2.1
The Save Our Sharks Bill 2014 (the bill) seeks to void the 10 January
2014 exemption granted under section 158 of the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, allowing the deployment of baited drum to
catch sharks in Western Australia. The bill would also ensure that no similar
declaration or exemption will have any effect.
2.3
The committee requested Senator Siewert's advice as to the compatibility
of the bill with the right to life.
2.4
The committee requested Senator Siewert's advice as to the compatibility
of the bill with the right to work and rights at work.
The Australian Greens, in introducing this bill, believe that
its key function of preventing future shark culling does not unreasonably limit
the right to life.
The practical effect of the bill, should it become law, would
be that no state or territory government would be able to introduce a great
white shark culling program without environmental assessment.
The projections which suggest that preventing future shark
culls would result in any loss of life are flawed and the effectiveness of the
shark cull on reducing the likelihood of shark-related death is greatly
contested.
This bill is aimed at achieving the legitimate objective of
protecting our marine life, and even if a limitation on the right to life was
presumed to exist by not mitigating shark attacks, there are a number of other
methods including beach nets and watchtowers available to the Government which
have not yet been fully explored.
Nor do the Australian Greens, in introducing this bill,
believe that its key function of preventing future shark culling unreasonably
limits the right to work.
There are no projections which suggest that preventing future
shark culls would result in any job losses, or any impact on the local economy,
to the extent that people’s right to work would be affected. Rather, it has
been argued that the cull in WA this summer has had a negative impact on
tourism operators as it has deterred international visitors.
I note, as the Committee’s report notes, that the right to
work is not absolute and may be subject to permissible limitations where they
are aimed at a legitimate objective, and are reasonable, necessary and
proportionate to that objective. With this in mind, even if a limitation on the
right to work were presumed to exist, this would be aimed at achieving the
legitimate objective of protecting our marine life, by ensuring that the
population numbers of apex predators that are vital to the health and wellbeing
of entire marine ecosystem are not reduced to endangered levels. The critical
species are not just great white sharks, but also tiger sharks – the WA
Government's public environmental review predicts about 900 tiger sharks, 25
great white sharks and only a few bull sharks will be caught over the next
three years. If these animals are removed from the ecosystem, there will be a
much more significant impact on not just the work of tourism operators but also
of commercial fishers who rely on health oceans for abundant fish stocks.
In conclusion, because the bill does not limit the right to
life, and only limits the rights to work in tourism to the extent to which it
protects our marine health which is vital to promoting the broader rights of
work across all marine based industries including fisheries, the Australian
Greens are of the view that this bill is compatible with Australia's human
rights obligations.[1]