❓ Opposition questions the Premier regarding the Minister for Fisheries' dismissal of a subsidised shark-deterrent device scheme, citing government research and victim support. The Premier defends the government's broader shark safety measures and criticises the opposition's endorsement of a specific commercial product.
AnsweredQoN 796Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
SHARKS —
DETERRENT DEVICES
796. Mr D.J. KELLY to the
Premier:
I refer the Premier to comments made by the Minister for
Fisheries on Sunday when he rejected Labor's proposal for a subsidised
scheme to promote the use of individual shark-deterrent devices for divers and
surfers.
(1) Why did
the Premier's minister call this proposal shallow when the government's
own research shows that these devices —
Dr M.D. Nahan interjected.
The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I call you to order for the
first time. Let the member ask his question so that we know where we are going.
Mr D.J. KELLY : I will start again. My question without
notice is to the Premier.
Mr P.T. Miles interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for Wanneroo!
Mr D.J. KELLY : I refer the Premier to comments
made by the Minister for Fisheries on Sunday when he rejected Labor's
proposal for a subsidised scheme to promote the use of individual shark-deterrent
devices for divers and surfers.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time. Carry on.
Mr D.J. KELLY : My
question continues —
(1) Why did
the Premier's minister call this proposal shallow when the government's
own research shows that these devices can be effective on 90 per cent of
occasions?
Mr M.H. Taylor interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for Bateman, I call you to order
for the first time. I am getting really tired of this. You think it is
hilarious.
Mr D.J. KELLY : Again —
(1) Why did the Premier's minister call
this proposal shallow when the government's own research shows that
these devices can be effective on 90 per cent of occasions?
(2) Why did the Premier's
minister call this proposal shallow when of the 14 fatal shark attacks since
2000, 12 involved surfers and divers?
(3) Why did the Premier's
minister call this proposal shallow when it is supported by Rick Gerring, the
brother of Ben Gerring who was the last surfer to die in a fatal shark attack?
DETERRENT DEVICES
796. Mr D.J. KELLY to the
Premier:
I refer the Premier to comments made by the Minister for
Fisheries on Sunday when he rejected Labor's proposal for a subsidised
scheme to promote the use of individual shark-deterrent devices for divers and
surfers.
(1) Why did
the Premier's minister call this proposal shallow when the government's
own research shows that these devices —
Dr M.D. Nahan interjected.
The SPEAKER : Treasurer, I call you to order for the
first time. Let the member ask his question so that we know where we are going.
Mr D.J. KELLY : I will start again. My question without
notice is to the Premier.
Mr P.T. Miles interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for Wanneroo!
Mr D.J. KELLY : I refer the Premier to comments
made by the Minister for Fisheries on Sunday when he rejected Labor's
proposal for a subsidised scheme to promote the use of individual shark-deterrent
devices for divers and surfers.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time. Carry on.
Mr D.J. KELLY : My
question continues —
(1) Why did
the Premier's minister call this proposal shallow when the government's
own research shows that these devices can be effective on 90 per cent of
occasions?
Mr M.H. Taylor interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for Bateman, I call you to order
for the first time. I am getting really tired of this. You think it is
hilarious.
Mr D.J. KELLY : Again —
(1) Why did the Premier's minister call
this proposal shallow when the government's own research shows that
these devices can be effective on 90 per cent of occasions?
(2) Why did the Premier's
minister call this proposal shallow when of the 14 fatal shark attacks since
2000, 12 involved surfers and divers?
(3) Why did the Premier's
minister call this proposal shallow when it is supported by Rick Gerring, the
brother of Ben Gerring who was the last surfer to die in a fatal shark attack?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(3)
This government has done an enormous amount to try to make water users—whether
they are swimmers, surfers or divers—as safe as possible. I will not go
through it, but the most extensive measure has been the aerial patrols by
helicopters along metropolitan beaches and the south west. I also think that
the building of swimming enclosures gives a lot of comfort to many people,
particularly parents of young children. A lot of different proposals are being promoted
out there. A lot of research has been done. Indeed, the state government has
sponsored, primarily through the University of Western Australia, a great deal
of research and it will continue to do that. We will continue to trial new
technologies. Over the weekend, the minister announced the use of drones.
Obviously, that will have a local application if a shark is considered to be in
the area. The government will retain its imminent threat policy and its
preparedness to catch a shark if it is considered to be an imminent threat.
There are a whole range of things.
With respect to the policy of
members opposite, that is up to them to promote. I will note a couple of things
though. The member said it was proven to be effective nine times out of 10, but
what will happen on the tenth time?
Several
members interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the point is —
The SPEAKER : That is enough!
Several
members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not get so excited.
Several members
interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, I call
you to order for the first time.
Mr
P. Papalia interjected.
The SPEAKER : I call you to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : There is not a 90 per cent improvement in
safety if a device is used that is considered to be effective nine times out of
10. They are different statistics—quite different in their meaning.
The point I make is simply that Shark Shield, a commercial product, is
not foolproof; it is not. The member's own question admits that.
