Senator BARTLETT (6:56 PM) —by leave—I move:

I rise to speak in relation to the treaty actions with the National Interest Analyses, tabled earlier today, and note the amendments agreed in Bangkok in October last year to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, commonly known as the CITES convention. The very existence of this convention shows that the view that some people have that the best way to guarantee the survival of a species is to generate commercial markets in them clearly does not apply in all cases and, in some cases, the trade itself is a key part of why those species have become threatened. That is why this convention was generated: to try to regulate, control and, if it is sufficiently serious, prevent trade in species that are endangered. Sadly, there are a lot of species listed on the convention where trade is prevented and five species were shifted up to the highest level of protection required or the highest restriction on trade under the CITES convention in appendix 1.

The species that were shifted to appendix 1, which prevents all trade on those species, includes the Irrawaddy dolphin, the sulphur-crested cockatoo, the lilac-crowned Amazon parrot, the spider tortoise and a palm. All those species have been driven to the edge of extinction in part because of trade and, thanks to this convention, at least there are mechanisms being put in place to try to prevent that trade and give the species a chance of survival. There are also other species listed on appendix 2, which is slightly less strict but still regulates and monitors trade in species that are threatened with extinction. The Australian government played a key part in listing one of those species, the great white shark, which Australia nominated jointly with Madagascar. That nomination was accepted. The great white shark population continues to decline because of the commercial markets in shark jaws, fins and teeth. It is an example of how it is clearly not the case that giving an animal commercial value will somehow help and encourage people to preserve it, because those markets and that commercial value have dramatically increased the pressure on stocks of the great white shark and it is now clearly under serious threat of survival.

Other marine species were also listed in that appendix due to population decline: the humphead Maori wrasse and the date mussel. It is pleasing to see that those species are getting extra protection. There are other marine species that I believe the Australian government could do more to protect. I think protection of some of those is being avoided because it would be in the too-hard basket. They are commercial marine species and their protection may affect Australian markets. Obviously, it is a lot easier for the Australian government to support listing a species where there is no trade in Australia, but where there is trade within Australia then the government seems less keen to do that. I urge the Australian government not just to worry about the date mussel but also to look at some of the other fish and marine species that could do with listing under the CITES convention.

It is pleasing to see the minister’s support for date mussels as well as for the great white shark and the Maori wrasse, but it needs to be more consistent across the board to ensure that all species that are under threat because of international trade are put under the protection of this convention. Whilst Australia is doing very good work with some species, we are falling short of the mark with other species. I urge the government to do more to ensure that those species that need listing do actually end up on the list. I also encourage the government to do more to ensure that the convention operates as effectively as possible. It is one thing to put a species’ name on a piece of paper; it is another to ensure that the protections it has theoretically are implemented in practice. That is certainly an area where more work could be done.

Question agreed to.