Cambridge council will consider a shark barrier at City Beach after a 31-tonne whale carcass washed up on its coastline, leaving the town and its ratepayers with a costly bill.
Deputy mayor Ben Mayes has put forward a motion requesting the chief executive conduct a desktop review into the feasibility of installing a shark barrier at City Beach and report back to council.
The motion, to be considered at next week’s council meeting, comes as the town considers how to manage the $180,000 bill for removing the whale carcass, which was about three times more expensive than originally anticipated.
Cr Mayes said City Beach was one of the town’s most popular recreational assets and used year-round by swimmers, surfers, families and visitors.
“Ensuring people can enjoy our coastline as safely as reasonably practicable should remain an important consideration for the town,” he said in his motion.
The unexpected arrival of the carcass to South City Beach in September prompted beach closures and drew sharks extremely close to the shore.
Nine days earlier, Perth father Greg O’Neill was killed after being attacked by a great white shark while swimming just up the coast at Sorrento Beach.
Cr Mayes said the proposed review would consider potential barrier locations, available technologies, environmental conditions, costs, approval requirements and impact on beach users. It will also look into potential external funding opportunities.
If Cr Mayes’ motion passes, it does not commit the town to install a shark barrier.
Mr Mayes also put forward a motion demanding the State take primary responsibility for co-ordinating and funding whale carcass responses across WA, arguing local ratepayers should not be forced to pay for an incident beyond their control.
He has called on the State Government to establish a funded response mechanism that would fully reimburse local governments or other agencies for their response costs, review the existing whale carcass management policy and reimburse Cambridge for the South City Beach operation.
At the town’s meeting on Tuesday night, councillor Michael Le Page questioned whether funds would be taken from the town’s reserves or if they would have to “rearrange their budget to fit it in” to pay for the clean-up.
“I think given it’s quite a significant amount,” he said. “I’d rather not see infrastructure works not being done.”
The town will conduct a mid-year financial review in February, with CEO Lisa Clack stating it would not need to amend the budget “at this time”.
“It would have been a more complicated process and something that I anticipated that council would want to have discussions on,” she said. “Drawing down from reserves is one option, also cancelling or changing capital projects may be an option or changing our operating service levels.
“There are a number of policy levers that the town could pull to meet this and in addition, the deputy mayor’s notice of motion also seeks to use a different policy lever to address this, so at this time our focus was on noting the procurement and noting that there would need to be a variation of some sort and we will need to resolve that within the coming months.”
At this week’s meeting, Cr Mayes rejected an “extraordinary comment” by the Premier that coastal councils are privileged and therefore have a responsibility to care for their coastlines.
“Coastal local governments fund coastal hazard planning, beach maintenance, surf lifesaving patrols,” Cr Mayes said.
“For the Town of Cambridge, I understand, to aid surf life saving patrols costs more than half a million dollars a year.
“We also invest in beach facilities used by people from across the State.
“Whale carcass management should be State led and State funded, it’s as simple as that.”
Mayor Gary Mack said the costs to run the town’s beaches are “staggering”.
“It’s maintaining the grasses, the carpark, it’s a State facility,” he said.
“It’s not a City Beach facility, it’s for the metropolitan area. Even the State know overseas tourists come there, which benefits the State as a whole.”
The removal triggered a week-long operation that involved specialist contractors, heavy machinery, beach closures and the mobilisation of 76 Town of Cambridge employees.
The town’s response costs are forecast to reach to about $180,000 excluding GST, covering crane and excavator operations, transport and disposal, security, traffic management, beach remediation, water-quality testing and staff costs.
At a press conference on September 30, Mr Mack described the effort as a “big operation” and estimated it would cost $60,00 to $100,000.
“That’s just an estimate at this time and much depends, obviously, on the cost of having the workers down here, the cost of the contractors,” he said.
Cr Mayes said the town had asked that the carcass be towed offshore but that solution was not supported by State agencies, leaving the council to organise a land-based removal.
“Town of Cambridge ratepayers should not inherit the operational and financial burden for this incident simply because winds and currents bring a carcass to our beach,” he said in the reasons accompanying his motion.
“It is unreasonable to expect local ratepayers to foot the bill for this significant unbudgeted expenditure.”
Under the State’s current policy, responsibly disposing of a whale carcass generally rests with the relevant land manager, which means councils can be left carrying both the financial and operational burdens when a carcass washes upon a local government-managed beach.
The town’s administration backed the motion, saying the incident exposed the need for a consistent Statewide framework with clear responsibilities, specialist resources and funding arrangements.
According to the town, the operation required co-ordination with six State government agencies, including the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, WA Police, the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, Main Roads, and the Department of Health.
The town also said it had approached State agencies about financial assistance but was advised requests should be processed through the Treasurer’s office.
On September 30, Deputy Premier and Treasurer Rita Saffioti acknowledged the cost of the operation was significant and unusual and that the State Government was willing to engage with the town to help pay for it.
Administration said no commitment to provide the funding had been made at the time of the agenda preparation.
People took to social media sharing their outrage on the projected cost and criticised how the whale carcass removal was done.
“You know how much it would’ve cost to tow it back out to see and anchor it? Probably a quarter of that,” one commentator said.
“Why couldn’t fisheries just tow it out, would have meant we could have possibly tagged more sharks too,” another added.
“Should of just towed right out to sea in the first place, taking the sharks right out with it, rather than the juice seeping out of the sand for weeks,” another added.
Other commentators also believed it should be a State Government expense, saying that the whale could have landed anywhere and that everyone gets the benefit from the clean-up.
“I’m surprised issues such as whale carcasses are not a matter for the Department of Fisheries and therefore a State responsibility,” another commentator added.
Council is expected to make decisions on the motions at its October 27 meeting.