E&OE….
Topics: WA withdrawal of shark mitigation strategy
PAUL MURRAY:
So this has been an interesting negotiation with the Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt and he joins us now. Afternoon Greg.
GREG HUNT:
And good afternoon Paul.
PAUL MURRAY:
Greg, was your Department close to making a decision on WA’s application to have drum lines approved for three years?
GREG HUNT:
Look, we obviously knew that Western Australia was reconsidering their position after the EPA so we were holding back from any final decision. I had been working with the WA Government on the basis that perhaps the ideal outcome would be to withdraw the application and move to an imminent threat capability.
What does that mean? It means that when it’s needed, when there is an imminent threat to life and limb then that would be a time when the WA Government can act, act immediately, act without having to get a new decision on every occasion but have the capacity to take immediate action and I think we’ve got a perfect balance here where they have the capacity to protect life and limb, but you’ve got a reasonable approach which isn’t going to cause, sort of, a significant impact to the environment.
PAUL MURRAY:
So it sounds like the WA Government had been given an indication that they were unlikely to get drum lines approved.
GREG HUNT:
Well look what we did is we worked with them and I’ve got to say, worked very constructively whether it was my Department with Albert Jacob’s Department, or myself and Albert Jacob and along the way I’ve spoken with the Premier.
Honestly, he was fantastically engaged and reasonable. His focus, rightly as the Premier of a State, is to ensure that he has the maximum protection for his community and my focus was to ensure that he had the capacity to do that, but we do it in a way which is reasonable and balanced for the environment and I think this is a pretty good outcome.
An imminent threat ability to deploy, to take action and this is something which WA will be able to do, rather than just a permanent drum line presence. I think it’s a very good balance with life and limb foremost amongst considerations.
PAUL MURRAY:
Is the implication in this, Greg, that drum lines, no form of whatever you like to call it, culling of Great White Sharks or culling which could end up catching Great White Sharks, is able to be done under the Federal legislation?
GREG HUNT:
Look, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that. I want to be very careful because you have to assess everything on its individual impact and there is a national interest exemption. That exists under the law, it’s able to be deployed.
I did use that to ensure that when there was an emergency application late last summer after there’d been seven deaths in three years that the WA Government was able to take immediate steps. I think that that was the right thing to do then. Now we’re looking at a permanent solution and I think that Colin Barnett’s managed to get it just right. An imminent threat protection without a permanent problem for many of the marine animals. It’s a good balance.
PAUL MURRAY:
Greg, many Western Australians will ask why it is that Queensland can use drum lines and has for a very long time, but Western Australian can’t.
GREG HUNT:
Well, probably there are two things here. The first is that there is no Federal decision in relation to Queensland or New South Wales. They pre-date the Federal law and secondly, the Commonwealth actually approved the emergency deployment in Western Australia and it was the West Australian EPA itself.
So there hasn’t been a Commonwealth decision against WA, there was just the West Australian EPA decision and there hasn’t been a Commonwealth decision for Queensland or New South Wales. Neither of them are covered by the Federal law because they were pre-existing practices.
PAUL MURRAY:
I can’t see that every Great White Shark that dies on a hook in Queensland doesn’t breach the Federal law?
GREG HUNT:
Look, it’s simply a fact of the Federal law that pre-existing actions are authorised. Ones which are…
PAUL MURRAY:
But they’re explicitly authorised
GREG HUNT:
…pre-dated the Federal law…
PAUL MURRAY:
Explicitly authorised under the Act are they?
GREG HUNT:
Yes, that anything which was in operation before 1999, before the Federal law came into being, is not subject to that law. So long as there’s no change in practice. I’m just telling you the law as it exists and I think it’s important to understand, my approach here has always been to try to be very practical. When Western Australia sought an emergency exemption, they got it. When they sought an imminent threat capacity in Esperance recently, they got it.
And they’ve withdrawn here. We have worked with them and I think that’s very important to be honest about, but it was the West Australian EPA which said they didn’t believe it was an acceptable practice so there has been no adverse Federal decision. There’s been a very, very cooperative approach between myself and Albert Jacob and working with the Premier and others to ensure that there’s a permanent power and a permanent capacity for Western Australia to deal with risky situations as and when they’re needed – what is known as an imminent threat capability and I think that that is a good outcome.
So the only Federal approach here is to actually say yes you can take the actions that you’re seeking and what they’re seeking is not a permanent placement of drum lines in the water, but the ability to use whatever appropriate, fishing tackle or other methods, to deal with anything which is an immediate threat to people.
PAUL MURRAY:
Are you comfortable with the drum lines and nets in Queensland?
GREG HUNT:
Look, I accept that they are a part of the landscape under the existing law and I approved them in Western Australia to much criticism I have to say. But my approach is always what is reasonable and balanced.
PAUL MURRAY:
Well is it reasonable and balanced in Queensland? Because, you know, there now is this historic disparity. Queensland says it’s effective in protecting beaches there, but that’s not allowed on the other side of the country?
GREG HUNT:
Well I would just say this – it was the West Australian EPA that came to that conclusion and we had previously approved it for an emergency exemption over the last part of the most recent summer. So what I’d say is this – that, you know, as a general rule it’s largely been up to the States to find what operates and works and protects their people as best they can.
In this case the State EPA said no because of the relevant population in the relevant part of WA. That of course has an impact on any Federal judgement. If a State EPA says of its own laws in its own jurisdiction that there’s an issue, in the end what we’ve done is make sure that the Premier is armed with a capacity to deal with threats as and when they arise and I think he’s taken a very balanced approach.
PAUL MURRAY:
Thanks for your time today Greg.
GREG HUNT:
Thanks Paul.
(ENDS)