bilney argued that should an export program be supported by the
government, the following conditions would need to be satisfied:
- export approval on a species-by-species basis;
- wildlife to be exported be described to a submission-species level and locality of original stocks
described;
- that a central microbiology laboratory hold genetic reference material and conduct validation tests
on parentage; and
- that staff who carry out pre-export inspections of wildlife have thorough competency in species
identification. [107]
7.66 However, the specific conditions for export of each animal species need to be considered on a
case-by-case basis because each will have different problems. For some there may be problems relating
to biology, for others there may be problems associated with public perception. Proposals should be
accepted or rejected according to the specific circumstances of each proposal.
Summary and Conclusions
7.67 That illegal trade exists is not debated; nor is it debated that fauna and flora smuggling causes
damage to individual species and to their habitats. The debate centres on whether legalising the export of
live animals would act to reduce incentives for illegal trade or whether illegal activities would increase.
7.68 Opponents of live trade reject the notion that it would reduce the incentive to smuggle live wildlife
and suggest that activities would be directed instead to species which have not yet been approved for
trade. They suggest that live trade in wildlife would create further problems for enforcement which
already suffers from lack of resources. The export of live animals would also create problems for animal
welfare and introduce the possibility that exported species would become pests in other countries.
7.69 Proponents of live trade claim that a prohibitionist approach has not worked, as evidenced by the
presence of Australian fauna in captivity in other parts of the world, and that prohibition actually creates
demand. They claim that allowing trade in wildlife would strongly undermine smuggling activities. A
number of other benefits would arise from legalised trade including the generation of export revenue and
flow-on economic benefits to Australia; furthering of research; expansion of the gene pool of rare
species; and a return to conservation through a levy on exports.
7.70 In discussing the problems of illegal trade in wildlife, witnesses noted that there were inadequacies
in state and Federal legislation and differences between wildlife statutes in the various state jurisdictions
which made protection of wildlife difficult and presented opportunities for the laundering of illegally
acquired animals. There are strong arguments in favour of at least complementary, if not uniform wildlife
laws across Australia.
7.71 While wildlife crime is regarded as significant by government in Australia, this has not been matched
by allocation of resources and enforcement has declined considerably in recent years. Enforcement
problems exist because of differences between state and Federal jurisdictions in the powers of
enforcement personnel, licence conditions, penalty provisions, levels of protection for species and
requirements for interstate trade. A significant difficulty with the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of
Exports and Imports) Act 1982 is that it lacks a reverse onus of proof for ownership of wildlife.
However, the view was also expressed that too much emphasis was placed on smuggling for too little
return and that enforcement was inappropriately concentrated on regulating amateur biologists and
hobbyists. While the link between prohibition and illegal trade is debated, the small number of
prosecutions for wildlife crime suggests that either the extent of illegal trade is not large or, if it is large,
the ability of surveillance authorities to detect wildlife crime and to achieve prosecutions, is not great.
Statistics on prosecutions can only indicate the minimum level of crime and given that illegal trade in
wildlife is a covert activity, the true level of crime may be impossible to ever ascertain.
7.72 Quite a number of significant submissions to the Committee supported the concept of allowing the
controlled export of live, captive-bred animals from Australia. In addition, several recent reports have
recommended allowing exports of live native wildlife under certain circumstances. If trade in live native
wildlife was approved, witnesses suggested that the most appropriate species were birds that were
already well established in captive-bred populations and a number of species of captive-bred reptiles
and amphibians. Evidence overwhelmingly supported the argument that, if exports were allowed, they
should be derived only from captive-bred populations (accompanied by DNA identification) and not
from the wild, and that each species should be considered on a case-by-case basis. The Committee
agrees with these views. While the Committee appreciates the threat to wildlife should trade in live
animals result in an increase in illegal activities, it can also see a number of benefits which may arise
should illegal activities decline as a result of the opening up of legalised trade.
7.73 In considering the question of whether live exportation of wildlife should be legally available to
commercial interests, the Committee notes that prohibition of trade has not prevented smuggling of live
animals (or eggs) overseas and that private enterprise in other countries has benefited from commercial
use of Australian species. The Committee believes that these factors point strongly to the
conclusion that the current prohibitionist policy does not work to protect wildlife from illegal
activities, although the extent to which it does not work is difficult to ascertain. The Committee
notes that the Federal Government is currently undertaking a review of all environmental
legislation. The Committee recommends that the Government include in that review
consideration of other policy options for wildlife protection.
Footnotes
[1] Note: this subject is also considered at length in Chapter 13 (Paragraph 13.58).
[2] McDowell, Don 1997 Wildlife Crime Policy and the Law An Australian Study, AGPS,
Canberra, ISBN 0644476117, Forward.
[3] Martin, Brett Growing Fat on Live Prey, The Bulletin January 21, 1997, p. 30-31.
[4] Submission No. 117, p. 1.
[5] Evidence, p. RRA&T 789.
[6] Martin, Brett Growing Fat on Live Prey, The Bulletin January 21, 1997, p. 30.
[7] Evidence, p. RRA&T 259.
[8] Submission No. 1, p. 3.
[9] Evidence, p. RRA&T 832.
[10] McDowell, op cit.
[11] Trade in CITES Listed Birds To and From New Zealand 1997 published by TRAFFIC Oceania
Edited by J Holden ISBN 0958700818, Executive Summary.
[12] Submission No. 8, Evidence, p. RRA&T 259 ff.
[13] Submission No. 3, Evidence, p. RRA&T 1037ff.
[14] See also Submission No. 8.
[15] Hoser, Raymond Smuggled The Underground Trade in Australia's Wildlife 1993 Apollo
Books, ISBN 0947068171; Hoser, Raymond 1995 The Hoser Files The Fight Against Entrenched
Official Corruption, Kotabi Pty Ltd ISBN o646230875; Hoser, Raymond 1996 Smuggled-2 Wildlife
Trafficking, Crime and Corruption in Australia, 1996 Kotabi Publications ISBN 0958676917.
