Mr KELVIN THOMSON (12:18 PM) —The Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] is intended to strengthen controls on the illegal import, export and possession of products that contain material from endangered species in their ingredients, by amending the relevant evidentiary provisions. Let me say at the outset that I acknowledge the work of the Parliamentary Library, whose Bills Digest concerning this piece of legislation I intend to draw on in some detail.

What the bill does in changing the evidentiary provisions for a prosecution under this act is to say that, in addition to the current criminal offence of a product containing, without a permit, material from an endangered species, it will also be a criminal offence to import, export or possess a product that is represented to contain material from an endangered species. That is a potentially significant change. It is designed to more fully implement this nation's obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which is the primary international instrument for the protection of species which are or may be endangered by international trade. The convention was established in 1973 and was ratified by Australia in July 1976.

At the 10th meeting of the conference of the parties to this convention, which was held in Zimbabwe in June 1997, it was acknowledged that the uncontrolled use of wild species in traditional medicine can threaten not only the survival of the species but the continuation of those medical practices. The consideration of traditional medicine as an issue in its own right, rather than attached to any particular species, is considered by people to be an advance in holistic conservation. The conference went on to call on each of the parties to the convention to eliminate illegal use of endangered species as medicinal substances, to ensure that national laws control the use of these species, to encourage the promotion of substitutes for threatened medicinal wildlife and to consider artificial propagation and captive breeding techniques.

If we look at the Australian situation for the regulation of exports and imports, we have our own act of 1982 which gives effect to Australia's obligations under this convention. It is the legislative basis for conservation related controls on the export and import of wildlife and wildlife products. The broad aim of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act is to ensure that all trade in wildlife is carried out in a sustainable manner that is not detrimental to the survival of the species or the ecosystems in which they occur.

The extent of use of threatened species in traditional medicines within Australia is not certain. There is a view that plasters and pills containing tiger bone and rhino horn are readily available. The World Wide Fund for Nature has expressed that view. Others, however, consider that those medicines only purport to contain tiger and rhino and that there have long since been substitutes for these endangered species due to their lack of availability and their high cost.

There are also developing export markets in the medicinal use of the internal organs of crocodiles bred in farms in northern Australia and of the pipefish family, which includes seahorses, for example, which are caught as bycatch by Queensland prawn trawlers. Australian species of crocodiles are listed in the convention and also in schedule 2 of the wildlife protection act. The pipefish, leafy sea dragons and seahorses are not listed in the convention but, in recognition of their vulnerability to depletion, they are not exempt from the export regulations under the act, unlike most other marine fish.

It probably ought to be pointed out that there have not been any prosecutions for breaches of the wildlife protection act that involve illegally imported traditional medicine products containing material from endangered species. By way of comparison, if we look at 1997-98, there were over 4,500 seizures by the Australian Customs Service of illegally imported and exported wildlife specimens and seven successful prosecutions under the act.

The major impediment to a successful prosecution is that current forensic technology is simply not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that traditional medicines do contain material from endangered species. For example, the existing DNA testing technologies cannot identify a particular species within a product once material from that species is co-mingled with other elements, heated at high temperatures and so on. Clearly what the government is endeavouring to do with this amendment is to get around that evidentiary problem by saying that, if products are represented to contain materials from wildlife in breach of the wildlife protection legislation, in breach of the international convention to which we are a signatory, then that, too—that is, making that representation—will be an offence.

The Commonwealth is proposing some substantial changes to the federal environmental legislative framework. The public consultation paper which was released prior to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] had proposed that the act we are talking about, the wildlife protection act, be incorporated into a proposed biodiversity conservation bill. However, that has not happened as yet. Given that the wildlife protection act was originally intended to be part of the package of environmental law reforms in that bill, one issue that the government may wish to review in the future may be the incorporation of the wildlife protection act into the proposed regime.

The opposition is supportive of this legislation and will not be opposing it. There are two or three matters that ought to be mentioned in relation to the bill. The explanatory memorandum states that the wildlife protection act is administered by Environment Australia. We were advised that is not strictly correct and that the wildlife protection act is administered by the designated authority, in this case the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. The Environmental Reform (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 proposes to abolish the position of Director of National Parks and Wildlife and replace it with the Secretary to the Department of Environment and Heritage. It is suggested there may be advantages in retaining an arrangement whereby the wildlife protection act is administered by an independent designated authority, particularly given the scientific and technical nature of many of the decisions needed.

Secondly, it ought to be noted that the bill does not extend the protection of the new evidentiary provisions to cover anything which is not listed in the convention. The non-listed Australian plant and animal specimens which are covered by the current offences regime and which may be in danger of depletion—the example I mentioned earlier was the pipefish family, the seahorses and so on—are not listed on the convention.

Thirdly, the Therapeutic Goods Administration has recognised the need for educating Chinese medical practitioners and Chinese medicine manufacturers in improving the general manufacture practices or standards of traditional Chinese medicines destined for the export market. There may be problems with traditional medicines such as batch-to-batch variability, variations in purity, accidental contaminants and different subspecies of plants. This raises broader issues of labelling than those which are covered in the present bill. It is disappointing that these things were not addressed.

Some of the specific provisions within the bill involve new definitions. We have a definition of a convention listed animal and a convention listed plant. The second item in the legislation proposes that if a thing is represented by an accompanying document, a package, a mark, a label, or from any other circumstances we can see that it is being represented as a convention listed animal or plant, or it is produced by or derived from a convention listed animal or plant with or without other material, then it is going to be taken to be a specimen from a convention listed plant. The explanatory memorandum notes that the phrase `is represented to be' is not open-ended so it is not intended, for example, to cover a product such as Tiger Balm with a tiger on the lid or something of that character. It is designed to expressly cover products where there is a representation that it contains, for example, tiger products.

The other point that I want to make some reference to is proposed subsection 4(2C). There is some concern being expressed that because that is a tortuously drafted provision it may not actually operate in the way intended. So this is something that, from the opposition's point of view, we would like to see the government consider.

The wildlife protection community in Australia welcomed the government's commitment to amend this legislation. The response from the traditional medicine community has also been supportive. For example, the President of the New South Wales Association of Chinese Medicine has indicated that most practitioners are happy to abide by the changes. So on that basis, as I indicated earlier, the opposition will not be opposing the legislation.