The Claim
“Exempted Western Australia from federal laws protecting endangered species to allow a shark cull, despite evidence culls do not reduce the frequency of attacks on humans.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim contains multiple factual elements that require verification:
Federal Exemption Granted: Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt did grant Western Australia an exemption from the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 in January 2014 [1]. This exemption allowed the WA government to proceed with its shark mitigation strategy despite great white sharks being listed as "vulnerable" under federal law and protected under the international Convention for Migratory Species [1]. The exemption was granted under the "national interest" provisions, with Hunt citing public safety and economic concerns about tourism impacts [1].
The Shark Cull Policy: The Western Australian government, led by Premier Colin Barnett, implemented a policy in January 2014 to deploy 72 baited drum lines off Perth beaches and the south-west coast [1]. Any great white, tiger, or bull shark longer than three metres caught on these hooks was to be shot and discarded [1]. This followed seven fatal shark attacks on the WA coastline between 2010 and 2013 [2].
Evidence on Culling Effectiveness: The claim that culls do not reduce attacks is supported by scientific evidence. Hawaii conducted a systematic shark culling program from 1959-1976, killing approximately 4,500 sharks with "no discernible reduction" in shark attack incidents [3]. Dr. Alan Friedlander from the University of Hawaii's Fisheries Ecology Research Lab described WA's policy as "unwise" and "a knee-jerk reaction" [3]. The Australian Marine Conservation Society stated there was "no evidence drum line programs would reduce the instances of shark attacks" [1].
Policy Outcome: The seasonal drum line program was abandoned in September 2014 following a recommendation by the Western Australian Environment Protection Authority [2]. From December 2014 to March 2017, drum lines were only permitted for "special deployment" when sharks presented a "serious threat to public safety" [2].
Missing Context
The Human Context: The claim omits important context about the circumstances leading to the policy. Between 2010 and 2013, seven people died from shark attacks in Western Australia, representing a significant spike in fatalities [2]. In November 2013, surfer Chris Boyd was killed by a great white shark at Gracetown Beach, which was the sixth fatal attack in two years [3]. This created genuine public fear and pressure for government action.
Bycatch and Collateral Impact: The Junkee article notes significant collateral damage from the cull, with over a dozen juvenile sharks caught by early February 2014, along with other species [3]. This environmental impact was downplayed in official justifications.
Economic Justification: Minister Hunt's exemption letter cited not only public safety but also economic damage to tourism and leisure businesses as matters of "national significance" [1]. This economic framing is absent from the claim.
International Precedent: The claim doesn't mention that Queensland has operated a shark control program using drum lines since 1962, which continues to this day with bipartisan support [4]. The WA policy was modeled on Queensland's approach, though Queensland's program targets different species and operates under different legislative arrangements.
Source Credibility Assessment
Junkee (Original Source): The original source, Junkee, is an Australian youth-oriented digital media outlet focusing on culture, politics, and current affairs. Founded in 2013, it positions itself as an alternative voice targeting millennial and Gen Z audiences. The article by Edward Sharp-Paul presents a clearly opinionated stance against the cull, using loaded language like "'Cullin' Barnett" and describing the policy as "fear-mongering" [3]. While the article cites factual sources (ABC News, The Guardian, Perth Now), the framing is unambiguously critical of the policy. Junkee has a progressive editorial stance, and this article reflects that perspective. The factual claims within the article (dates, statistics, quotes from officials) appear accurate, but readers should be aware of the publication's advocacy-oriented approach.
Mainstream Media (SMH, ABC): The Sydney Morning Herald and ABC News reporting on this issue provides more balanced coverage, presenting both the government's justifications and critics' concerns [1][2]. These sources confirm the factual basis of the claim while providing additional context.
Wikipedia: The Wikipedia article provides a neutral, well-sourced summary of events, drawing on multiple mainstream media and government sources [2].
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government shark policy Western Australia cull comparison" and "Queensland shark control program drum lines history"
Finding: The Queensland shark control program, which uses drum lines and nets, has been in continuous operation since 1962 under both Coalition and Labor state governments [4]. The program has been supported by Labor governments in Queensland for decades, including during the same period when federal Labor criticized the WA policy.
