Mr. Kelly questions the Premier about funding cuts to shark tagging and monitoring programs, suggesting inconsistency with the previous shark cull. The Premier defends the current monitoring program as sufficient and emphasizes aerial surveillance as the primary safety measure.

AnsweredQoN 510Legislative Assembly
Asked
23 June 2015
Portfolio
Premier

QuestionView source ↗

SHARK TAGGING AND MONITORING NETWORK
510. Mr D.J. KELLY to the
Premier:
I ask a supplementary question. I ask again: how much money
is the government saving by cutting funds from further shark tagging, and from
cuts to the shark monitoring network, and why did the Premier put us through
the shark cull if he is only going to cut programs that now actually work?

AnswerView source ↗

The program continues. We have 660 tagged sharks, including
200 great whites. They continue to be monitored. That is a sufficient sample. A
shark does not decide whether to attack a diver or a surfer according to
whether it is tagged. It is a sample of sharks. It does not provide the safety
that the member might believe. The safety is provided by the aerial
surveillance of beaches. That is where the safety is provided. If the member
cannot understand it, a two-year research program has been completed.
Mr W.J. Johnston interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Cannington, I call you to order for the second time. Premier?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I
have finished, Mr Speaker.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more