Skip to main content

Aleesha Marks

Submission in response to discussion paper

Is the EPBC Act delivering what was intended in an efficient and effective manner?


How well is the EPBC Act being administered?


Is the EPBC Act sufficient to address future challenges? Why?


What are the priority areas for reform?

1. The current EPBC Act needs to remove sections such as Section 43B, that governments use to continue lethal shark control programs and support knee-jerk reactions which are entirely political in nature and unsupported by current science.2. The EPBC Act should abide by the official IUCN classifications such as ‘endangered my or ‘critically endangered’ and remove the EPBC category of ‘Conservation dependent’, which continues to allow fishing for endangered species such as the Mako or scalloped hammerhead.
3. The EPBC Act should ban the imports of shark fin products and derivatives where the country origin, fishing method and species are unknown or unclear. This is particularly important for migratory species, many of which move between multiple countries requiring everyone to work together to protect them.

Additional information

Supplementary navigation and content


Submission ID

In response to

Discussion paper
Aleesha Marks
Stakeholder Category


Threatened species
Public participation in decision making
Matters of National Environmental Significance
Indigenous Australians
Great Barrier Reef
Environmental Impact Assessments
Decision making
Cumulative impacts
Climate Change