![Picture](/uploads/8/4/1/7/8417532/6316729.jpg?221)
The opposition and sections of the media labelled it as knee-jerk politics. Conservation groups and large sections of the general public welcomed the decision to allow more time for robust scientific investigation to be completed.
Rather than provide uninformed opinion, we'd rather let the experts speak.
Jessica Meeuwig, from the University of Western Australia published her informed opinion on Thursday on The Conversation website.
An opening excerpt from that article is below:
Super trawler triggers better conservation for Australian fishes
The scientific and public debate around the super trawler FV Margiris, now reflagged as the Abel Tasman, has been significant, lively and at times, heated. The debate has been worth it: the outcome – an amendment to the EPBC Act, passed by the Senate yesterday – is good news for Australian marine life.
The discussion over the super trawler has explored whether we have sufficient scientific knowledge to make a decision, what the environmental and social impacts may be, whether greater efficiency (as represented by the FV Margiris) is socially, economically and ecologically desirable, and how and to what degree public concern should be addressed.
When I wrote my original article for The Conversation on the super trawler, I highlighted the significant uncertainty around the small pelagic fishery. I was troubled that the nature of the targeted animals was not well recognised: they have lower resilience to fishing than other “small pelagics”, such as sardines fished in South Australia.
I was concerned that we lacked estimates of the size of the populations (biomass) for a number of the species and that, where available, the estimates were imprecise. Indeed, the original analysis generating biomass estimates for jack mackerel has now been reviewed. The variation is more clearly acknowledged as is the recognition that the “best” estimates were uncertain.
Finally, the dearth of good information on population structure throughout much of the fishable area meant we were very uncertain about risks and recovery from localised depletions. My professional position was that the scientific uncertainty was sufficiently high that the case for a super trawler in Australia’s southern oceans was weak.
The full article is available here.
The scientific opinion is that we need more information. Given the critical importance of our food supply and the health of our oceans, this 'hurry up and slow down' approach by the Federal Labor government has been wise, not hasty. Obviously the Coalition is unlikely to be as careful with our natural resources, given the chance.All we need to do is look at the pace at which the Newman Government is rushing to approve mining in the Cape, pushing on relentlessly with the dredging of Gladstone harbour despite legitimate concerns and unanswered questions, and the lack of due process which led to the recent clash with Tony Burke.
We need governments who will seek out, and listen to expert opinion. We want policy to be developed based on research, evidence, consultation, and proposed trials. What we don't need is the Coalition and LNP approach which offers us pre-fabricated policy, that is driven by populism and sloganeering, and is based on outdated (and often unproved or disproved) ideology.
What do you think?