fishing party export policy

[jockey]

The follwing is from the draft fishing party policy:

http://www.thefishingparty.info/wst_page6.html

Fisheries exports:

i.) While recognising the economic benefits of strong export industries to our nation it is the policy of The Fishing Party that all commercial fisheries commit a minimum of 60% of the catch of all fisheries to the domestic market. The long stated position of the commercial fishing industry that they are in the business of providing fresh seafood for the general public is to be adhered to.





This is a bad policy. It doesn't make economic sense. It will cost the community a lot more than any benefit recieved. It will get laughed of the negotiating table, if it ever gets there. It has little if anything to do with recreational fishing or fisheries management. I don't think there is a precedent for this in Australia - the only one I can think of is China's ban on exporting cultural relics. Please discuss it with someone who has studied tertiary level economics. An alternative is an export duty, but that isn't much better. Best to delete it before anyone from 'the opposition' sees it.

[bugman]

Now comes the hard part for Kevin and the gang .. trying to make ideals into policy

[kc]

You are welcome to your opinion Jockey but lets look at the reasons behind this DRAFT policy (bearing in mind it is posted so we can get feedback and input from our membership and see what they want)


Fisheries around the world are in decline because of (in most incidences..overfishing on a commercial scale). Quiet simpley the demand for seafood outweighs the environments ability to produce enough to meet demand. Countries which have a high seafood demand and have pushed their own fisheries to the point of collapse then target fisheries in other parts of the world. They either buy fishing rights or establish export markets and by virtue of the almighty dollar encourage overfishing at a commercial level in THAT fishery.

So Australia, quiet rightly protects its own and does not allow wholesale access to overseas commercial fleets. It does allow however "our"" commercial fleet to get rich on exports and as such, indirectly encourages commercial overfishing.
The export market then forces up prices to a point the domestic market (the fish buying Australian public) just can no longer afford to pay the prices and the bulk of "our" high quality product is exported while the domestic market is flooded with imports (such as Nile Perch and fish farmed indonesian barramundi).

Before the live trout trade the commercial catch was steady for many years at around 1500 tones per year which in turn supplied the domestic market. Coral trout fillets were available to domestic consumers at about $15 per kg. The live trout trade and the high prices (up to $70/kg whole live weight ex Australia) have both encouraged more commercial fishers into the market, increasing the commercial catch to in excess of 2500 tonnes per year and driven coral trout prices to over $30 per kg for fillets (if you can buy them at all)

The same has happened with tuna, abalone, crayfish etc etc etc. Export demand and export prices encourage overfishing, plain and simple and the domestic market can no longer afford to buy "our" seafood and instead has to endure poor quality imports. Is that fair??

The pro lobby, quiet cleverly, have had a slogan aimed at the fish buying public which is "Fresh fish for everyone", implying that any restrictions on commercial fishing will ultimately impact on their ability to buy a feed of fish at Woolies or the local fish shop. What is actually happening is the majority of our quality seafood is exported and Australian consumers are eating inferior quality import. Again it might be economically rational, it might suit the free trade lobby who have ruined some many Australian industries and it no doubt meets the needs of those who support globalism and the national competition policy but does that make it right and is it fair??

Does it make economic sense? While no doubt the cutting back of exports in in breech of variuos trade agreements and will have a slight impact on balance of trade issues what are the pros and cons.


Pros
1. Domestic consumers would again be able to afford Australian seafood with market demand setting prices at no doubt a substantiannly reduced level to that currently achieved on the export markets.
2. If 60% of all commercial catch had to, by law, be directed to the domestic market then as this market reached its full use potential a commercial fishery would then only be able to take an additional 40% for export....reducing substantially the overall take.
3. If international demand is so great that many of the world fisheries are on the brink of collapse why not learn from their mistakes rather than just be the next fishery targeted by these markets as silly enough to try to meet an insatiable demand, all for the sake of making a few fishing compaies rich.

On the cons side

1. This will create economic hardship for a number of people employed in the industry..This needs to be addressed as part of a phase in package and it will cost taxpayers money.
2.This will have a negative impact on balance of payments but should be considered against the positive impacts or potentially positive impacts of fishing related tourism. It is already well documented that the dollar value of a fish to the recreational fisher, be they local or visitor, is 8 times greater than its value as a lump of dead fish. You need only look at the Northern Territory experience to see the value of a windback in commercial pressure has had on the tourism (much of it international) to the ecomomy of that state.

