NSW’s Shark Cull Debate, Explained

Researched and written by June Ramli

Perth, Aug 18: Sydney, one of Australia’s most recognisable cities has seen a bout of fatal shark attacks on its shores. What is even more concerning is that the attacks have been happening frequently in the last two years.
The first most notable known shark attack involved an actress named Marcia Hathaway in 1963, and then in 2022, a British expat by the name of Simon Nellist was killed by a great white shark at Little Bay. But in the last two years, shark attacks in Sydney have intensified with at least two other fatalities reported at popular beaches: Mercury Psillakis, 57, at Long Reef Beach, and Nico Antic, 12, at Shark Beach in Nielsen Park, Vaucluse.
Before Hathaway died on 28 January 1963 at Sugarloaf Bay, Middle Harbour in Sydney from a shark attack, there had been numerous reports of sharks hurting humans, but since her death almost 66 years ago there has been no fatal attacks reported in Sydney again until Nellist got attacked and killed at Little Bay in Sydney on February 2022.
So what changed and what caused a massive rise in fatal shark attacks on Sydney’s pristine beaches in recent years?
Heavy rainfall could be one factor. Warmer temperatures and post-rain runoff flush baitfish from rivers and creeks into coastal areas creating murky water that sharks use to hunt, which draws them closer to popular swimming and surfing spots.
These fatalities have brought about a large debate, especially in recent months when a mother was mauled by a shark at Coogee Beach. Thirty-four-year-old Leah Stewart survived the attack. Although she suffered severe, life-threatening injuries that required doctors to amputate her left arm, fortunately she was brought out of a medically induced coma late June 2026. She has since been stabilised, reunited with her young daughter, and is recovering in hospital.
Since her attack, laws in NSW were changed to make it more feasible for drones to operate around popular beaches in Sydney in order to help detect sharks close to the shore. This had not been given the go ahead in the past because of the city beaches’ close proximity to the airport. But today, with the newly built Western Sydney airport slated to open in October this year, authorities from the NSW state government relaxed some hardline measures in order to protect swimmers.
Former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, an avid surfer himself, and other figures have publicly called for shark culling, but these calls have faced resistance from other political figures who said that great white sharks are a protected species and culling them would be detrimental to the environment.
Emeritus Professor Rob Harcourt, who leads the marine predator research group at Macquarie University, said a cull of sharks would make no difference to the risk of shark attacks at beaches. He told The Guardian that “this was a rare incident and it’s tragic. But calls for a cull are not based on any evidence that would change the risk. It’s a knee jerk reaction.”
With iconic beaches like Bondi and Coogee in NSW, it is no wonder that residents and tourists alike are drawn to their beach every day. From morning walks, to swims and even a cheeky surf, if the waves are just right, many Australians find it hard to keep off the beautiful beaches in Sydney, particularly the city beaches within the entire stretch from Bondi to Coogee. Unfortunately, within the Pacific Ocean where these wonderful beaches lay, swimmers and water enthusiasts alike have to share their oceans with these apex predators — the sharks.
As such, this masthead will explore whether there is enough legislation to ensure that shark culling does not create another ecosystem problem for the biggest state in Australia, and it will look at how humans can enjoy the ocean while swimming and doing their favourite sporting activities.

How It All Began: Context and Theory

Sharks are the structural engineers of the ocean. Rather than just being residents of the sea, they perform critical biological and environmental functions that keep marine ecosystems alive and stable. Though sharks are normally harmless when they are met by humans during underwater dives, their behaviour changes to predatory in shallow waters near beaches in NSW, driven primarily by turbulent surf, low-visibility conditions, and high concentrations of migrating baitfish.
Australia has more severe shark attacks than almost anywhere else because of a mix of three things, it is home to the world’s three most dangerous shark species, it has a massive surfing culture that puts people where sharks hunt, and heavy rains make beach water murky and full of fish that sharks eat.
Compared to other states in Australia, NSW has the highest number of shark attacks historically, according to the Australian Shark Incident Database (ASID), with 346 incidents in the last 235 years. These stats have been recorded by the Taronga Conservation Society Australia since 1984, though the database includes historical records dating back to 1791.
In terms of global ranking, Australia is not first for shark attacks as that belongs to Florida in the US however in terms of fatalities, Australia ranks number one.
In NSW, three shark species often attack humans: white sharks, bull sharks, and tiger sharks. White sharks are protected under NSW and Commonwealth legislation.

