It takes a very special set of circumstances for the Western Australian premier, Colin Barnett, to clash with Ricky Gervais over a policy matter. A $20m policy to track, trap and shoot sharks that venture near popular WA beaches, to be precise.



It’s unlikely Barnett envisioned his plan to set 72 baited drumlines to ensnare large sharks and provide reassurance to an electorate spooked by a spate of attacks – seven in three years – would garner such international opprobrium, including from the likes of Gervais and Sir Richard Branson.

But a hefty backlash to the shark cull – 15 protest rallies were held from Perth to Sydney on Saturday – has not only engulfed Barnett but also threatens to cause a headache for the federal government.

About 6,000 people gathered on the deep sand and grassy steps of Cottesloe to protest – a crowd that shows the cull is succeeding in drawing people back to the beach, as one passing onlooker sardonically noted.

At first glance, the rally could be taken as a protest against nanny-statism. “My choice to swim, my risk,” read one sign, while another advised people who fear shark attacks to buy themselves a swimming pool.

An effigy of Barnett, pierced on a baited hook, fluttered in the breeze, while young children with sharks painted on their cheeks dozed in their parents’ arms. Two young men dressed in full shark costumes quietly baked in the WA summer heat, stirring only to applaud the most rousing speakers.

The rally repeatedly denounced the cull as unscientific and pointless. There are fears that further removal of the oceans’ top predator – up to 100 million sharks are killed each year – will disrupt the marine ecosystem, potentially decimating the region’s fisheries stock.

Cull opponents argue previous tracking and tagging work was working – 338 sharks have been tagged by the state – before the death of 35-year-old surfer Chris Boyd in November from a shark attack caused the state government to take a drastic new tack.

The cull is opposed by a motley selection of groups, Sea Shepherd, the Greens and the WA Conservation Council among them. Western Australians for Shark Conservation, which specialises in shark education work, is also against the plan, as is the self-styled Marine Response Unit, a group that takes direct protest action such as chaining themselves to fishery boats.

“Sharks simply aren’t interested in us as a food source. If they were, we’d lose people every day,” Ross Weir, head of Western Australians for Shark Conservation, told Guardian Australia.

“It won’t be an easy fight as we’re faced with an arrogant and stubborn premier who is determined to stick his head in the sand. But we won’t relent until a research and education approach is used instead of this cull.”

The cull has so far caught five small sharks, rather than any of the 3m-plus great white, tiger and bull sharks deemed as dangerous to swimmers and surfers. The baited hooks may even draw more sharks closer to the beach by dangling tasty morsels just 1km from the shoreline.

“They’ve basically set up a hanging bait curtain for sharks,” Weir said. “We’ve seen small tiger sharks come in, get caught, thrash and roll around and take up to 12 hours to drown.

“That thrashing around attracts larger sharks. Think about it. Why do you think they are taking out the drumlines for the Rottnest channel swim?”

Despite this, the shark strategy has provided a sense of security for some. A small counter rally at Cottesloe called for “people to be put before sharks” while some surfers have said there is a “silent majority” in favour of the cull. The front page of the weekend’s West Australian ran the relieved headline “At last” as the drumlines went in. Stories abound of tourists terrified of WA’s shark-infested waters.

The state government will hope the protests melt away into a reassuring period of bucolic, shark attack-free beachgoing until April, when the drumlines will be temporarily removed, allowing it to claim a tough but clearly necessary decision was made.

But the cull is feeding into a broader, increasingly bitter narrative that Australia’s natural treasures are under assault from Canberra, after its backing for Barnett’s shark strategy. At the Cottesloe rally a laundry list of separate grievances – from the defunding of Environmental Defenders offices to the expansion of coal seam gas – were enthusiastically jeered by the crowd.

Some conservation groups already see little point in dialogue and diplomatic entreaties such as petitions as a way to engage with the federal government, less than six months into its term.

Money tins rattled at the rally will fund a legal challenge to the cull, with the courts now being used as a primary tool – rather than a last resort – by environmental groups aghast at decisions that threaten sharks and whales in WA, nature reserves in Queensland and the Tasmanian devil in its home state.

Sporadic bursts of outrage at various environmental decisions have yet to coalesce to become an electoral liability for the Coalition. But the shark cull has again exposed the tension faced by the environment minister, Greg Hunt, in balancing the protection of the natural world with political expediency.

Hunt has grappled with some uncomfortable non sequiturs in his time as environment minister. He has extolled the benefits of carbon storage in trees and soils, in lieu of a price on carbon emissions, while also requesting that Unesco remove 74,000 hectares of Tasmanian forest – containing some of the deepest carbon sinks in the world – from the world heritage list.

When in opposition, Hunt regularly promised to send a boat to the Southern Ocean to face Japanese whalers, but then backed down in government when it became clear that the earmarked vessel would instead be used to intercept asylum seeker boats near Christmas Island.

He has also voiced his support for the science of climate change and the renewable energy target while some of his senior colleagues, most notably Tony Abbott, have questioned both. The New South Wales bushfires in October forced Hunt to tread an awkward tightrope on whether climate change was a factor, given the starkly differing views expressed by, on one hand, the prime minister and, on the other, Hunt’s own department.

The WA shark cull has caused him to perform further unhappy contortions. His letter to Barnett allowing the exemption of great white sharks from federal protection hinted at what may be his true feelings towards the strategy, stating: “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.”

Ultimately, while he knocked back Barnett’s desire to hunt down sharks in the open water, he gave the go-ahead to the drumlines, using exemption powers originally envisioned for use in times of national crisis.

In an unfortunate juxtaposition, Hunt used an ABC radio interview on Monday to defend the shooting of sharks in WA before criticising Japan for its so-called scientific whaling, saying “I personally despise, reject [and] condemn” it. Japanese officials may be forgiven for joining the likes of Branson and Gervais in thinking Australia has a rather muddled logic when it comes to protecting the ocean’s most awe-inspiring creatures.