So Jockey, while you are welcome to throw handgrenades at this and any other policy we have proposed have a think about it.
I find it hard to understand how, on one hand you try always to argue for less fishing/windback of effort/more protection and on the other hand take the totally globalist view on exports which seems to be opposed by the vast majority of the green movement in general. None the less, while as I mentioned this is a DRAFT policy idea and is up so MEMBERSHIP can determine which way we go with this. It may be controversial but it is not without considered auguments as to why and personally, I would welcome someone from "the opposition" seeing it and wishing to debate the issue in a public forum. I wonder if the average non fishing but fish eating person actually realises what they usually eat, where it comes from and what it is fed on in the overseas fish farms??

Some of our policies may not agree with your own global views but I still don't understand your persona. Globalist/free trader and environmentalist seems to be at opposite ends of the spectrum!

Just where do you sit on the globilist/green spectrum?

I will be interested in the opinions of other ausfish participants and potential voters. If I can draw any comfort it is at least that you seem constantly at odds with the majority views of those whose votes we seek and whose views we seek to represent, so it just may be, as you so strenously oppose it, this policy may well be a real winner!

Regards

Kevin Collins
Chairman
The Fishing Party (Qld)

[bugman]

Kevin,

I hope I'm not coming across as someone who doesn't support the politcal stance of recreational fishermen because I surely do. I'm just one of those people that can't help but look at all sides of the issue and then apply it to the reality in which it was risen.

To that end I think the exact point that Jockey has raised is an example of where you'll either need to bend or be broken by the system in which you will have to work to be successful.

It's a great ideal to make Australian catch available to the Australian market but legislating to make that happen is nigh on impossible in the workings of our political and economical system.

I hate drawing analogies at the best of time because it provokes different connotations in different people. AND In particular I'm going to hate using the following analogy even more because of the baggage it carries BUT...

Pauline Hanson is the best example of popular politics not working inside the system we will probably see this or next century.

She held views that struck a common thread with the public and (some) even made common sense to all those that viewed them in isolation and as a result she recieved a lot of voter support. HOWEVER

When those ideas were attempted to be applied to the extremely complex web of legislation and rules that are in place which govern our society - it just didn't work.

In the end - she went away and the system hasn't changed.

Kevin - your ideals on this issue have all the hallmarks of being populist (not that that's a bad thing). They will strike a common theme and make common sense to all those laymans that hear it - BUT - those that have an understanding of how the system works (politicians, importers, exporters, lobbiests, businessmen, judges etc) will quickly dismiss it.

I don't have answers (I'm not good at answers - better at questions) but to make the difference you and I require - you need to play by the rules given to you by the referee.

I wish you well with this but this post is only the first 0.01 percent of the scrutiny that your going to have to overcome to be successful.

Regards

Brett

[jockey]

First of all we need to split this up into two separate issues. The first issue is overfishing. This issue is dealt with by controlling the 'take.' The second issue is fairness/global trade. You propose to deal with this by restricting exports. Restricting exports is not a good way to control the take. For example, if people suddenly became willing to pay 30% more for coral trout (as a result of an advertising campaign by the pro sector, or the discovery of mystical properties of the flesh) then the economically viable catch would probably go up by a lot more than 30%.

So lets assume that a TAC is the bast way to manage the take and look at export restrictions as a way to make the whole system fairer. Suppose for example that you had a quantity of consumable goods that you would normally pay no more than $15/kg for. Suppose that you could sell these goods to an exporter for $30. If the transaction costs were negligible and you were rational, you would sell all of the goods to the exporter. The same argument applies to the Australian community. The coral trout fishery is a community owned resource. The community has the choice of keeping them for ourselves or selling them to foreigners. The community chooses to sell them to foreigners. That is why I know of no precedents for what you propose. It's because it is irrational.

You may see it as the pros owning the resource which you believe you have a right to and selling it to someone else without giving you your rightful share, but that is not the case. The pros harvest the community owned resource because the government (ie the people) permit them to. They pay for the license. They pay tax on their income. The tax is spent on roads, schools, hospitals etc. They buy things from you. Most of the value of the fishery ends up being diverted to the community.

The only reason you want to restrict the exports is because you don't see yourself as benefitting from the sale. But you do benefit.

Lets say for the sake of argumenbt that an average aussie wants to eat 1kg of coral trout each year if it costs him $15. If it costs him $30 he would by none. If exports are restricted and the price drops to $15 he buys his 1kg and pays $15. But that is not all he pays. In addition to the money he hands over he also 'pays' for the export restrictions in some other way. Maybe he pays more tax or gets less services or doesn't sell as much. On average this extra cost would be more than $15. So he has gone from buying no coral trout at $30 per kg to buying 1kg and paying $40. It simply isn't rational. Those of you who would buy more than the average aussie would be getting a good deal, but you would be making the rest of the community pay for it.

