❓ Mr. Whitby inquires about how the shark drum line trial complements the government's existing shark mitigation strategy. The Minister details the government's evidence-based approach, including subsidies for personal deterrents, aerial patrols, and the upcoming drum line trial assessed by the Chief Scientist.
AnsweredQoN 510Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
SHARKS — HAZARD
MITIGATION — SMART DRUM LINE TRIALS
510. Mr R.R. WHITBY to the Minister for Fisheries:
I acknowledge in the gallery today
the students from South Coast Baptist College and politics students in year 11 at
Woodvale Secondary College.
I refer to today's
announcement that the government will conduct a scientific trial of Shark-Management-Alert-in-Real-Time
drum lines. Can the minister update the house on how the trial will complement
the McGowan Labor government's already comprehensive mitigation
strategy, which includes restoring funding for aerial patrols and a world-first
subsidy program for personal shark deterrents?
MITIGATION — SMART DRUM LINE TRIALS
510. Mr R.R. WHITBY to the Minister for Fisheries:
I acknowledge in the gallery today
the students from South Coast Baptist College and politics students in year 11 at
Woodvale Secondary College.
I refer to today's
announcement that the government will conduct a scientific trial of Shark-Management-Alert-in-Real-Time
drum lines. Can the minister update the house on how the trial will complement
the McGowan Labor government's already comprehensive mitigation
strategy, which includes restoring funding for aerial patrols and a world-first
subsidy program for personal shark deterrents?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Baldivis for
his question. When we were in opposition, and then when we came into
government, we said that no government could give a 100 per cent guarantee that
it can eliminate the risks that exist when people go into the ocean. Any
government or opposition that says it can do that is absolutely foolish. We
said that we would deal with this issue on the basis of evidence and science.
When we came into government, we said that we would pursue initiatives that had
research and evidence behind them. One of the first things that we did was to
put in place a world-first personal shark deterrent subsidy, based not on a whim
of the minister, but on the research commissioned by the previous government.
The world-first personal shark deterrent subsidy was based on science done by
the University of Western Australia. That was the first thing we did. That
device was specifically designed for divers. We then encouraged other device
manufacturers to get their devices researched as well. We soon had a surfboard-specific
device that we then added to that subsidy scheme, again based on science. We
put in place a number of other measures. We funded an initial $6 million in the
budget for Surf Life Saving WA to conduct aerial patrols. We offered $50 000 to
local governments to put in place a unique beach emergency numbering system.
That idea was developed post the fatality at Gearies near Mandurah. Rick
Gerring advocated that initiative after the loss of his brother Ben. These were
all sensible ideas backed up by research. Members opposite criticised virtually
all of them and tried to blame the government for every mishap in the ocean.
Some community members called for
the introduction of Shark-Management-Alert-in-Real-Time drum lines, which are
used in New South Wales. New South Wales was conducting a trial that it put in
place in, I think, December 2015, while members opposite were in government. We
said that, given that New South Wales is spending money on this trial, it would
make sense for us not to embark upon our own trial but to wait and see the
outcome of the New South Wales trial and then make a decision on whether there
was any science to back up that program. Now, for whatever reason, New South
Wales has not provided us with all the results of that program, so a bit over
12 months into government, we have decided to launch our own trial at
Gracetown, near Margaret River. That will be a limited trial for at least 12
months and, importantly, it will be assessed by Chief Scientist Peter Klinken.
We have done that, one, because we have always said science is the best way to
deal with this issue and, two, to try to get some independence in this debate.
There are a lot of things that we can do in this area. The public wants to know
what works and what does not. There is probably no person more respected in the
science community in Western Australia than the Chief Scientist, so we have
asked him to evaluate that program after 12 months and he has agreed to do so.
He will also look at the personal shark deterrent subsidy, which will have been
in place for a bit over two and a half years by that stage. Incidentally, 2 000
people in the Western Australian community have taken advantage of that
subsidy.
We can never 100 per cent guarantee
the safety of anyone when they go in the water, whether the threat is from
rips, other causes of drowning, or sharks. However, we can do what governments
are reasonably expected to do—that is, put in place measures that are
based on science. That is what we have done, as any good government should.
his question. When we were in opposition, and then when we came into
government, we said that no government could give a 100 per cent guarantee that
it can eliminate the risks that exist when people go into the ocean. Any
government or opposition that says it can do that is absolutely foolish. We
said that we would deal with this issue on the basis of evidence and science.
When we came into government, we said that we would pursue initiatives that had
research and evidence behind them. One of the first things that we did was to
put in place a world-first personal shark deterrent subsidy, based not on a whim
of the minister, but on the research commissioned by the previous government.
The world-first personal shark deterrent subsidy was based on science done by
the University of Western Australia. That was the first thing we did. That
device was specifically designed for divers. We then encouraged other device
manufacturers to get their devices researched as well. We soon had a surfboard-specific
device that we then added to that subsidy scheme, again based on science. We
put in place a number of other measures. We funded an initial $6 million in the
budget for Surf Life Saving WA to conduct aerial patrols. We offered $50 000 to
local governments to put in place a unique beach emergency numbering system.
That idea was developed post the fatality at Gearies near Mandurah. Rick
Gerring advocated that initiative after the loss of his brother Ben. These were
all sensible ideas backed up by research. Members opposite criticised virtually
all of them and tried to blame the government for every mishap in the ocean.
Some community members called for
the introduction of Shark-Management-Alert-in-Real-Time drum lines, which are
used in New South Wales. New South Wales was conducting a trial that it put in
place in, I think, December 2015, while members opposite were in government. We
said that, given that New South Wales is spending money on this trial, it would
make sense for us not to embark upon our own trial but to wait and see the
outcome of the New South Wales trial and then make a decision on whether there
was any science to back up that program. Now, for whatever reason, New South
Wales has not provided us with all the results of that program, so a bit over
12 months into government, we have decided to launch our own trial at
Gracetown, near Margaret River. That will be a limited trial for at least 12
months and, importantly, it will be assessed by Chief Scientist Peter Klinken.
We have done that, one, because we have always said science is the best way to
deal with this issue and, two, to try to get some independence in this debate.
There are a lot of things that we can do in this area. The public wants to know
what works and what does not. There is probably no person more respected in the
science community in Western Australia than the Chief Scientist, so we have
asked him to evaluate that program after 12 months and he has agreed to do so.
He will also look at the personal shark deterrent subsidy, which will have been
in place for a bit over two and a half years by that stage. Incidentally, 2 000
people in the Western Australian community have taken advantage of that
subsidy.
We can never 100 per cent guarantee
the safety of anyone when they go in the water, whether the threat is from
rips, other causes of drowning, or sharks. However, we can do what governments
are reasonably expected to do—that is, put in place measures that are
based on science. That is what we have done, as any good government should.
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.