Chapter 4 Evidence received about the need for, and effectiveness of, lethal shark control programs 4.1 The preceding chapters largely provide background information about the shark management techniques used in Australia. This chapter begins the report's examination of the evidence received by delving into the issue that is at the heart of the inquiry: whether the lethal shark control programs used in New South Wales and Queensland, and previously proposed for Western Australia, are effective and appropriate public safety measures. The evidence outlined in this chapter provides a foundation for the chapters that follow, including Chapter 5, which consider the exemptions granted to state governments to conduct trials of lethal shark control measures; Chapters 6 and 7, which examines the alternative shark mitigation and deterrence approaches and technologies available; and Chapter 8, which contains the committee's overall conclusions. 4.2 The need for, and effectiveness of, lethal shark control measures attracted significant and passionate debate. Accordingly, this matter is discussed in this chapter at length. The chapter begins by examining views on the extent to which state governments should have a role in protecting members of the public who decide to enter waters where shark populations exist. The chapter then examines the arguments received in favour of the lethal shark control programs, followed by the evidence questioning, or presenting arguments against, lethal shark control programs. Role of government 4.3 Before examining the evidence received about the effectiveness of lethal shark control measures, it is instructive to consider the evidence put forward regarding whether governments have a legitimate role in providing such measures in the first place. 4.4 It is evident that governments within Australia and globally have taken different approaches in response to shark bites. For example, as this report has identified, lethal shark control programs have been used in New South Wales and Queensland for decades. Lethal measures are also used in South Africa and New Zealand.1 However, the committee was advised that governments in the United States do not respond to shark bite incidents. Professor Colin Simpfendorfer remarked that the government policy there is 'essentially not do anything in terms of going out and 1 See Department of the Environment and Energy (DoEE), Answers to questions on notice, Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Budget Estimates 2017–18, No. 75. 70 trying to catch or reduce populations' as the potential of encountering a dangerous shark is seen as 'an assumed risk'.2 4.5 It is evident that significant amounts of public money have been spent on shark control measures and research. A non-exhaustive list of government expenditure on shark matters in recent years is at Table 4.1. The table also notes some private sector and community expenditure that was highlighted during the inquiry. Table 4.1: List of programs and expenditure relating to sharks, various years Program/activity Funding provided/projected Commonwealth National Environmental Science Program funding in $2.79 million(1) relation to shark-specific research Expenditure associated with the development of the Shark Not available Recovery Plan New South Wales Shark Management Strategy $16 million over five years (including $7.7 million for surveillance, detection and deterrence measures; $7 million for research; and $1.3 million for education and community awareness) (2) Meshing program $1.4 million/year (estimate)(3) Queensland Cost of shark control program $3.3 million/year(4) Research into behaviour of large sharks (2009) $125,000 over five years(4) South Australia South Australian Aerial Patrol $400,000 (2015–16) (3) South Australia Surf Life Saving Association expenditure Not available(3) on aerial surveillance Western Australia Beach and aerial surveillance $12.24 million over 2012– 2017(5) Extended beach patrols in the south west to cover school $2.62 million (2014–15 to holiday periods 2018–19) (5) 2 Professor Colin Simpfendorfer, Committee Hansard, 30 August 2017, p. 8. 71 Funding to Surf Life Saving WA for jet skis (2012) and a $1.28 million(5) trial of drone surveillance technology (2016) Various beach enclosures $1.2 million by state government,(5) $510,000 by City of Joondalup (plus $40,000/year to maintain) (6) Drum line trial $1.28 million (2014)(5) Serious threat policy $2.8 million (2012–2020)(5) Trial of Clever Buoy technology at City Beach (2016– $500,000(5) 2017) Funding for the Shark Response Unit, SmarkSmart website $4.43 million (2011–2020)(5) and BeachSafe app Shark Monitoring Network and shark tagging and tracking $3.7 million (2013–2020)(5) Other science and research projects $3.6 million(5) Watchtowers at Cottesloe Beach $175,000(5) Private and community sectors Clever Buoy research and development $2–3 million(7) Shark Shield $10 million over 15 years(8) Australian Aerial Patrol $500,000/year(3) Notes: Date ranges for multi-year funding and future