That's the best I can explain it. Please get someone who is more familiar with economics to explain it better if you don't follow my argument.

There is nothing special about coral trout. There are plenty of other goods that are community resources that are harvested and sent overseas. None of them have export restrictions, because it doesn't make sense. Why should coral trout be any different?

I think I am pro globablisation. I don't mind buying from south east asia at the expens of local producers because I am happy for my money to go to some dirt poor farmer or factory worker from another country. An australian that is a stranger to me is no better to me than a foreigner who is a stranger to me.

I don't know if it would breach any trade agreements. Other countries would be happy with the idea because it would be good for them financially (at our expense).

I believe that a lot of the problems associated with globalisation would be fixed if the price people paid for petrol (oil etc) reflected not only the cost of getting it out of the ground but also the cost to the community of the pollution caused by burning it and the price people would pay if future generations were allowed to bargain for their fair share of the non-renewable resource. That is basically a green tax. That would be fair and would make economic sense. Transport would cost more and people would buy more local goods because they are cheaper (so yes maybe I should be buying local because I am making everybody else pay via increased pollution for me to get cheap goods from SE Asia). And it would reduce pollution. All this just by applying a bit of economic rationalism. The only thing stopping this is that people don't know what clean air is worth and because the big oil companies are politically powerful. Not only because they buy power but also because change costs jobs and no politician will risk large job losses from a sector of the community that will band together and protest in exchange for more jobs distributed evenly elsewhere and slightly better living conditions for everyone on earth (most of whom don't even vote in their election).


I am not at odds with the majority views here. For example, I support an RFL for QLD. That is with the majority (but maybe not the most vocal people here). On most other issues I don't feel the need to step up and say what a great idea I agree with that and then repeat what everyone else has said. That sort of stuff makes me cringe and wastes everybodies time.

This policy is not a winner kc. It is a loser. History will prove me right. Get yourself some better advice on it. Plus what bugman just said about populist vs realistic (and long term viable) policies. Don't risk all your other good policies being dismissed because you have one bad egg in there. I suggest you focus on fisheries management and leave the downstream stuff to the party in power at the time.

[raefpud]

Hahahaa, ok, that policy is just plain riduculous, sorry - i do support the idea of a fishing party, and even though i must admit i havent had time to fully read your policy, I have read just about every other policy that relates to Marine Resource Management as that is my field of research. I think your export policy is unrealistic, and without me writing a 5000 word explanation as to why, i am going to suggest that you do a bit more research and perhaps get some expert advice in fisheries economics and marine resource management. Your policy statement has contradicted itself from the first paragraph - you acknowledge but you dont seem to recognise - you mention strong export industry, and yes, thats exactly what it is - a very strong, valuable and believe it or not - possibly viable and sustainable industry - i would definately say thats its way to strong to even consider trying to take it on, especially for a party thats isnt yet fully established. I like the idea of keeping the catch for domestic market as this would be wonderful for the consumer, but I'm afraid that money talks and bullshit walks in any primary industry. I can put you in contact with one of the worlds foremost authorities on this subject if you wish, his advice maybe of help to you and he is a very busy, but very aproachable man. If you want non bias and credible facts or figures please just ask as i would be happy to help.
I understand its difficult not to be bias when trying to expess your opinion on an issue, however i do believe it is necessary to have some realistic expectations on policy issues.

West Australian rock lobster fishery is the most valuable fishery in Australia in regards to export, and its fully sustainable and probably the best managed fishery in the world, so there is hope for our fisheries, even our finfish, which are in fact the least of which we export.

I'm happy to help with any info u need, pls just ask.

[Gazza]

Yeah ,you non-believers are right #::)...it should be limited to 50% export. #:o

or any overseas mug with $3~5Billion (just for prawns ,just for o-n-e country) ,won't give a shit ,about our bycatch or Fishery....

Non-believers #:D ;D ;D ;D ...what % is scientifically or wank-wank 'precautionary principle' wank-wank o.k. by you ???

Sheeesh ,woodworms and silverfish #::)

[PinHead]

"4. Represent the WHOLE fishing community at Government level with any Policymaking or Policy changes."

How can you represent the WHOLE fishing community yet you want to restrict the dollars for some in that community by strangling the export trade?

"marine desserts"..what is that? ice cream with oysters perhaps.
Maybe a proof reader would come in handy.

