The QLD DPI Has Been Sending This Response - Here’s Why It’s Deceitful
- Ali Be
- Oct 9
- 12 min read
The Queensland’s Department of Primary Industries has been issuing near-identical letters to those who raise concerns about the recent whale entanglements under the state’s shark culling program. These responses are framed as factual and reassuring, yet, upon closer examination, they reveal a troubling pattern of misrepresentation, omission, and selective storytelling.
The letter tabled in Queensland Parliament on 25 September 2025 by Minister for Primary Industries Tony Perrett, happens to be strikingly similar in both language and substance to the response letters being sent to members of the public regarding whale entanglements and shark control concerns.
This suggests that a single, centralised response template is being circulated, not to genuinely address community concerns, but to maintain a consistent public relations narrative.
Many of its claims about whale releases, shark control efficacy, and “scientifically proven” safety measures are contradicted by independent research, court rulings, and even the government’s own reports. While officials repeat the mantra of “putting human safety first,” their policies continue to rely on outdated, lethal methods that kill marine life indiscriminately, with no demonstrable improvement to swimmer safety.
This article breaks down each of the Queensland Government’s claims line by line, exposing where the narrative departs from truth and where evidence has been conveniently ignored:
“...both mother and calf humpback whales were successfully released from the shark net at Noosa on the evening of Wednesday 17 September 2025. A humpback whale was also successfully released from a shark net at Marcoola on Friday 19 September 2025.”
This is an incomplete account of the events. The Noosa release only occurred because of the intervention and persistence of independent volunteer drone pilots. It was volunteer drone operator Erin Kirkwood, using her thermal imaging drone in the evening, who located the entangled mother and calf and guided contractors to the exact position of the animals. It was also the community pressure, supported by footage from Geoff Aquino, which made clear that the calf would not survive the night, that forced a change in approach, prompting contractors to attempt a rare nighttime release. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DPI) was entirely reliant on these volunteers, who are unpaid, not resourced, and who step away from their professional and personal commitments to do a job that is supposed to be carried out by government contractors. These contractors are funded with taxpayer dollars, yet in critical moments, they are unable to locate or monitor entangled animals without volunteer intervention. Without Erin and the Envoy Foundation’s thermal imaging drone, the contractors would have had no realistic chance of locating and assisting the whales.
The calf was eventually cut free. However, the mother whale remained entangled and disappeared from the contractors’ sight. Again, it was Erin, not the DPI, who tracked and monitored the whales, providing live updates by phone until they moved further offshore. The final verifiable footage provided by Erin clearly shows the calf swimming free while the mother remained entangled. Despite this, DPI later issued an unsubstantiated claim that both animals had been fully released. No independent footage has thus far been provided to verify this claim, and requests for evidence have been met only with stonewalling, DPI insisting that such records can only be accessed through the lengthy Right To Information (RTI) process.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we accepted that the whales at Noosa were released without lingering entanglements, the DPI cannot escape a far greater issue: there is no post-release monitoring, no tracking of delayed mortality, and no assessment of long-term health outcomes for these animals. Scientific evidence shows that the stress, injury, and exhaustion caused by entanglements can have long-lasting, sometimes fatal effects, even if the animal swims away.
Meanwhile, independent volunteers, working at personal risk and often in poor weather conditions, have dedicated thousands of unpaid hours monitoring shark control gear, documenting entanglements, and alerting the authorities. These efforts contrast starkly with a government program that receives tens of millions in taxpayer funding to operate outdated, ineffective, and lethal equipment, yet continues to outsource its most critical functions to the goodwill of the public.
“The Department of Primary Industries (DPI) leads an experienced team of professionals who are specifically trained to release whales in the event they are captured by the Shark Control Program (the Program) equipment. And that “If whale entanglement occurs, a safe release is a priority.”
This assertion is contradicted by the reality on the ground. On 19 September 2025 at Marcoola, the very first responders to the entanglement were not the DPI’s paid contractors, but Queensland Police officers on jet skis. Their role was not to free the whale, but to prevent members of the public from intervening. In other words, instead of deploying immediate rescue expertise, government resources were directed toward policing [potentially] would-be rescuers, while the contractors actually tasked with the job were absent from the scene. This alone exposes the hollowness of DPI’s statement. If “a safe release” were truly the priority, the government would ensure trained responders were on site without delay, not enforce barriers against citizens desperate to prevent suffering.