Labor's Position on WA Policy: Federal Labor parliamentarians, including Greens Senators (who often align with Labor on environmental issues), actively opposed the WA shark cull [1][2]. Labor Senator Rachel Siewert criticized the post-2014 "high-hazard" shark policy for damaging the environment [2]. However, this opposition was not consistent with Queensland Labor's continued support for their own state's shark control program.
Broader Context: Environmental exemptions under the EPBC Act have been used by both major parties. The "national interest" exemption provision that Hunt invoked has been available since the Act's inception in 1999 and has been utilized in various forms by governments of both persuasions.
Balanced Perspective
The Government's Position: The Barnett government and Minister Hunt defended the policy as necessary for public safety. Hunt stated in his exemption letter: "One does not have to agree with a policy to accept that a national interest exemption is warranted to protect against imminent threat to life, economic damage and public safety more generally" [1]. The government pointed to WA Fisheries Department research showing shark strikes rising from one per year in the mid-1990s to 2-3 annually in 2010-2013 [1].
Critics' Position: Marine conservation groups, scientists, and thousands of protesters argued the cull was environmentally irresponsible, ineffective, and ethically problematic. The Humane Society called the exemption "a complete disgrace" [1]. Scientists noted that culling endangered species with low reproductive rates could damage marine ecosystems [3].
Complexity of the Issue: This case highlights the tension between human safety and environmental protection. The shark attack fatalities were real and created genuine community concern. However, the scientific evidence suggested the proposed solution (culling) would not effectively address the problem. Alternative approaches, including the Twitter warning system mentioned in the Junkee article [3], acoustic shark-repellent technology, and better monitoring systems, represented potential middle grounds that were not fully explored before the cull was implemented.
Key context: The WA shark cull was controversial and ultimately abandoned, but it was not unique. Queensland's ongoing shark control program has used similar methods for over 60 years with bipartisan state support. The Coalition's exemption was consistent with the EPBC Act's provisions, though the policy's scientific basis was questionable.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The core facts of the claim are accurate: the Coalition government (through Minister Greg Hunt) did grant Western Australia an exemption from federal environmental laws protecting endangered species, specifically to allow the shark cull to proceed [1]. There was also substantial scientific evidence that culling does not reduce shark attack frequency, most notably from Hawaii's decades-long experience [3].
However, the claim omits important context: the exemption was granted under specific "national interest" provisions of the EPBC Act that exist for public safety emergencies; the policy was a response to a genuine spike in fatal shark attacks (seven deaths in three years); and the policy was abandoned later in 2014 following EPA recommendations [2]. Additionally, the claim ignores that Queensland's similar shark control program has operated continuously since 1962 with bipartisan support from both Labor and Coalition state governments [4], suggesting this type of policy is not unique to the Coalition.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The core facts of the claim are accurate: the Coalition government (through Minister Greg Hunt) did grant Western Australia an exemption from federal environmental laws protecting endangered species, specifically to allow the shark cull to proceed [1]. There was also substantial scientific evidence that culling does not reduce shark attack frequency, most notably from Hawaii's decades-long experience [3].
However, the claim omits important context: the exemption was granted under specific "national interest" provisions of the EPBC Act that exist for public safety emergencies; the policy was a response to a genuine spike in fatal shark attacks (seven deaths in three years); and the policy was abandoned later in 2014 following EPA recommendations [2]. Additionally, the claim ignores that Queensland's similar shark control program has operated continuously since 1962 with bipartisan support from both Labor and Coalition state governments [4], suggesting this type of policy is not unique to the Coalition.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (4)
-
1
Environment Minister allows Western Australia to kill sharks to protect swimmers
Environment Minister Greg Hunt has waved through the West Australian government's controversial plan to catch and kill sharks to protect swimmers, exempting it from national environment laws.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
2
Western Australian shark cull
Wikipedia -
3
Everything You Need To Know About The W.A. Shark Cull
Western Australia's State Parliament is due back on February 18, and Premiere Colin Barnett's shark cull is sure to dominate proceedings. Here's where we're at with it.
Junkee -
4
Shark control in Queensland
Qld Gov
Original link no longer available
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.