[Gazza]

Would the whole COMMUNITY like more oz-caught fish available , at better(cheaper than today) prices :o

IF restrictions were applied. #??? via TEA's ... #;)
(Total Exports Allowed #??? )

;) ;) :D :D........ ;D ;D

[kc]

Some intereting ponts of view, which I guess is the purpose of drafts. To return serve on a few issues. Idealistic? certainly. The chance of such a policy ever being accepted by Government is nil. No matter how much they wanted to sell testra or get support to blow up another country they would never want to upset the Japanese. Popularist. Certainly and yes pauline got howled down for daring to be popularist. Should wanting to fit into the boys club make us less prepared to take a stand?? Don't know. Personally, I don't give a hoot who in the current regime I upset because whatever they are doing, it isn't working!!

Economic rationalsim, what an absolutely outstanding environmental success that has been on a world wide basis. It is certainly great for Brazils balance of payments to sell off its rainforests to the highest bidder. Does it make it right? Its been terrific for the countries which have driven the Atlantic tuna to the brink of extinction supplying the sushi trade. Funny how the old "level playing field" always seems to slant away from poor coutries towards the rich ones.

On a direct fisheries issue Australia is actually very lucky. Its population is so relatively small compared to its coastline and fishery that domestic consumption is far below the level of total catch and in theory if the commercial fishery supplied domestic markets only we would never put any sector of our fisheries under pressure. But no, we are economically rational. It makes more sense to sell it off overseas to the highest bidder. It is good for balance of payments, it generates marginally more taxes. I wonder if the only place in the world major importing countries could consume Australian seafood was in Australia wether it would increase inbound tourism? Have a little look at Tasmania, a tourism industry based largely on its food and produce. I know we will never know the answer to that because a policy like we have sugested will never get off the ground. Should that stop us asking the question?

Take a litle peek at NZ. The trout (freshwater) is a rec only species. No commercial fishery, no export, not even domestic sales to fish shops or restaurants. If you want to eat an NZ trout...go catch it yourself...dont know how...hire a guide, and maybe buy some gear, hire a car and see some of the country while you are there. An enourmous fishing based tourism industry generating inbound revenue, extra taxes from the hotels, guides, car hire companies and restaurants that service the industry. Hmmmm!~Silly idea, dumb, no doubt. We all know Kiwis are silly buggers. Protecting a fishery by banning commercial expoitation turning the fishery into a tourism cashcow will never work. Been a dud in the NT as well.

Anyhow, so we move on. The very idea of policy drafts is to ignite some feedback, both for and against. If at the end of the day a policy idea is not accepted the world will still turn and someone will put up another policy idea for comment and consideration. On pinheads comments your right about the Whole Fishing Community issue. We don't represent the pros. Don't want to. They have their own very effective lobby groups and their agenda is clearly at odds with the majority of the rec fishing community......and maaaaate. If the best snide comment you can come up with is about a typo you must be loosing your touch. I would have expected a much better shot that that. Anyhow, keep chucking hand grenades. It is much better to have in house discussions before we go mainstream. That is the very point of letting policy ideas out to rec fishers first for comment.

Regards

KC

[kc]

Sorry Jockey,

The one thing I forgot to add is I still don't quiet have my head around the contradiction of your personal views.

On one extreme end of the political spectrum is the most flouro of the green movement and on the exact opposite extreme end is the free market/globilist/economic rationalist position. Which, as a "force" seems totally oblivious to the environmental impacts it causes.

I honestly don't know how someone can argue enviromental issues on one hand and economic rationalism on the other. It is the ultimate oxymoron. Personally I sit pretty well to the left of centre and clearly my environmental concerns outweigh economic rationalism....but that's just me!

I'm away for a couple of days so no doubt I will have a few hours of dodging bullets to get through when I get home but keep firing away.....all good clean fun!!

& Hey Gazza TAE's I like that...........clever dick!! maybe we make you minister for abbreviations and Jockey re your post on the other thread....maate if I have to work this hard for every vote I'll be dead and buried before we get to 10.
I will always try to be civil and my responses arswell considered as possible...believe it or not the hard ones are actually better for us and genuinely more enjoyable than the easy ones.

KC

[agnes_jack]

Without bringing any policies or other technical issues into it, Something I hear everyday is that the average aussie and overseas visitor,is absolutely gobsmacked to find that they are unable to buy fresh local fish and seafood.
I have people walk into my shop everyday of the week asking where to buy crabs, fish, prawns etc. When I explain that all of our local seafood is sent overseas, and that no fresh seafood is available in our coastal town, people just cannot believe that this happens. For the tourists, a significant part of their holiday includes visions of being able to gorge out on wonderful fresh localy caught seafood. This must have an adverse effect on our tourism trade. I have never yet had someone come in and say that it is a good thing to sell it all to foreigners. So who has decided that this is the way australians want it to be?
This is obviously not how the majority want it to be.

