Evidence obtained by Swiss Animal Protection, and contained in its report Fun Fur? A report on the Chinese fur industry, demonstrates the cruel treatment suffered by fur-bearing animals (such as rabbits, foxes and mink) in countries where animal welfare is not protected. In particular, investigators observed and documented the following:

• Stunning of animals by repeatedly striking their heads and bodies with a metal or wooden stick or the swinging of animal by their hind legs so that their head strikes the ground repeatedly.
• Animals hung by their legs or tails to be skinned, many of which are still alive, conscious and struggling.
• The use of knives to cut through the rear of the belly of animals and workers wrenching the animals’ skin from their suspended bodies until the skin comes off the body and over the head.
• The bloodied bodies of animals being thrown into a pile of carcases, many of the animals still alive, breathing in ragged gasps and blinking slowly.

The above practices are unfortunately commonplace in countries that export fur products to Australia. While a large percentage of Australia's fur imports originate in China, other countries exporting fur to Australia include Korea, Thailand and the Philippines. All of these countries lack animal welfare laws adequate to protect animals from cruel treatment on fur farms.

On 6 November 2006, the Committee wrote a letter to the then Minister for Justice and Customs calling for a ban on the import of fur from jurisdictions in which the welfare of animals on fur farms is inadequately protected. Amongst other things, the Committee referred to the Australian public outcry following the exposure of the Chinese cat and dog fur trade in 2003, which led to a ban on the import of dog and cat fur into Australia in 2004. The Committee argued that the Australian public would be similarly appalled by the cruel treatment of other species of animals for the production of fur and called for an immediate ban on the import of all fur products from unregulated jurisdictions.

On 28 November 2006, the Minister provided a response to the Committee’s letter. The Minister noted the Government’s concerns regarding possible retaliatory trade action by countries such as China should Australia seek to impose a ban on certain fur imports. The Minister also referred to Australia’s international trade obligations under the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. The Minister said that before consideration could be given to a ban on fur imports a detailed assessment of the consistency of such a ban with Australia’s WTO obligations and its obligations under the GATT would be necessary (including whether such a ban would fall within any of the exceptions permitting members to derogate from their substantive GATT commitments). The Minister took the view that best approach was to progress animal welfare issues via direct negotiation with representatives from the countries concerned.

On 13 February 2009, the Committee and Lawyers for Animals (LFA) (based in Victoria) wrote a joint letter to the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Trade calling for a ban on the import of fur produced in contravention of minimum animal welfare standards (rather than fur produced in unregulated jurisdictions). In calling for the ban the Committee and LFA undertook a preliminary assessment of possible issues that may arise concerning Australia’s obligations under the WTO and the GATT. It was submitted that a ban on the import of fur produced in contravention of minimum animal welfare standards would not violate Australia’s international trade obligations.

The Committee and LFA received a response from the Minister for Home Affairs on 21 April 2009 in which the Minister referred to the protection of animals and animal welfare as 'very important issues'. However the Minister said that the proposed ban would divert Customs and Border Protection's resources from searching for higher risk goods (such as firearms and illicit drugs) to detecting fur products. In addition the Minister said that the officers would have difficulty confirming the origins of material used in the production of fur goods and the conditions in which the animals were raised. As an alternative the Minister suggested a voluntary clothing labelling scheme for humanely produced fur products.

The Committee and LFA also received a letter from the Minister for Trade dated 13 May 2009 which said that Australia works cooperatively with its trading partners to improve animal welfare in line with internationally agreed guidelines developed by the World Organisation for Animal Health. The Minister also said that a copy of our letter dated 13 February 2009 will be provided to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for his information. Note the letter from the Minister for Trade dated 13 May 2009 was not received by us until early March 2010.

On 28 September 2009, the Committee and LFA wrote another joint letter to the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Trade which sought to address the lack of understanding of our proposal which was evident from the response received from the Minister for Home Affairs (the response from the Minister for Trade not having been received at that time). In particular we sought to clarify that under our proposed scheme there would be almost no perceived role for Customs and Border Protection officers in assessing the origin of fur products and that there would be no greater commitment of resources than those already allocated to the enforcement of the current ban on the importation of dog and cat fur and the detection of pest threats in standard imports.

In early March 2010, following receipt of the letter from the Minister for Trade dated 13 May 2009, LFA sent an email to his office which stated "contrary to the tone of Minister Crean's May 2009 response ... our proposal is geared toward protecting the rights of Australian consumers - along the lines of the existing ban on dog and cat fur products. So any influence it may have upon the welfare practices of foreign nations is thus, incidental. If we wished to campaign solely against the cruelty inherent in the international fur industry, I assure you, we would do so more directly".

The Committee and LFA received a letter from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) dated 24 March 2010, which enclosed a copy of the letter from the Minister for Trade dated 13 May 2009. The letter from DFAT said that DFAT representatives 'participate in Interdepartmental Committee Meetings on animal welfare' and that '[s]uggestions and ideas from organisations such as [ours] are a valuable contribution to the development of policy proposals'.

So despite our efforts to correct them, it seems that DFAT is still under the misapprehension that 'regulating the importation of fur' is just about animal welfare. While the animal cruelty involved in the production of fur is horrendous, our proposed ban is about protecting Australian consumers by prohibiting the import of fur sourced from animals subjected to cruelty not permitted under Australian law. To date the Government has not responded to the issues we have raised regarding the protection of Australian consumers.

How you can help

If you would like to take action to help stop the import of fur produced in contravention of minimum animal welfare standards click here to download a letter you can send to your local Federal member. You can find out who your member is by searching the Australian Electoral Commission website.