Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present a response from the Minister for the Environment, Mr Hunt, to a resolution of the Senate of 4 March 2014 concerning the shark cull in Western Australia.

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

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the response by Minister Hunt to the resolution of 4 March on the shark cull.

I must say that I am not surprised at the minister's response, although of course I am disappointed that the minister has yet again failed to enact the intent of the motion that the Senate passed on 4 March about the Western Australian shark cull. He makes three points in his letter. One is that he does not have to look at the impact of the shark cull on the mako sharks that have been taken during the cull. We are aware of two; there are possibly more, but there has not been a report for around two weeks on the number of sharks that have been taken. He said that it is a migratory species and he only has to pay attention to Commonwealth waters. That is as though an impact in state waters is not going to impact on sharks in Commonwealth waters. It is extremely disappointing that he does not seem to be concerned that this indiscriminate shark cull is impacting on a migratory species.

Secondly, the minister says that he decided in the national interest to temporarily exempt the Western Australian shark cull from the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. We are talking about the fact that, as of two weeks ago, 104 sharks had been caught, 101 of which were tiger sharks, 30 of which had been destroyed, about another 10 had died on the hooks and others had been released, although—because this is not being monitored by the government—there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that suggests that these sharks are not surviving their release. In fact, a shark was released today and there are photos available that show the shark lying on the bottom of the ocean and not looking very healthy. That is further evidence that these sharks are being significantly harmed. I do not think in any way, shape or form that either the Western Australian government or the federal government can claim that the environmental impact of this shark cull, with drum lines, is minimising environmental harm.

One of the problems is that the federal government granted an exemption, which they are now failing to monitor. They did not require any independent monitoring or observation. I received a letter from the minister today, separately, in response to a letter I wrote to him. He said that they are using the hooks they said they were going to use. Those hooks are causing environmental damage, so why aren't they picking that issue up? They have washed their hands of this issue because they have granted an exemption. That exemption in itself is a misuse of section 158 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. That provision is used for granting exemptions in the national interest. When we are talking about the national interest we are talking about emergencies such as bushfires and floods. They had to put in place emergency provisions to look after the pipistrelle bat to save it from extinction. Unfortunately, they put the provisions in place too late and they did not save it from extinction.

To get back to the issue around exempting the drum-line provisions, that is a misuse of the provisions, which is why I tabled today a motion to introduce a private senator's bill—Save Our Sharks Bill 2014—that would stop the use of this exemption clause, section 158, to allow drum lines to be put in place. It is misuse of that provision. It was never intended for this sort of action. It was convenient for this government to aid and abet Premier Barnett's knee-jerk PR exercise to make it look as though they are doing something about sharks when, in effect, it is causing a great deal of damage. It is not improving the safety of ocean users in Western Australia. The idea was to aid and abet the Western Australian government and put in place the drum lines.

This bill will stop that abuse of the exemptions provision of the act. It will be effective from 17 March. That means not only that the drum lines will have to come out straightaway but also that the Western Australian government will be stopped from going ahead and putting in more drum lines in Western Australia after 30 April. In the letter that I have received from Minister Hunt, he says that the Western Australian government have advised that they propose to establish an ongoing shark mitigation program—in other words, the drum line program will be extended from 30 April. The Minister for the Environment, Mr Hunt, has said he has told the Western Australian government that the rollout of any extension of the program beyond 30 April will require a full assessment under the national environmental law. It is a pity he did not do that previously. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Western Australian government will seek another extension to enable them to roll out the drum lines while the assessment process is being undertaken. It is quite clear that that will be their intention.

The bill that I will read into the Hansard tomorrow will stop that from occurring. It will stop the Western Australian government from rolling out those drum lines, because they will not be able to seek an extension from the federal Minister for the Environment to facilitate the rollout of those drum lines. We know that this is a knee-jerk reaction from the Western Australian government because great whites are not prevalent off the Australian coast at this time of year. We know it is from September through to December. So it is important that we do not allow the Western Australian government to continue to roll out the drum lines because even more sharks will be taken during that time.

It is essential that the Australian government stops this program, stops this indiscriminate cull of Western Australian sharks, and starts looking at measures that really will help with the issues around safety, that will involve discussions with the community, and puts in place measures that genuinely work. In Western Australia yesterday we saw another example of the community's opposition to the shark cull when we gathered at Leighton Beach, just near Fremantle, to form a human shark so that we could again send a clear message to both the Western Australian government and the federal government that this shark cull is indiscriminate, it has environmental impacts and Western Australians love their marine environment. They do not support this indiscriminate program that culls sharks. They want a more thought-out approach rather than Premier Barnett just making it look as though he is doing something, making it look as though he cares. If he cared he would not be going ahead with these drum lines just to be seen to be doing something; he would be investing those resources in better research and better alternatives and looking at what works overseas. For example, in Brazil they have drum lines but they are three kilometres offshore, much further offshore. They use hooks that do not damage the sharks. The sharks are released and continue on their way. There is also a shark spotters program in South Africa that has proven to be very successful.

While the bill would remove this exemption, the minister has said he would carry out an environmental assessment program. He should be assessing drum lines around Australia. They consistently use Queensland as an example of a program that works when, in fact, I have articulated to this chamber on several occasions how that program does not work. We need to be using the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to protect sharks. That is what the act is for; it has got the words 'protect biodiversity' in it; that is what that act should be used for. We should not, for example, be misusing section 158 to exempt a program that kills and maims sharks. It is having an unacceptable environmental impact; it should stop; we have got a bill to make it stop.

Question agreed to.