What has been done so far

Due to the rampant attacks, traditional shark control such as mesh nets began in Sydney in 1937 at 18 beaches, later expanding to 51 beaches across NSW.
SMART Drumlines were trialled 2016–2018 across six NSW locations such as Ballina, Evans Head, Coffs Harbour, Forster, Kiama, Ulladulla as a less harmful alternative.
The trial caught 500 animals total, with only four deaths, showing non-lethal catch-and-release methods can work with low mortality. Critically endangered grey nurse sharks were caught as bycatch but always released alive due to their protected status. Bycatch means marine animals that get accidentally caught in fishing gear or nets meant for a different target species.
Despite occasional human-shark fatalities, a survey of 1,769 NSW ocean users found overwhelming preference for non-invasive and education-based approaches over lethal ones, scoring for education-based approaches was at 6.03–6.37 out of 7, versus population reduction or culling at 1.54–1.98.
Eighty eight per cent of respondents strongly disagreed with indiscriminate killing of sharks. The survey found that community members dislike “knee-jerk” policy-making in response to single incidents.
At the Sydney level specifically, a survey of 200 beach users at Bondi and Cronulla found 60 per cent supported shark nets, but 80 per cent opposed general culling. Only 15–38 per cent supported killing a specific shark after an attack, while older respondents (51 and above) were most supportive of lethal strategies such as culling. Many beachgoers don’t fully understand how shark nets actually work as the nets are only 6m deep, are set in 10-15m of water, and are rotated between beaches every few days. This suggests that public support for nets is often based on misconception rather than accurate knowledge of how they function.
An analysis of 11,279 social media comments on NSW shark policy on February 2017 found a strong preference for non-lethal measures and new technology such as drones over nets and culling, at a ratio of roughly 4:1 to 8:1.
Culling was consistently opposed by around 4:1 in sentiment analysis, gaining only slightly more support after repeated incidents, and only when targeted at the specific shark responsible for an attack. This distrust stemmed largely from perceived “knee-jerk” policy shifts and poor communication from authorities.
NSW’s $16m Shark Management Strategy, announced on October 23, 2015, included drones, sonar, a technology that uses sound waves to detect objects underwater, VR4G listening stations, an underwater devices that listens for sharks that have been tagged with acoustic transmitters and a SharkSmart app, signalling a shift toward non-lethal, tech-based approaches.
Under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (NSW) Schedule 6, processes formally recognised by NSW law as threats to fish, marine vegetation, and aquatic ecosystems are listed, including the current shark meshing program in NSW waters as a threatening process.
Clause 13 of Schedule 1AA of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (NSW) applies to shark meshing that is subject to joint management agreements and is not a “designated fishing activity.” Where it applies, this clause exempts shark meshing from environmental planning and assessment requirements as it cannot be declared a “state significant infrastructure,” and no environmental planning instrument can prohibit or regulate it. In other words, authorities running the shark meshing program do not need to seek approval from anyone and can act as they see fit.
In 2019, Humane Society International (Australia) challenged the Queensland Shark Control Program before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), arguing that shark nets and drumlines did not work. The AAT agreed, finding no scientific evidence that the measures improved swimmer safety, and ordered non-lethal, tag-and-release conditions for the drumlines with real-time monitoring. The Queensland Government appealed this decision, but the Federal Court upheld the AAT’s original ruling.
This raises a pointed question for NSW’s own framework such as schedule 1AA clause 13 of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (NSW) which exempts shark meshing from the same kind of environmental planning and assessment scrutiny that allowed the Queensland program to be successfully challenged. It is possible this exemption reflects a deliberate response to the Queensland outcome as NSW may have learned from that experience and built in protection against its shark meshing program facing the same fate.

Balancing ecology and community protection

Following the June 2026 attack on Leah Stewart, Surf Life Saving NSW’s expanded dawn-to-dusk drone program recorded 73 shark sightings across greater Sydney in its first two days, with 67 sightings concentrated at northern beaches. Drones are programmed to report only bull, tiger and white sharks, showing the technology is targeted rather than indiscriminate.
Dee Why surf school owner Dan O’Connell described repeated evacuations disrupting lessons, prompting him to diversify into skateboarding lessons to offset the loss in his earnings. This shows non-lethal measures still carry real community and economic costs, even without culling.
Northern Beaches Mayor Sue Heins argued that increased surveillance naturally produces increased sightings, meaning higher reported shark numbers don’t necessarily mean higher actual risk, just better detection.
Bond University academic Daryl McPhee noted it’s “almost certain sharks have always been present” in these waters, and that white sharks may take up long-term residence where prey is abundant. This suggests that sharks are not a new or growing threat, but simply better observed than before. McPhee explains that the recent cluster of attacks reflects “a well-understood set of environmental conditions that occur periodically and predictably,” rather than any real change in shark behaviour or numbers.

Recommendations

To mitigate the situation further, NSW should invest in more drones and greater swimmer vigilance and education for both locals and tourists.
The government should also stop the culling talk once and for all, and look to the Tasmanian tiger as a cautionary example, whereby senseless culling had caused the entire species to go extinct. Instead, NSW could look to its own Commercial Kangaroo Management Program, which has operated successfully for 45 years, as a model for how culling can be regulated transparently.
The NSW’s kangaroo management system allows individuals to commercially harvest the animal in NSW under the Commercial Kangaroo Management Program, which sets sustainable harvest quotas and requires compliance with the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to ensure the process remains ecologically sustainable and humane. NSW requires anyone culling kangaroos to hold a licence, keeping the process controlled rather than left to individual discretion. Licensees must then submit activity reports back to the Kangaroo Management Program Team, meaning the culling is monitored and accountable, not carried out simply. This same licensed and transparent model could be extended to the shark management in NSW, rather than relying on exemption clauses such as Fisheries Management Act 1994 (NSW) schedule 1AA clause 13, which shield shark meshing from similar scrutiny.
Over the past 90 years, the Australian Marine Conservation Society found that nets and drumlines have killed 15,135 other marine animals in NSW, another key reason why the current approach needs reform.
NSW should also have more surf pools around the state so that the sport of surfing can continue, and expand ocean pools to make it more affordable for people to enjoy the sea without entering the actual ocean.

Conclusion

In summary, this article has shown that NSW’s regulatory framework only partly balances ecological and community protection. While non-lethal measures such as drones and SMART Drumlines represent real progress, the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (NSW) schedule 1AA clause 13 exemption allows shark meshing to avoid the kind of scrutiny applied to other environmental decisions, meaning it can be carried out without any approval needed from the authorities.
At the same time, the evidence and community sentiment examined in this article strongly favours non-lethal, evidence-based approaches over culling.
Today’s technology can be used to see shark movement and warn swimmers and surfers beforehand, reducing fatalities, though this only works on patrolled beaches. As such the NSW’s government should trial these methods at select beaches before rolling them out further, given how many visitors and swimmers Sydney’s beaches attract daily, and should set aside significant funding to expand unmanned, AI-powered drone surveillance across the state’s coastline.