I'm pretty sure that if White Lips were discovered on the mainland, the Museum in the state/territory in which they were found would publish the fact, and claim the specimens for further work, DNA testing etc, they would not be given to private individuals to introduce into the pet trade - remember the kerfuffle surrounding Peter Krauss and his Oenpellis - the only person ever to breed them in captivity had them confiscated and they were consigned to eventual miserable deaths in the NT.
Forgive me for persisting with this, but I am pretty familiar with the way these bureaucracies work, and I can't see the need for secrecy about the process unless privilege has been extended to some and it has been decided by both sides to stay "mum" about it. I can perfectly understand the need to maintain the privacy of the individuals involved. There may be a perfectly OK explanation, but so far it seems odd to me. As someone who is probably more interested in the politics of wildlife keeping and is familiar with the extraordinary efforts individuals have to go through to collect anything from the wild rather than actually maintaining a collection these days, the process is of interest to me.
Once again, I can only say I support any introduction of native species into the "trade," but bureaucracies work in very strange ways very much related to the individuals who hold power at the time. Who would have thought that in WA, where up until 10 years ago, the taking of one reptile from the wild was regarded as a heinous crime against conservation, the legal taking of Stimson's and SW Carpets has been allowed by licensed individuals for over 10 years now, long after there were enough in the "system" to satisfy captive breeding needs?
Jamie