[16] Submission No. 337, p. 3.
[17] Submission No. 337, p. 4.
[18] Submission No. 337, p. 1.
[19] McDowell, op cit.
[20] Supplementary Submission No. 175, p. 14.
[21] Submission No. 181, p. 1.
[22] Full page advertisement in The Times, Thursday May 23 1991, pp 12-13, sponsored by the
RSPCA (UK) and the Environmental Investigation Agency.
[23] Evidence, p. RRA&T 253, Submission No. 57.
[24] Evidence, p. RRA&T 254, Submission No. 57, Evidence, p. RRA&T 716.
[25] Evidence, p. RRA&T 253.
[26] Evidence, p. RRA&T 253.
[27] McDowell 1997 op cit as quoted in Submission No. 337, p. 3.
[28] Evidence, p. RRA&T 39.
[29] As quoted in Submission No. 181, p. 4.
[30] Submission No. 8, p.1.
[31] Submission No. 181, p. 4.
[32] Evidence, p. RRA&T 1202.
[33] Submission No. 198, p. 50.
[34] Submission No. 203, p. 7, for example.
[35] Evidence, p. RRA&T 783.
[36] Submission No. 210, p. 4.
[37] Shea, SR, Abbott, I, Armstrong, JA & McNamara, KJ (undated) Sustainable Conservation – A
new integrated approach to nature conservation in Australia, CALM, Western Australia, p. 27.
[38] Submission No. 308, p. 6.
[39] Submission No.s 57 & 299, for example.
[40] Submission No. 198, p 36.
[41] Ibid.
[42] Submission No. 323, p. 2.
[43] Submission No. 297, p.1; see also Submission No. 159.
[44] Evidence, p. RRA&T 964.
[45] Evidence, p. RRA&T 781.
[46] Evidence, p. RRA&T 760.
[47] Evidence, p. RRA&T 39, 760, Submission No. 190.
[48] Pearce, F 1997 Changing the game: Does banning trade in horns, tusks and skins protect
endangered animals or just make local people poorer, New Scientist Vol 154, No. 2085.
[49] Evidence, p. RRA&T 277.
[50] Evidence, p. RRA&T 254.
[51] Evidence, p. RRA&T 387, Submission No. 157, p. 22.
[52] Submission No. 308, p. 6.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Evidence, p. RRA&T 1048.
[55] Evidence, p. RRA&T 1050.
[56] Supplementary Submission No. 175, p. 15; McDowell p. 134.
[57] Submission No. 104, p. 1.
[58] Ibid.
[59] See for example Halstead, Boronia 1994 Wildlife Legislation in Australia: Trafficking
Provisions, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra ACT, ISBN 0642200858; and McDowell,
Don 1997 Wildlife Crime Policy and the Law An Australian Study AGPS, Canberra, ISBN
0644476117.
[60] Submission No. 70, p. 2.
[61] Submission No. 198, p. 59.
[62] Ibid.
[63] Evidence, p. RRA&T 779; see also Submission No.s 57, 65, 66, & 178 (p. 24).
[64] Submission No. 299, p. 7.
[65] Evidence, p. RRA&T 49.
[66] Evidence, p. RRA&T 1208.
[67] See for example, Submission No.s 54, 187.
[68] Ley, JF 1992 Australia's Protection and Conservation of Wildlife Report on the Review of the
Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 and Regulations. AGPS,
Canberra, ISBN 0644243821.
[69] Submission No. 299, p. 7.
[70] Evidence, p. RRA&T 1209.
[71] Evidence, p. RRA&T 832.
[72] Evidence, p. RRA&T 1041.
[73] Submission No. 112, p. 4.
[74] Submission No. 123, p.2.
[75] Submission No. 329, p. 4.
[76] Submission No. 318, p. 28.
[77] Submission No. 337, p. 5.
[78] Submission No. 104.
[79] Submission No.s 157 and 192, respectively.
[80] Evidence, p. RRA&T 612.
[81] Submission No.s 195 and 341, respectively.
[82] Submission No. 59.
[83] Submission No. 105.
[84] Submission No. 90.
[85] Submission No. 95.
[86] Submission No. 343.
[87] Submission No. 41.
[88] Submission No. 181.
[89] Submission No. 160.
[90] Submission No. 108.
[91] Submission No. 116.
[92] Submission No. 175 (submitting evidence in a private capacity).
[93] Submission No. 1.
[94] 1997 Sustainable Economic Use of Native Australian Birds and Reptiles: Can controlled
trade improve conservation of species? Summary of a report of the same name for the Rural
Industries Research and Development Corporation by ACIL Economics Pty Ltd in Conjunction with
Agriculture Western Australia, RIRDC Research Paper Series No. 97/26.
[95] Industry Commission A Full Repairing Lease – Inquiry into Ecologically Sustainable Land
Management, Draft Report September 1997, Executive Summary, p. 163.
[96] Submission No. 314, p. 9.
[97] Submission No. 137.
[98] Submission No.s 319, 320.
[99] Submission No. 211.
[100] RSPCA Inc Animal Welfare and the Environment: Export of Native Animals Internet site
http://www.ezycolour.com.au/RSPCA/welfare.html, retrieved 9 December 1997.
[101] Submission No. 169, p. 5.
[102] Evidence, p. RRA&T 796.
[103] Evidence, p. RRA&T 612.
[104] Evidence, p. RRA&T 40.
[105] Evidence, p. RRA&T 42.
[106] Submission No. 318, p. 28.
[107] Submission No. 70.
Paste text of committe report chapters, appendices, etc here