Further, the DPI’s assertion of professional capability rings especially disingenuous when its operations continue to depend on volunteer drone pilots to, as mentioned, detect, locate, and track entangled whales, individuals with no funding, no official mandate, and no obligation to perform these life-or-death roles. These volunteers, not DPI staff, provide the aerial surveillance that makes successful interventions even possible. For an agency spending millions of taxpayer dollars, withholding any post release mortality information from the public, under the guise of claiming “safe releases”, is a serious omission that obscures the true toll of the Shark Control Program.
In practice, frontline responses are delayed, policing of public compassion is prioritised over rescue, and unpaid volunteers are the difference between life and death, while the official program fails to provide even the most basic transparency about the long-term fate of the animals it entangles.
“More than 40,000 whales migrate along the east coast of Australia each year with only 0.02 per cent interacting with the Program equipment. In addition, the success rate of releasing whales that become entangled is very high. The most recent whale fatality caused by an entanglement with the Program equipment was 8 years ago, in 2017.”
The assertion of a single fatality since 2017 cannot be verified. As mentioned prior, there is no robust system of post-release monitoring or tracking in place. Without evidence that released whales are tracked over time, there is no scientific basis to conclude they survive long-term. Entanglements inflict injuries, exhaustion, and stress that may not be immediately fatal but can compromise survival in the weeks or months that follow. To cite “only one fatality” while refusing to collect or release post-release mortality data is not a measure of success, it is a calculated omission.
Further, even if one were to steelman the DPI’s position and accept that only one fatality has occurred, presenting the issue as “0.02% of whales are affected” is a false equivalency designed to trivialise harm. By this same logic, one could argue that because the number of people who drown in the ocean far exceeds those bitten by sharks, efforts to reduce shark bites are unnecessary. Of course, no responsible government would adopt such reasoning. The rarity of an event does not diminish the need to prevent it, particularly when the consequences are severe, preventable, and directly caused by government-operated equipment. The increasing abundance of whales migrating along the east coast is not a justification for tolerating entanglements. It is the result of decades of international protection and conservation measures that pulled whale populations back from the brink after near-extinction from industrial whaling. To suggest that the health of the population as a whole excuses avoidable suffering and deaths is reckless. On the contrary, the rebound in whale numbers strengthens the responsibility to ensure their migration remains undisturbed, unimpeded, and free from artificial hazards such as shark nets.
Rather than downplaying harm through statistical manipulation, the Queensland Government should be advancing stronger protective measures to safeguard whale migration in full, not undermining it with a program that is both lethal and obsolete.
“Since coming to office, the Crisafulli Government has increased research into improved whale deterrent technologies and best practice humane animal release techniques to minimise environmental impacts of the Program during the whale migration season.”
This is, at best, vague and unsubstantiated. This is the first time such a claim has been raised, and no details, evidence, or publicly available reports appear to exist that substantiate it. If genuine research initiatives are underway, the Department should be able to provide specifics, including the scope of the projects, the institutions involved, the methods being trialled, and any preliminary findings.
“... the Crisafulli Government announced the Shark Management Plan 2025–2029 (the Plan) with an increased investment of $88.2 million into the Program. This represents historic change, with the single biggest improvement and strengthening of the Program since it started in 1962. The Plan sets out how the Crisafulli Government will reduce the risk of shark attacks at specific beaches across Queensland, putting human safety first. The Plan combines proven safety measures (like shark nets and drumlines) whilst prioritising research, education, and innovative technologies like drone surveillance at more beaches.”