Regards, Tony

[basserman]

tony i feel for you mate but here at portmacquarie even with the pros out of our local river we still are able to by freash fish prawns crabs and all other seafood loacally from our local co-op and what isn't able to be caught because of the ban of pros on our river we are able to get from the next twos

KC i'm abit concerned about how you have handled the critasium (and before you start i'm uneducated fool so no need to start on me) i'v notaced that you have had ago at two people so far first pinhead for pointing out a typeo sure only trivial but surely a very important thing if you want to look professional and second jockey who you still are trying to figuer out his enviormental and globeistion stance
isn't it more important to address thier points insted of getting porsonal
i'm sure if you get into the goverment you will have A HELL OF ALOT of people critacing everything you do and say and if you try to get personl with them they will only just laught at you and make a fool of you on the tv (just likie the pm and oppsiton leaders speechs they have stolen of other people)
;D
i think what you are doing is good but you need to take the bad coments onboard as much as the good ;D

[nictim]

I agree bit heavy this political stuff everyone has view and is entitled to say it without getting putdown

Steve---

[PinHead]

basserman...KC and I know where we both stand..there is no problems there..but you did get my point exactly...if you want to post items from the Party then the least that can be done is that they be proof read...spelling especially and grammar also. You have to at least look professional.

[jockey]

I don't mind someone trying to point out self contradictions or hypocrisy in my views, but there is a fine and subtle line between that and a 'personal' attack so if you don't know the difference then don't bother. Basically criticise the views not the person. KC ould you please be more specific about the apparent contradiction in my views?

I don't believe that economic rationalism and environmentalism are at odds. I see a clear path to a better environment through economic rationalism. But that comes down to the definition of economic rationalism. A good example is what I said before about making the price paid for energy reflect its real worth. A lot of the criticisms of globalism are of economically irrational situations. One person exploiting a situation is greed not economic rationalism. So if a big multinational (sorry about the cliche) pays a few bribes and gets unrestricted access to the natural resources of a poor country without those poor people getting involved in the decision making process that is irrational.

Driving a fishery to the point of collapse is not rational. Reason: they were selling the fish for less than their actual worth. They were charging the cost of getting the fish out and ignoring the value of the fish as broodstock.

Making coral trout a rec only species is a more reasonable proposition and may even make economic sense. However there would be a lot of waste in the form of lost income as the rec sector would not fully exploit (sustainably of course) the situation. So a good policy would be to wind back the TAC as the pro catch comes into increased conflict with rec anglers. This would probably become necessary anyway to ensure the trout are fished sustainably. I assume that the TAC is broken up into regions so you could force the pros away from big cities and areas that are popular with rec anglers.

Basically giving the resource to the people who value it the most is at the core of economic rationalism. That means it is a good idea to give the fish to the rec sector if it values it appropriately, but it is not a good idea to get pros to catch the fish and sell them for less than they are worth. A few exceptions may be abalone, crays and perhaps crabs and prawns where they are worth more to the pros than to rec anglers.

This means that where rec and pro fishermen come into conflict the resource should generally go to the rec sector. But where rec fishermen and the tourism sector come into conflict the resource should go the tourism sector (via 'split reefs' etc). Note that this does not mean that the entire fishery will be closed down and given to the tourists. Tourism can be very concentrated. A couple of good spots would be very valuable to the tourism sector, but the whole lot would only be slightly more valuable.

Note that green zones serve a purpose as tourist zones and as a fisheries management tool and to make the reef more resilient to other problems. The large green zones on the GBR are about fisheries management and resilience, not diverting 1/3 of the reef to tourists.

Gazza this (the export policy) has nothing to do with the precautionary principle and is not based on scientific investigation, unless you call economics a science. My argument is that the community as a whole would suffer under the proposed export policy.

The fact that the policy will never get implimented is irrelevent. If it is a bad policy, scrap it.

Pauline didn't get howled down because she was popularist. The other parties took notice of her because she was popularist. She got howled down because of her policies.

You can by any local seafood in Australia that you want. You just have to pay for it. If they are not in the local shops its because people would rather by cheap imported food and get the benefits of selling our food at rediculous prices to rich foreigners. The benfit of the free market is that we don't have to vote on it - or at least we vote with our wallets.