funding commitments is indicated where available. Figures given by third parties are indicative only. Sources: (1) DoEE, Submission 55, pp. 8–9; (2) New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (DPI), "NSW Shark Management Strategy', www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/581694/nsw-shark- management-strategy-factsheet.pdf (accessed 7 November 2017); (3) Australian Aerial Patrol, Submission 6, pp. 9, 19; (4) Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Submission 32, pp. 1, 4; (5) DoEE, Submission 55, Attachment 3; (6) Mr Tony Pickard, Mayor, City of Joondalup, Committee Hansard, 20 April 2017, pp. 31, 33; (7) Mr Richard Talmage, General Manager, Shark Mitigation Systems, Committee Hansard, 17 March 2017, p. 44; (8) Mr Lindsay Lyon, Managing Director, Shark Shield, Committee Hansard, 20 April 2017, p. 4. 4.6 This section builds on evidence previously noted in this report about the relatively low risk of a person encountering a dangerous shark compared to the risks associated with many other activities that can result in fatalities or injuries. Evidence received about the effects of lethal shark control measures on the marine environment and the cost of the measures is also relevant. 72 Arguments in favour of government intervention 4.7 State governments themselves have made some of the clearest arguments in support of government action to help reduce the risk of people encountering dangerous sharks while engaging in water-based activities. 4.8 In correspondence provided in December 2016, the then Premier of Western Australia, the Hon Colin Barnett, advised the committee that his government was 'committed to addressing its duty of care to minimise the risk of shark attack'.3 Similarly, the relevant New South Wales minister has stated that, '[a]lthough no government can guarantee complete safety', the New South Wales Government is 'committed to doing everything it can to ensure the safety of beachgoers, swimmers and surfers'.4 The Queensland Government considers that the lethal shark control measures it operates are an 'important safety initiative'.5 4.9 The extent to which these declarations of government responsibility to minimise the risk presented by sharks rest with the states alone is less clear. The Department of the Environment and Energy submitted: It is the responsibility of state and territory governments to focus on public safety and manage the risks to people from sharks in their waters. States and territories are primarily responsible for determining which measures best provide for public safety in their jurisdictions.6 4.10 Yet in his correspondence to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Energy, the New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries argued that shark encounters have national implications that necessitate the Commonwealth's attention. The Minister for Primary Industries commented: Public safety is a responsibility of all governments. Unprovoked shark interactions are not specific to NSW and are considered a national issue where State and Commonwealth Governments need to work cooperatively to ensure the protection of swimmers and surfers.7 3 Correspondence from the Hon Colin Barnett MLA, Premier of Western Australia, dated 14 December 2016 (published as Additional Information 1), p. 2. 4 The Hon Niall Blair MLC, Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water, Hansard, Parliament of New South Wales, Legislative Council, 9 November 2016, pp. 53, 55. 5 Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Submission 32, p. 1. 6 DoEE, Submission 55, p. 3. 7 The Hon Niall Blair MLC, News South Wales Minister for Primary Industries; Minister for Lands and Water, correspondence to the Minister for the Environment and Energy, dated 10 November 2016; provided in DoEE, Submission 55, Attachment 6, p. 4. 73 4.11 Individuals and community organisations also commented on the need for government to play a role in public safety regarding sharks. 4.12 Mr Daniel Webber argued that the community, and therefore the government, has a duty to protect children through measures that directly reduce the risk of encountering a shark. Mr Webber argued that, at present, personal deterrents are not suitable for young surfers due to the electric shocks incurred (this is discussed in Chapter 6). Likewise, he argued that education measures have limited benefits due to the risks that teenagers are willing to take. Mr Webber explained: Surfing really is an addiction, and any young surfer who finds good waves going unridden will paddle out no matter what the conditions. Besides, teenagers thrive on risk, especially if someone is advising them against an activity. I should also add that younger surfers surf more often and longer than most adults, and smaller boards are more likely to be attacked. So they are a high-risk group.8 4.13 In its submission, the Ballina Lighthouse & Lismore Surf Lifesaving Club argued that the government has a role in supporting research that facilitates new technologies for shark deterrence.