"First the ill-fated live cattle trade ban by hapless Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig, and now Sustainability Minister Tony Burke knowingly introduces a piece of legislation to ban a trawler that, under existing law, cannot take more than a sustainable catch. The Abel Tasman could trawl the Southern Ocean for a thousand years and not cause harm to the fish stock. Existing law prevents it from so doing. If it or other vessels have depleted stocks elsewhere, they have done so not because of the size and efficiency of the trawler, but because those places are poorly governed. Australia is not West Africa but, by goodness, it is starting to look like it.
Burke wants to give himself more power. While introducing the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012 in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, he said that as "the act does not provide sufficient powers to suspend a fishing activity where there is uncertainty as to the potential environmental, social and economic impacts of the activity, a precautionary approach is the only decent option". Precautionary principle my backside. The precautionary principle advises that a proponent should proceed with caution before undertaking an action where there is risk of possible harmful outcomes. The principle does not assist in managing risk. The way to manage risk in fisheries is to have a bloke from the government sitting on the Abel Tasman. This is what existing powers allow. Invoking a broad principle is nonsense. If there is an actual risk of harm, then the principle tells us to take care: it is a cliche. If, on the other hand, threat of harm simply means the public perception of hazard, then the precautionary principle tells us to slow or stop benefits, on the basis of no evidence.
Following Ken Cussen, who has warned that the precautionary principle is used to override cost-benefit analysis, the minister should invoke an alternative definition: "When a lack of activity raises a threat of harm to wealth creation, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established." The usual version of the precautionary principle is biased in a green direction. The minister has fallen into the trap of using a biased principle. The opposition should not fall into the same trap. Burke wants to reinforce this bias by giving himself power to suspend fishing on the basis of any perceived risk. Every time that a harebrained green group wants to play havoc with a pet issue, it needs only to pull a stunt and crank up cyberspace. Out the door goes certainty in fishing licences granted on the basis of caution and sustainability.
Burke's retreat is no way to run a country, no way to protect a resource. Remember, a resource that is locked up is not a resource. A resource has to be exploited (or appreciated): fishing is no different. The issue is defining sustainability. To retreat behind an extended definition is cowardly.
The advice from the Australian Fisheries Management Authority is crystal clear: No more than 7 per cent of the fish stock may be taken from this fishery. There is no evidence that larger boats pose a higher risk to the fish stock or the marine ecosystem. The net on the Abel Tasman is similar in size to nets in the Australian fishing fleet; the vessel is so much larger than other fishing boats only because it has factory and freezer storage on board. Midwater trawling is one of the most selective types of fishing, with a very low bycatch.
The Abel Tasman would be fitted with a GPS tracking system, carry an AFMA observer and use a seal excluder device to prevent capture of seals and dolphins; and strict catch limits could be set. There is a bill in the house - the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No 1) - aimed at bolstering e-monitoring, which involves the electronic recording of fishing for data collection and compliance through the use of specialised equipment installed on boats. There has been trial monitoring since 2004, including for dolphin protection.
The minister should have shown sufficient courage to tell the electorate that this is the case. This is how to manage risk. Burke claims that a new section of the act would allow "scientific work to resolve unanswered questions about fishing activity". What unanswered questions? Is this the sort of scientific work that the Japanese whaling fleet undertakes? Burke says, "This creates a situation where we are not flying blind." But minister, you are not flying blind - you are The Wizard of Oz's Tin Man, you lack heart, and you are the Lion, you are timid, but you are not blind. AFMA is an independent government regulator.
Do you not trust the regulator, minister?"
The full story courtesy of Gary.Johns@acu.edu.au