KC I think that what you were referring to is 'lasse fair' (not sure of the spelling) capitalism. That is where the government doesn't interfere at all. Taken to extreme it means no tax and build no roads, hospitals etc and if people want them they will pay for them. The international market is largely 'lasse fair' at the moment because there is no effective international government, esecially on economic issues. Luckily though most of the players are rational and are trying to enter into rational trade agreements. It is often local politics, not international politics that gets in the way of sensible trade policy. An example is US cane farmers stopping our cane farmers from getting access to the US market.

[raefpud]

like any Australian product in comparison to an imported product, it is always going to be more expensive than an inferior impoted product, but unfortunately thats the price we pay for having a far superior product from a somewhat pristine environment, minimum wages and working conditions, a public health system and social security, and I think thats why we live in the "lucky country" even if we end up paying through the nose for it. Prices for local seafood have actually dropped recently due to world economic climate and increasing $$ value.

Here is a couple of interesting facts for you, even though it may not have any relevance to the arguement at hand -

Australia Ranks 51 in the top seafood producers throughout the world - i.e. that means 51 other countries harvest more seafood than we do. Australian seafood industry is considered a low volume, high value industry.

Seafood is Australias 4th largest export of primary produce.

It is cheaper to sell a whiting to vietnam, have it filleted and cleaned there, buy it back from the vietnamese and sell it as local produce, than it is to process and sell it here.

The Australian fishing zone is one of the largest in the world and covers an area approx. 16% larger than the Australian landmass

Foreign vessels are now totally banned from fishing in the AFZ
whereas Australia used to allow foreign vessel fishing rights.

In 2000-2001 the gross value of total fisheries production (including aquaculture which now contributes 30%) was about 230 000 t or worth about $2.5 billion

[Gazza]

That is interesting Raefpud :o , approx. $800M in aqua-vulture ;)
NSW claims about $60M , where is the other ~$700M ......err.... made. ???
err......what do they.....err.....eat ??? :o

RecFishos catch about 50,000T (including C&R) and put into the economy more than $2.5B
p.s. the RecFisho catch is/was approx. equal to Commercial bycatch ::)

Interesting ,hey.... ;) ;D

[kc]

Just back from a couple of days away(no, not fishing unfortunately) and just had a chance to read this thread.

Just to clarify a couple of points. Pinhead & I communicate privately & I am sure he recognises an atempt at levity, not a personal shot!! Perhaps this was not plain to people who read my comments about "his best shot" so sorry if some thought that means I am thin on skin and sharp of tounge.

As for Jockey, once again, we have had some pretty good on line debates without geting personal & I don't think I am trying to get personal now in my attempt to understand where he is "coming from"".

In summary look at the worldwide protests at any G7 or CHOGM or gobalisation conference. The protests are led by both anarcists and greens. It is very fair to suggest that as an overall position "phrases like economic rationalism, globalism, free trade policies etc", are generally at odds with the green movement. By its very term economic rationalism is concerned only with the economy and what is best for dollars and cents not what is best for the environment. Green augument is the balance point or counter augument to a totally economically rational one. ie take Brazil where from an economic point of view, it makes rational sense to cut down its rainforests because it brings money into the coutry. It has not enough strenght in its envronmental augument to counter this economically rational view so they cut down all the rainforest and stuff up the environment. The same can be said for large tracts of New Guinie.

In Australia we have enough strenght within the environmental movement to counteract the (purely)economically rational view that we cut all ours down too, oil drill the GBR, develop more uranium mines or destroy our fisheries in the quest for export earnings.

Just take a look at Kyoto. The reasons that this has not been adopted by USA and Australia are 100% economically rational ones!!

This is my problem with Jockey, or anyone elses view that they are an environmental economic rationalist.....my personal view is that there is no such thing!!

Regards

KC

[PinHead]

dammit kc...how the bloody hell do you get to have a couple of days away when I have to stay here and still work on a long weekend.

ahhhhhh..good ol' Kyoto and Montreal Protocols..all totally irrelevant..especially the Montreal one we signed regarding freons and holes in the ozone layer..it means zilch..waste of ink even signing the thing.

[raefpud]

hey gazza, u really want me to break it down for ya???

Mate if u had any idea how much one individual farmed tuna could be worth then maybe you could comprehend that South Australia's Aquaculture exports are probably worth 10X as much as NSW total aquaculture value, and lets not forget tasmanias salmon and the entire oyster (inlcuding Pearl oysters) export value.
Cold water supports much more life and is more nutrient rich than tropical waters such as GBR etc, allthough u might not have the same amount of biodiversity as you do would in the warmer waters, so mariculture (as it should be correctly reffered to) is far more productive in cooler climates such as SA, VIC, TAS and sthn WA than say ur blessed NSW, QLD or NT.