The $88.2 million investment into the Shark Control Program is framed as a “historic strengthening” of swimmer safety. However, beneath the rhetoric, this investment includes the expansion of lethal measures, specifically, more shark nets and traditional drumlines. While the incorporation of non-lethal alternatives such as drone surveillance and Catch-Alert Drumlines is welcome, the decision to expand outdated methods directly undermines any claims of innovation or environmental responsibility. Shark nets and drumlines are indiscriminate in their impact, entangling a wide range of marine species, including migrating whales, and in some cases, according to the photographic evidence available of predatory behaviour on deceased carcasses stuck on the nets, may increase risk to swimmers by attracting sharks closer to shore.
Moreover, the legal implications cannot be ignored. Section 43B(3) of the EPBC Act 1999 makes clear that any significant expansion of existing programs may be deemed unlawful without federal approval. To intensify and expand such a lethal program risks contravening national law and exposing the State to legal challenge. The framing of this investment as a “historic improvement” is misleading. Expanding lethal measures while simultaneously marketing incremental non-lethal steps as progress is a contradiction in terms. True ‘historic change’ would mean moving away from culling practices of traditional drumlines and shark nets altogether, toward evidence-based, non-lethal strategies that protect both human swimmers and the marine life on which Queensland’s coastal ecosystems depend.
“Prioritising Queenslanders’ safety also protects our international tourism reputation, with our beaches the envy of the world and the centrepiece of our $33 billion tourism industry.”
There is no question that Queensland’s tourism industry is a cornerstone of the State’s economy, valued at $33 billion annually. But what sustains that industry is not the presence of shark nets and lethal drumlines, it is the health and abundance of our marine life and biodiversity, particularly within areas of global significance such as the Great Barrier Reef. Tourists are drawn to Queensland not to see shark nets, but to experience vibrant, thriving marine ecosystems.
It is in this context that the 2019 Federal Court case Humane Society International (Australia) Inc v Department of Agriculture & Fisheries (Qld) is directly relevant. The Court found unequivocally that “The lethal component of the Shark Control Program does not reduce the risk of unprovoked shark interactions. The scientific evidence before us is overwhelming in this regard.”
This precedent makes it clear that shark nets and drumlines do not achieve the safety outcomes the government claims. Instead, their continued use imposes the cost of ecological damage through the indiscriminate killing and entanglement of non-target species, including whales, as well as the economic risk to Queensland’s long-term tourism reputation, as the degradation of marine ecosystems inevitably undermines the very natural assets that make our beaches “the envy of the world.” The destruction of keystone species and the ongoing threat to marine biodiversity will, over time, erode Queensland’s global standing as an ecotourism destination.
“The Plan and increased investment into the Program are being delivered following the Government’s consideration of recommendations from the KPMG Shark Control Program Evaluation Report, as well as feedback from Queenslanders, scientific experts, Surf Life Saving Queensland, and Local Government. Any recommendation or measure that prioritises human safety first, above all other factors, has been adopted in line with the Crisafulli Government’s priority.”
The KPMG report that you refer to did not endorse the continued use of shark nets and drumlines as effective shark mitigation strategies. In fact, the report highlighted the ineffectiveness of these lethal measures in reducing shark interactions and recommended exploring alternative, non-lethal approaches.
The KPMG report emphasized the need to transition away from environmentally harmful practices, such as shark nets and drumlines, and proposed a trial removal of shark nets during the whale migration season (Recommendation 3.2). This recommendation aimed to mitigate the risk of whale entanglements, a concern that has become increasingly pertinent given the rising number of such incidents. Despite this, the Queensland Government has chosen to expand the use of shark nets and drumlines, directly contradicting the report's guidance. This decision raises questions about the government's commitment to evidence-based policy-making and its responsiveness to expert advice.
Renowned shark scientist Professor Colin Simpfendorfer resigned from Queensland’s shark control program advisory group in protest against the state's decision to expand its lethal shark culling strategy, highlighting the disconnect between scientific advice and government action.
The QLD DPI's selective adoption of the KPMG report's recommendations undermines the credibility of its claims. By expanding lethal measures and ignoring expert advice, the government risks contravening legal standards and compromising both marine biodiversity and public safety.
“The Plan sets a clear and strong direction for the future management of the Program, with human safety central to its operation. Until alternatives are proven effective at reducing the risk of shark attacks, the Program will continue to use mesh nets and traditional drumlines.”
