Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to talk on the WA shark cull and alternatives that we should be taking to the cruel approach that the Barnett government is taking in Western Australia. Submissions have closed on the public environmental review that the WA government are currently carrying out. They will complete their assessment and then hand it over to Minister Hunt to make a final determination on whether the cull should go ahead. I have spoken in this chamber on many occasions on the WA shark cull, outlining concerns about it. Tomorrow I will be cohosting, with Melissa Parke, a forum on non-lethal alternatives to the WA shark cull, looking at the other approaches that can be taken. Speakers will include Professor Jessica Meeuwig, from the University of Western Australia; Professor Rob Harcourt, from Macquarie University; and Brendan Donohoe, Chairman of Surfrider Foundation Australia. I urge senators and members of the House of Representatives and their staff to come along and listen to the very compelling evidence that these pre-eminent people will present to our forum on alternatives to the WA shark cull.

They will be backed up by the over 305 experts who have signed the letter of concern to the Western Australian Premier, Premier Barnett, and to the Minister for the Environment, outlining their concerns and opposition to the WA government's proposals, which effectively take over 900 tiger sharks to catch potentially 25 great white sharks. Removing those apex predators will have a devastating impact on the marine environment. The letter of concern can be found on my website and many other websites. If people are interested, they can go and look at a very detailed explanation of the problems with the WA government's approach to the shark cull.

Some of the alternatives that we will be talking about tomorrow include measures such as environmentally friendly shark barriers, which were trialled in Western Australia very successfully last summer; personal safety devices; South Africa's Shark Spotters program, which is a very good program; and Brazil's catch-and-release relocation program, which is a very different approach to the one that the Western Australian government proposes. These are all examples of non-lethal mitigation measures that have largely been ignored in the WA government's public environmental review. One of the fundamental problems is that the WA government are the proponents of this proposal and are now the people that are actually carrying out the assessment. We are extremely concerned about the conflict of interest that is there.

One of the reasons why it is so important for federal members—and not just Western Australian members—to come along is that there are implications of what is happening in Western Australia and better approaches to the shark mitigation. Some of the states in the east have shark-kill policies and drum-line policies. So I urge all federal members to come along or to send someone along to listen to the evidence, to listen to the science around these programs. In particular, because the federal government is going to be making the decision on this policy, it is important that people in this place understand just what impact this shark cull will have and understand the implications or lack of implications for safety or lack of safety. It is basically a PR exercise the WA government is carrying out to make people think that they will be safer in the water. It is clear that it will not make people safer in the water. The other measures that we are talking about will. It will not make people safer and it sacrifices nearly 1,000 sharks—and I have not even mentioned the other bycatch that will be impacted. I urge people to come along to our forum tomorrow to learn what can be done to address a non-lethal way of addressing sharks. (Time expired)