Mate, I am not pro commercial by any means, I study marine resource management at uni and i am specialising in recreational fisheries management, as there are very few of us in Australia. In order for me to help create a better fishery for u, the rec guy, I have to understand the impacts both sectors have on the entire marine resources. Your popular bread and butter species of finfish account for about 1% if that of the entire commercial catch.
And i'm not too sure about your figures either - I am totally aware of economic input that recreational anglers have, however, and yes it is a rather substantial amount, but the breakdown of where that $$$$ is going is a whole new issue. To say that the combined total $$$ is input into the Australian economy is total BS, and whilst tourism $$$ flourish, i think you will find that a lot of the hard earned cash u spend on products such as daiwa, shimano, penn, yamaha, suzuki etc ends up adding to the the economy of other countries that are paying top dollar to buy our premium quality seafood. :o

Sorry, but like Kevin, I just cant help but look at both sides of the big picture, a lot of peoples livelihood depend on both recreational and commercial fishing, both of which have been around a lot longer than u or I.
One more thing, i think i might have mentioned before, but you do have to be careful when quoting facts or figures as many publications will publish information that is either bias, inaccurate or just not credible to begin with.
Unless you are taught how to sift through and identify the difference between credible information and just plain BS it can be difficult to make an accurate assesment of issues such as this. In a democratic society such as this its perfectly acceptable for anyone to publish anything about whatever the hell they like,whether its true or not, and the internet is a perfect example of this.

Just one more comment for KC - Do you not believe that your party could somehow incorporate the commercial sector into and fight together for common issues??
I just think that for the best intrests of the fish stocks in general, not either the rec or comm fisher, you will need to incorporate the opinions of all shareholders and interested parties - - - probably even the RSPCA that believe fish hooks classify as cruelty to animals - hahahahah, its not gonna be easy for ya buddy :P

[kc]

In answer to your question about incorporating commercial interests into our fold raefspud the simple answer is ...NO.
While both sectors have some common ground, particularly in isues like habitat protection we are polls appart on too many issues and many of our policies, as they develop will be oppossed to some commercial fisheries practices....just like the export issue which started this thread.

You identified tuna "farming" as an economically high value fishery (economically rational)and straight up we have a problem (or several) with this. Firstly it is not "farming" as they are catching the small tuna at sea (wild fish before breeding size), feeding them in sea pens, often on imported feed (which was identified as the likely cause of the virus which effected/devastated our wild pilchard stocks) and has the associated seabed pollution effects of most "fish farms". All this to employ very few people and make a couple of individuals very rich. They ae targetting juvenille tuna because the wild stocks of adult tuna are just about exhausted....what happens when no little tuna reach breeding size? I am aware that this industry is working on captured breeding programs but to date it has been unsuccessful. I will have less concern if they can do this but elsewhere in the world no one has successfully breed tuna in captivity.

Have a look at the decline in marlin stocks, now targeted by commercial longliners for export to japan!! Economically rational no doubt but pity help the poor bloody fishery.

How could we work in co-operation with prawn trawl fishery. Described by David Attenbourgh as "the single most destructive method of fishing ever devised by man".

NO.....one of the very attractions of the party is the fact that we will not join with the commercial fishers, we will be proudley a single issue party...not distracted, not infighting and totally focused on fisheries issues and the environment.
At the end of the day I would rather not win a seat than sell out.

Regards

KC

[jockey]

I think I need to clarify what I mean when I say economically rational. It does not mean to consider only profits, within a moral vaccuum. It means taking all things into consideration, including how business affects other people. It means changing the rules within which companies operate so that even if they blindly pursue profits they are still forced to take other people's interests into account. Normally the free market does this pretty well and the major players negotiate to get what they want. This breaks down where someone's business impacts negatively on someone else who is not involved in the transaction. If there is a large negative impact the 'victim' can sue for damages. Usually however, there is a lot of people involved and the impact is too small to make it worthwhile for each person to bother with. This is where the government needs to step in and decide what the outcome would be if the people involved could effectively bargain.

For example suppose there was a proposal to put in a new airport that is worth $1m per year which would affect the quality of life of 100 000 nearby residents. If those residents were willing to pay $12 each per year, they could pool their money and say to the company "This airport will earn you $1m per year, but we will pay you $1.2m per year not to put it in" and the company, being rational would accept their offer. Of course 100 000 copuld not get together and bargain effectively so the government has to decide what the outcome would be if they could and then stop the airport going in.

