APPENDIX II
THE SENATE INQUIRY
An Inquiry into the Commercial Utilisation of Australian Native Wildlife was undertaken by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, a committee of the Senate of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. The report of the Inquiry was published in June 1998.
Terms of Reference
The reference from the Senate required the Senate Committee to undertake an Inquiry into:
a) the potential impact which commercial utilisation of native wildlife might have on the Australian environment;
b) the current and future economic viability of these commercial activities; and
c) the adequacy of existing Federal Government regulations and controls to ensure biodiversity of any native species commercially utilised.
Principles for the Commercial Utilisation of Wildlife Principles
A wide range of suggested principles to be applied to the commercial utilisation of wildlife were made in the evidence submitted to the Senate Inquiry. The Senate Committee, in its report of the Inquiry, concluded that the following principles were important:
d) there should be broad legislative frameworks within which proposals for the commercial use of wildlife can be approved, regulated and administered. Regulatory structures should be consistent across legislatures and allow industry to operate at maximum efficiency;
e) the principle of ecologically sustainable development should underpin any assessment of commercial use of wildlife and, before any approval is given for commercial utilisation of wildlife, it should be proven beyond reasonable doubt that such use will be ecologically sustainable;
f) in granting approval for proposals to use wildlife on a commercial basis, governments should take into account the precautionary principle and the principle of inter-generational equity;
g) proposals for the commercial use of wildlife need to be identified and managed on a case-by-case basis. The conditions of commercialisation that are appropriate to each animal must be determined by the biology of the species, a basic knowledge of which should be ascertained prior to commencement of the proposal. Information about the species should include its distribution, abundance and demography. However, lack of detailed information about a species should not be used as an argument against the commencement of commercialisation on a trial basis;
h) the risk of over-harvesting should be low and legal harvesting should be set at a level well below the scientifically calculated off-take rate. Where a legitimate increase in quota is indicated, it should still incorporate a safety margin. There should be a low risk of 'by-catch' of non-target species;
i) the management of commercial use of wildlife must be adaptive so that managers can respond to changing circumstances;
j) the management of commercial use of wildlife must include monitoring of population levels and demography; large proposals must include provision for independent monitoring;
k) the management of commercial use of wildlife must include monitoring of environmental impacts through an EIS procedure. Small, diffuse, commercial harvesting programs must be monitored by a centralised agency to allow assessment of total impact across each State or across Australia;
l) the risk of detrimental environmental impact should be matched to the requirement for conservation benefit. Commercial utilisation of wildlife should never be a threat to the conservation status of a species or population;
m) decision making, public accountability and monitoring processes must be transparent and accessible;
n) regulations should be in place to ensure that the treatment of animals is humane at all times and that all wildlife programs endeavour to achieve the highest standard possible for animal welfare; as far as possible, all suffering and cruelty should be eliminated;
o) it is undesirable to remove adult birds from the wild for any purpose other than to provide breeding stock, either for a closed-cycle breeding program or to breed numbers of rare or endangered species;
p) governments should make efforts to ensure that there are no unnecessary economic, legal or administrative barriers to inhibit wildlife from realising its competitive advantage as a land use;
q) in general, the principles of 'user pays' and 'cost recovery' should be applied in the administration of wildlife industries but, in calculating these costs, community benefits should also be taken into account; and
r) wherever possible there should be local community participation in, and benefit from, commercialisation of wildlife.1
Recommendations of the Senate Inquiry
The Senate Inquiry made 12 recommendations. The key elements of each recommendation are outlined below:
Recommendation 1
That the Federal Government investigate the possibility of an experimental management trial [of replacing traditional farmed animals with native wildlife in marginal agriculture lands], preferably in the rangelands region of Australia. ... [with] State government officials ... [and others].
Recommendation 2
That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee review the effectiveness of programs related to feral animal control in two years' time.
Recommendation 3
That the [Federal] Government monitor the environmental, social and economic impacts of commercial utilisation of wildlife so that a balance sheet can be constructed to assess the full impact of wildlife industries on the Australian economy.
Recommendation 4
That the Federal Government investigate ways in which private-sector investment in biodiversity conservation can be supported and encouraged.
That State and Federal Governments together review all administrative procedures relating to commercial utilisation of wildlife in Australia with a view to increasing their efficiency so as to ensure that there are no unnecessary hindrances to industry.
Recommendation 6
[That] Federal and State Governments review wildlife regulations with a view to facilitating the work of professional and amateur scientists so that they can actively contribute to biodiversity conservation.
Recommendation 7
That codes of practice relating to wildlife industries should:
(1) be in place prior to approval being given;
(2) have a clear connection between licensing conditions and compliance with a code of practice;
(3) be consistent between states; and
(4) be consistent between codes.
Recommendation 8
That the [Federal] Government include in that review [of environmental legislation] consideration of other policy options for wildlife protection.
Recommendation 9
That the [Federal] Government give priority to resolving problems relating to the sale and export of coral and shells so as to assist industry.
Recommendation 10
[That] a remote Aboriginal community be invited to carry out a trial survey of the levels of subsistence wildlife use and its impact on biodiversity ...
Recommendation 11
That Aboriginal people should be consulted where commercial opportunities are identified on lands where there are communities which have strong traditional links to those lands.
Recommendation 12
That the Federal Government give greater attention to [the importance of intellectual property rights of Aboriginal people in relation to the use of wildlife] ...
Findings of The Senate Inquiry
The Senate Inquiry report also highlighted a number of key findings that are summarised in the relevant sections of the Committee's Discussion Paper as well as this Report.
Federal Government Response to the Senate Inquiry
The Senate Inquiry report has been tabled in the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Government of the day is required to provide a response to the Committee's findings. As at 30 June 1999, a response had not been made.
Comparison of Existing Victorian Legislation with the Recommendations of the Senate Inquiry
In comparing the Senate Inquiry's recommendations against the Victorian legislation on native flora and fauna, the current position appears to be as follows:
s) the subject matter of only four (Recommendations 3, 5, 7 and 8) of the 12 recommendations are really dealt with in any way by the Victorian legislation consulted for this Report;
t) with regard to Recommendation 3, which deals with monitoring economic and other aspects of commercial utilisation of wildlife, the Joint Authority of Commonwealth and State Fisheries Management and the Victorian Minister responsible for fisheries have the power to look at various economic and efficiency aspects of fisheries policy,2 but otherwise there is no legislative basis for monitoring these economic aspects in current Victorian legislation;
u) Recommendation 5 deals with increasing economic efficiency to ensure no hindrances to industry and the Victorian legislators have shown a willingness to remove strict prohibitions on the use of native wildlife by allowing the licensing of usage of such wildlife and even the use of listed endangered species under provisions of existing legislation;
v) Recommendation 7 deals with various aspects of uniformity in codes of practice and their use in licensing procedures. Some Victorian wildlife legislation does provide the power to make codes of practice but to date there are no specific elements of this Recommendation in place; and
w) Recommendation 8 is similar to Recommendation 5 and, as stated above, Victoria has used written authorisation as a means of avoiding a regime of strict prohibition on the use of native wildlife.
1 Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia(1998), Commercial Utilisation of Australian Native Wildlife, Report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, Canberra, pp. 168-169.
2 Fisheries Act 1995 (Vic) ss 21(1)(b) & (2)(b) & 28(6)(g).