Mr D.J. Kelly : And drones are?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Did I say that drones were 100 per cent
effective? I do not think so.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Somebody is going to have a rest!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : This shows the opposition's lack
of depth in understanding research and policy issues, but I will keep going. I want
to make a couple of points, if members opposite are interested in the answer.
This is not foolproof. It may have effect but what are the longer term effects
in terms of the adaptive behaviour of sharks? That remains unknown. Animals and
species adapt—sharks and fish adapt. We do not know the long-term —
Mr
D.J. Kelly interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members opposite may get positive results,
but I do not know whether they will get them long-term. No-one knows the answer
about the behaviour because there is evidence of shark behaviour changing.
Mr
D.J. Kelly interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can I say the second thing? I think it is
a poor policy position for a would-be government to endorse a commercial
product. That is what members opposite did. They endorsed a commercial product.
Mr
D.J. Kelly interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is what the opposition has done! It
has endorsed a commercial product.
The
SPEAKER : Member for Bassendean, I call you to order for the first time. We
need to bring this to a conclusion. A quick answer, thank you.
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to, Mr Speaker.
The opposition might explain to us
how it got to the position of endorsing a commercial product that has been
promoted —
Mr
R.H. Cook : It was your research!
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : Was it? Okay. The opposition might explain to us how it came
to endorse one particular commercial product and decided to subsidise the sales
of that product. It might also say what that means for the price; that is another
matter. I do not think that is a proper thing for a government to do, for a number
of reasons, including that it may well give a surfer or a diver a false sense
of security. If Labor were in government, this product would be
government-endorsed, which would imply a high level of safety. What would the
opposition do if—hopefully it does not happen—someone had one
of these Shark Shields on their ankle and they were attacked? What would be its
legal position if it is out there, as a government, endorsing a commercial
product? Has the opposition even thought that through? I do not think it has.
This government has done an enormous amount to try to make water users—whether
they are swimmers, surfers or divers—as safe as possible. I will not go
through it, but the most extensive measure has been the aerial patrols by
helicopters along metropolitan beaches and the south west. I also think that
the building of swimming enclosures gives a lot of comfort to many people,
particularly parents of young children. A lot of different proposals are being promoted
out there. A lot of research has been done. Indeed, the state government has
sponsored, primarily through the University of Western Australia, a great deal
of research and it will continue to do that. We will continue to trial new
technologies. Over the weekend, the minister announced the use of drones.
Obviously, that will have a local application if a shark is considered to be in
the area. The government will retain its imminent threat policy and its
preparedness to catch a shark if it is considered to be an imminent threat.
There are a whole range of things.
With respect to the policy of
members opposite, that is up to them to promote. I will note a couple of things
though. The member said it was proven to be effective nine times out of 10, but
what will happen on the tenth time?
Several
members interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, the point is —
The SPEAKER : That is enough!
Several
members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do not get so excited.
Several members
interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for Warnbro, I call
you to order for the first time.
Mr
P. Papalia interjected.
The SPEAKER : I call you to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : There is not a 90 per cent improvement in
safety if a device is used that is considered to be effective nine times out of
10. They are different statistics—quite different in their meaning.
The point I make is simply that Shark Shield, a commercial product, is
not foolproof; it is not. The member's own question admits that.
Mr D.J. Kelly : And drones are?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Did I say that drones were 100 per cent
effective? I do not think so.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Somebody is going to have a rest!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : This shows the opposition's lack
of depth in understanding research and policy issues, but I will keep going. I want
to make a couple of points, if members opposite are interested in the answer.
This is not foolproof. It may have effect but what are the longer term effects
in terms of the adaptive behaviour of sharks? That remains unknown. Animals and
species adapt—sharks and fish adapt. We do not know the long-term —
Mr
D.J. Kelly interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members opposite may get positive results,
but I do not know whether they will get them long-term. No-one knows the answer
about the behaviour because there is evidence of shark behaviour changing.
Mr
D.J. Kelly interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can I say the second thing? I think it is
a poor policy position for a would-be government to endorse a commercial
product. That is what members opposite did. They endorsed a commercial product.
Mr
D.J. Kelly interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is what the opposition has done! It
has endorsed a commercial product.
The
SPEAKER : Member for Bassendean, I call you to order for the first time. We
need to bring this to a conclusion. A quick answer, thank you.
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to, Mr Speaker.
The opposition might explain to us
how it got to the position of endorsing a commercial product that has been
promoted —
Mr
R.H. Cook : It was your research!
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : Was it? Okay. The opposition might explain to us how it came
to endorse one particular commercial product and decided to subsidise the sales
of that product. It might also say what that means for the price; that is another
matter. I do not think that is a proper thing for a government to do, for a number
of reasons, including that it may well give a surfer or a diver a false sense
of security. If Labor were in government, this product would be
government-endorsed, which would imply a high level of safety. What would the
opposition do if—hopefully it does not happen—someone had one
of these Shark Shields on their ankle and they were attacked? What would be its
legal position if it is out there, as a government, endorsing a commercial
product? Has the opposition even thought that through? I do not think it has.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.