During Estimates hearings on Thursday 25 July 2024, I asked the Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries about Queensland's shark control and management program.
You can read my question and his full response below, or in the official Parliamentary record of proceedings (Hansard) here.
Mr BERKMAN: In my prehearing question on notice regarding Queensland’s Shark Control Program, I asked what practical work the department had conducted to test the efficacy of electronic warning devices, colloquially known as whale pingers, and how had their efficacy been tested on shark nets and drum lines. Can I confirm with the director-general that the answer did not address or did not allude to any primary research the department is doing? Am I to take it that that is not happening—that the answer is, in fact, no?
Mr Bolton: I thank the member for the question. The short answer is that we already use pingers on our Shark Control Program equipment. We are not doing further research into that technology. There is quite a bit of research that is already available on them. We are focusing our current research and development on other activities that would potentially be suitable to Queensland conditions.
Mr BERKMAN: In 2023 alone, as I understand it, the department’s data indicates that there were at least 68 instances of animals found predated upon in shark nets and drum lines—that is, they had been attacked. Given the minister’s concerns about swimmer safety, has the department raised with the minister this clear evidence that shark control equipment actually attracts sharks?
Mr Bolton: I thank the member for the question. I would like to start by saying there is no evidence that we are aware of that suggests that the apparatus actually attracts sharks in.
Mr BERKMAN: Sorry, if I could stop you there. How else do you interpret the presence of animals that have been predated upon stuck in shark nets and on drum lines?
Mr Bolton: I thank the member for the question. Sharks are very much opportunistic feeders. If there are sharks in the area and there is an animal that is stuck then they will predate on those animals.
Mr BERKMAN: That brings me back to the central thrust of the question. If sharks are attracted opportunistically to feed on those animals that are stuck in shark nets, surely that creates some greater risk around the attraction of sharks by the presence of the shark control equipment.
Mr Bolton: I thank the member for the question. I did ask that very question of the experts a couple of years ago. The advice they gave me at the time was that the attraction is very localised. If there is a shark within the area it will come to that particular source, but they do not draw sharks from large distances away. It is not like it is going to be drawing sharks from kilometres away. It is going to be localised within the local vicinity.
Mr BERKMAN: In the prehearing question on notice I asked about the decision not to remove shark nets from Queensland borders during migration season which has in turn led to multiple whale entanglements. Can I ask again very specifically: was the premier at the time, Annastacia Palaszczuk, involved in that decision in 2020?
Mr Bolton: I thank the member for the question. That is a question I cannot answer. You may like to redirect that question to the minister.
Mr BERKMAN: I will put that question directly to the minister, if I might. Was former premier Palaszczuk involved in any way in the decision in 2020 not to remove shark nets from Queensland borders during whale migration season?
Mr FURNER: I thank the member for his question. The member quite rightly raises the question around whale migration and the interaction with those mammals and shark control equipment. To my knowledge there was no decision—certainly that I am privy to—by the former premier with regard to any attempt to have those nets removed.
Mr BERKMAN: I will ask one final question, if I might. Thank you for your indulgence, Chair. Director-General, can you outline for me what is the department’s approach to the pursuit of penalties under section 31 of the Fisheries Act in circumstances where a person enters an exclusion zone for the sole purpose of rescuing a whale that has become entangled in shark control equipment?
Mr Bolton: I thank the member for the question. That particular section of the act is very important because shark nets in particular, and drum lines as well, are quite dangerous apparatus. There have been deaths associated with this type of gear. People have become entangled in shark nets and drowned. The other aspect is: if there is an entanglement, particularly a large animal like a whale is very powerful and anyone entering the water is placing themselves at significant risk. Those exclusion zones are there for public safety primarily and also animal welfare. If a whale is entangled and people go in there to try and interact with them, they can cause greater distress and more entanglement with the entrapped whale. We have a specifically trained marine animal rescue team that we deploy to these types of rescue work. We work in partnership with Sea World. They are trained to mitigate that risk to themselves and release the animals as quickly and humanely as possible.
Mr FURNER: May I complement that response. I have been down to the Southport depot and engaged with the Stranded Marine Animal Rescue Team. They have very sharp knives in terms of spontaneously releasing nets and equipment off whales. In some cases those nets or equipment have not been as a result of the shark control program in Queensland; the whales have brought that equipment up from as far south as beyond Victoria. It is very important that people understand that these are trained people with the relevant equipment to release those mammals as quickly as possible.