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

Tonight I wish to talk about sharks. I know that that will come as no surprise to some people, as I have spoken on sharks on many occasions in this place.

I am pleased to say that we have made another positive step along the road to ending the shark cull in Western Australia, with the WA government withdrawing, at the last minute, their cruel and unnecessary cull program off the coast of Western Australia. I wish I could say that that was the end of the matter but unfortunately it is not.

The Premier, when withdrawing the application for Commonwealth approval for the drum-line program, said that he had reached an agreement with the Commonwealth over the issue of 'imminent threat'. Before I address that in more detail I would like to remind the chamber that the WA EPA recommended that the extension of the culling program should not go ahead due to a high degree of scientific uncertainty about the impact upon the marine environment. In fact, the CSIRO provided substantive input into the EPA assessment. They were asked to by the EPA. The advice received from CSIRO stated that there remained too much uncertainty in the available information and evidence about the south-western white shark population, population trends and the by-catch from commercial fisheries. In its report CSIRO said that the Barnett government's argument for using drum lines to reduce shark attacks lacks credibility and is based on selective use of information.

The report, which was authored by Barry Bruce, found that baited hooks were an uncertain management response to the threat of white sharks. It also slammed the government for failing to have a management committee to oversee the program, for failing to establish maximum catch limits—bear that in mind because that issue is very relevant to the issue around 'imminent threat'—and for failing to implement a dedicated program to provide more-robust estimates of the great white shark numbers and catches. That was in response to the cull program, and I believe that that information needs to be taken into account just as much for the issues around imminent threat.

I am very deeply concerned about the agreement between the federal and WA governments on the way they will handle the so-called issue of imminent threat to deal with so-called shark emergencies. The WA government has agreed to work with the Commonwealth to come up with a long-term protocol for their 'imminent threat' policy, and say that the powers to make decisions about imminent threat will be handed over from the Commonwealth to the state government—a very deeply flawed approach. This will give the WA government powers that they should not have.

Premier Barnett has claimed he has negotiated a protocol. He said:

… a protocol where if there is an imminent threat of a shark attack in WA, the state government is authorised to deal with that. And that may require the destruction of that shark... drum lines will be used to catch those sharks. It's not the only method, but in some cases, drum lines will be used.

There are still too many questions to be answered on this important matter.

What does the agreement include? We do not know because the details have not been provided. The protocol is still being worked out. Both the Premier and environment minister Mr Hunt have confirmed that they are still working though the manner in which WA authorities will be allowed to kill sharks and under what circumstances.

Mr Barnett cannot tell us what the provision of 'imminent threat' will entail. I am deeply concerned that this is a shark cull by another name, because under the shark cull which has been rejected by the WA EPA—I remind the chamber that over 300 scientists and thousands and thousands of Western Australians rejected the shark cull—they estimated that there would be about 25 great white sharks taken, plus nearly 1,000 tiger sharks and other shark species. I remind the chamber that CSIRO said that there was a great deal of uncertainty under that particular program

Imminent threat may mean that more than 25 sharks are taken, because at this stage we do not know the circumstances under which the federal government has handed over those powers to the Western Australian government. Any imminent threat policy must include a review or referral under the EPBC Act using the EPA report to look at cumulative impacts of the imminent threat policy on the white shark population.

CSIRO, in its submission to the EPA on the program that the WA government originally put up to the federal government for assessment, said:

The definition of a shark posing an 'imminent threat' requires further clarity. It appears to have been applied to the confirmed sighting of a shark, as opposed to that shark's behaviour. Although the wording of Appendix 3: Guidelines for fishing for sharks posing an imminent threat to public safety suggests that sighting a shark by itself may not necessarily constitute an imminent threat, the application of this policy during at least the trial program, as identified by theproponent, appears to have been based on sightings alone. Sharks are normal visitors to inshore environments and the sighting of a shark or the ability to observe its path (e.g. from the air) provides alternative mitigation opportunities by way of beach closures, to attempts at catching and removing it.

We believe we need to consider the cumulative impacts of the imminent threat policy on the great white shark population. A few of these actions together is likely to have a significant impact. It is likely that taking a number of sharks will have just as big an impact as the cull. There are alternatives available—for example, capturing great white sharks, taking them further offshore and releasing them, or, in the same way as Brazil, you could have a Shark Spotters program, which is very successful.

Great white sharks are a vulnerable species that are protected under the Commonwealth EPBC Act. This means that state officials should require approval from Canberra before they can take action against a great white. The state government continues to try to promote this concept of a rogue shark, which their own Department of Fisheries says is a misnomer. They do have time to talk to the Commonwealth about taking great white sharks, particularly when you consider that, as I said, this program could end up having just as great an impact as the cull on the great white population, which CSIRO says there is not enough information about.

This agreement, according to Premier Barnett's announcements last week, would allow the WA government to intervene in 'emergency situations' without approval from the Commonwealth. This is an abrogation of the Commonwealth's responsibility. This agreement should not have occurred and the Commonwealth should not be abrogating its responsibility over a vulnerable species, which is the great white shark. Great white sharks are an extremely important component of our marine ecosystem. As an apex predator, sharks are critical to the marine environment and help to regulate the oceans and keep other marine life in healthy balance.

That takes me to the programs that continue to exist on the east coast of Australia, in Queensland and New South Wales. Just last week, we heard that over 700 sharks and 1,000 other animals, including dolphins and turtles, were killed on drum lines and nets in the past year. Ninety-seven per cent of sharks caught since 2001 in Queensland are considered to be at some level of conservation risk. Sharks longer than three metres have been classified as dangerous to humans in WA; however, only 11 per cent of the animals killed in Queensland were larger than this. The average size of sharks captured on drum lines was 1.9 metres.

It is clear that these programs should also be reassessed. In Western Australia it was put to me during an interview that Western Australia has been dealt with unfairly. My response to that is: no way. In Western Australia the appropriate approach has been taken, which is to not proceed with the cull policy. We need to find alternatives. The imminent threat issue is an unresolved issue. Those powers should not be handed over to Western Australia. The Commonwealth needs to be involved in the decision making on the destruction of these vulnerable species.

Queensland and New South Wales should be reassessing the destructive drum-line policies. There are alternatives. Those policies were put in place years ago. They are having an impact on our marine life and they need to be reassessed. There are alternatives, as I have articulated, such as using eco-barriers, not nets. There was a successful trial in Western Australia last season at Coogee Beach. That can be taken up. There is South Africa's example of the Shark Spotters program, which is very successful. There is Brazil's tag-and-remove approach, where they use circular hooks and do not destroy the sharks. The Western Australian government continues to try and take revenge or some sort of vindictive approach to our shark population. They are an essential part of our marine environment. We need to get over that obsession and look at nonlethal ways of dealing with safety and protecting our marine environment.