Minister Tony Perrett has, as of recently, consistently asserted that “traditional methods, such as nets and drumlines, are scientifically proven to be the most effective tool in protecting swimmers.” Contrary to these claims, a substantial body of scientific research, legal findings, and independent inquiry demonstrates that lethal shark nets and drumlines are neither effective nor appropriate for swimmer safety:
KPMG Shark Control Program Evaluation Report (2024) - As mentioned above, the Queensland Government’s own Scientific Working Group, referenced in the KPMG evaluation, recommended the removal of shark nets during peak whale migration to reduce entanglement risks. The report does not endorse shark nets or drumlines as effective safety tools, directly contradicting Minister Perrett’s statement.
Huveneers (2024) Review - This comprehensive review of shark mitigation strategies highlights that there is no evidence to suggest shark nets prevent negative shark interactions. Non-lethal alternatives, including drones and Catch-Alert Drumlines, have been shown to reduce negative interactions significantly. In one study period, non-lethal measures recorded zero negative shark interactions, whereas lethal shark nets resulted in nineteen incidents throughout their use.
The Federal Court in the Humane Society International (Australia) Inc v Department of Agriculture & Fisheries (Qld) (2019) case concluded that - “The lethal component of the Shark Control Program does not reduce the risk of unprovoked shark interactions. The scientific evidence before us is overwhelming in this regard.” This legal decision led to the cessation of lethal shark control measures in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, underscoring both their ineffectiveness and detrimental impact on marine life.
2017 Federal Senate Inquiry - The inquiry found that lethal shark control methods do not improve public safety and recommended the adoption of non-lethal alternatives, including SMART drumlines, eco-barriers, and aerial surveillance (drones).
Together, this abundance of findings demonstrate that Minister Perrett’s and your assertion is factually incorrect and scientifically unsupported.
“Research and trials into other mitigation devices or strategies will continue. Approximately 60 per cent of the additional funding announced for the Program is for research, trials of new technology, education, and the SharkSmart drone program, which the Crisafulli Government has not only made permanent, but doubled it from 10 beaches to 20.”
While the expansion of drone surveillance is a positive step, several questions remain. According to the latest QLD SharkSmart Drone Trial report, since they are shown to be more effective than lethal nets and drumlines at reducing negative shark interactions, why is their deployment still limited to only 20 beaches? If human safety is genuinely the primary concern, why not extend drone coverage to all Queensland beaches with significant swimmer activity, particularly along the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast, outside areas like airports? Arguments regarding water turbidity as a limiting factor appear insufficient to justify leaving the majority of beaches without this proven technology.
With 60% (~$52.94 million) of the additional $88.228 million earmarked for research and non-lethal technologies, the remaining ~40% (~$35.29 million) is presumably allocated to “operations, expansion, servicing, and traditional shark-control equipment,” including nets and drumlines. While this is not explicitly labelled as the funding for expansion, the sum is substantial and suggests that a significant proportion of taxpayer money is being invested in outdated, lethal measures, even whilst the evidence indicates they are less effective than non-lethal alternatives.The government’s funding allocation raises a critical question: if public safety is genuinely the central priority, why is the majority of the coastline still reliant on lethal shark nets and drumlines, while non-lethal, demonstrably more effective measures like drones are limited to a fraction of beaches?
In essence, while the Queensland Government has provided a prompt response to the concerns raised, much of its content is misleading, selectively framed, and fails to address the real issue at hand.
It is quite disingenuous that the Department’s stakeholder engagement process has been reduced to formulaic responses sent to concerned members of the public. This practice demonstrates a profound lack of transparency and engagement, and highlights the level of incompetence and disregard for public accountability within Minister Perrett’s leadership.
Lethal shark culling methods, including nets and drumlines, do not prevent negative shark interactions or enhance swimmer safety, and they cause demonstrable harm to marine life and the broader ocean ecosystem. Continuing to assert they do is both dangerous, and shows your interest in human safety may be a good talking point, it is not genuine. Until the Department genuinely aligns its policies with this science and prioritises non-lethal, evidence-based solutions, both human safety and the health of our oceans will remain compromised.
