Public policy should, at the very least, make sense – economically, politically, environmentally or morally to name just a few credible reasons.

However, Premier of Western Australia Colin Barnett’s decision to enact a catch-and-kill shark culling policy seems to contradict well-grounded judgement no matter which perspective it is viewed from.

Economically, the decision is far from sound. The state government released details on its tender website indicating that one lucky fisherman is being paid in excess of $600,000 for four months' work. The job entails deploying shark baiting drum lines, catching and then shooting any bull, tiger and great white sharks in excess of 3 metres, before dumping their bodies out to sea.

The price tag is exorbitant to say the least, and if past experience is any indication it is a policy that is likely to fail. Hawaii trialled a similar programme in the 1970s which saw 4,668 sharks culled, effecting no significant decrease in shark attacks.

If the aim is to reduce attacks, there are far more effective means than a cull.

In Brazil a shark monitoring programme has been in place since 2004, which involves relocating and tagging sharks who venture too close to popular beaches. This has seen a 97 per cent reduction in shark attacks. The Western Australia Department of Fisheries already actively seeks out great white sharks to tag as part of their Shark Monitoring Network, so why not include sharks captured too close to shore? Tag-and-release sounds a lot better than shoot-and-dump, for little-to-no extra labour.

It goes without saying that the culling policy crosses a number of moral and environmental boundaries. Just look to the international backlash from conservationists and the general public alike. Shark culling is, quite frankly, barbarous, especially when considering that great white sharks are an endangered species, or looking at statistics showing pet dog-related fatalities are more likely (cull the dogs!)

Political motivations look even more dubious. Much of Western Australia’s tourism industry is reliant on its beaches, and if Barnett intended to quell the rise in perceived danger associated with coastal waters, he could not have done a worse job. His greatest achievement to date is creating an international debacle over what ought to be a local issue.

The policy is short-sighted and poorly planned, with no thought to the consequences of the policy decision, and is aimed at calming the rising media hype instead of tackling a long-term problem.

A good leader would go back to the drawing board and devise a plan that a majority of the voting public would endorse.

It is not too late for Barnett to make such a political U-turn.

Mark Hennessy is a Mannkal Scholar interning at The New Zealand Initiative. He is completing a double Bachelor of Commerce and Economics at the University of Western Australia.