The same argument goes for things like pollution, but instead of deciding on a case by case basis what factory should go in, the government just needs to put a 'pollution tax' on them which ensures that the company takes into account the value people would place on clean air, if they had the time to ponder such things.

This sort of thing doesn't happen on the international market, which is why people start protesting about the situation.

Just because the words I use aren't thrown around by the anti-globalisation protestors doesn't mean that either of us have it wrong or even that we have different values or see different paths to what we want. This morning on my way to work I passed hippy chick in a yellow shirt. On the front of the shirt was written "Globalise love, not war"

[kc]

Jockey all the words you use and examples you raise demonstrate my very point. The environmental/moral consience you talk of, the pollution tax, quality of life being more important than the $1m airport. What you show is that in this and a lot of other "civillised" societies the environmental augument and "moral consience" is the exact counter balance to the totally economically rational one where $$ is the only concern. The adverb Ecomically...The noun rational....what makes sense solely based on what makes money with no outside consideration. Any other consideration is not economically based but morally, socially or environmentally sure but economically no!!

Anyhow...this has all got off the point about wether we continue to export our seafood at unsustainable levels or wether we seek a mechanism to allow domestic buyers access to "our" seafood at reasonable prices AND wether the encouragement of exports has also had the effect of encouraging overfishing, targetting of species (like billfish) which are far more important(both recreationally and in straight $$ terms) left alive and encouraging the importing of fish products which are downright dangerous.

[kc]

& yes Gary, before you get me...It should be adjective not adverb!! School was a long time ago

KC

[Cheech]

Kevin,

I was interested to see what reply Agnes_Jack would get to his question (statement?) because I have the same thoughts. I was very surprised to find out we were not necessarily buying fresh local produce. But it looks like it was lost amongst the major debate that has transpired on this thread. Most of which most of us are probably having a lot of trouble following.

Read something from one side and it makes sense, but then read the response and that makes sense also.

So is there an easy answer? Obviously not. But I am sure most of us wish there was.

I hope you guys get this issue sorted soon as it is starting to tarnish the concept and enthusiasm that the party needs and deserves.

I have seen enough over the years to know that it doesn't matter if it is business or politics (or even clubs and sporting groups to a lesser extent), those that have the power make the rules and there is bugger all you can do about it. So this is a real shot at getting into a position to get a place on the board and make a difference.

Let's get back on track. Please.

[PinHead]

Shaking my head here Kev..tut..tut...tut..look at what you said:
"The adverb Ecomically...The noun rational"
You ackowledged that Economically is an adjective but so is rational. Rationale is the noun.

[kc]

Hi Cheech, mate, there is no easy answer, otherwise someone much smarter than me would have come up with it by now.

It is clearly the case that a lot of our best seafood is exported..which is good for the economy. We eat a lot of very inferior quality imported seafood, which is probably bad for the economy AND the non fishing but fish buying public.

As a basic principle the fishing party would like to find a way of redressing that situation and redirect a fair percentage of the catch to the domestic market, reduce the cost to consumers and reduce the pressures applied to export (& catch) more and more of our fish. How we go about framing a policy to encompass that basic principle is plainly at issue. How we are going to deal with the effects of such a policy on both the people employed by the export trade and balance the effects of export earning Vs potential tourism earnings are all part of the juggling act of politics.

While it would be much easier to avoid complex issues and just release policy posistions which everyone agrees with this is not being honest.....fancy that a political equivalent of a 4 letter word.... to the cause.

Hopefully as the party gains in both numbers and collective ability/knowledge we may come up with the answers, even if we don't, at least we will have gone down swinging before taking up lawn bowls.

Regards

KC

[jockey]

KC I don't think you have understood me. Blind and unrestricted pursuit of profit is bad and eventually leads to slavery. 'Economic rationaism' (at least as I have described it) is a way of incorporating people's values (morals, ehtics, environmental concerns) into the economy.

You say that the economy is unfair. There are two possible ways to deal with this. One is direct government interference with free trade (your policy). This is the hallmark of communism. Centralised government determining where goods get sold and for how much. The other is economic rationaism. That is, forcing the free market to take people's values into account but still allowing it to determine, within those rules, the most economic (efficient) way to distribute goods.

The reason that most of our good seafood goes overseas and we eat the crap is because we (the community) want it that way. We would rather eat cheap food and sell the good stuff so we can buy other things (eg TV sets) with the difference. There is nothing unfair in it. We all get our fair share of the dividends from the harvest, in the form of money rather than fish. We can choose to spend that dividend on the fish and get our fair share of the fish, but most of us choose something else. Your policy would take away people's choice in the matter and would reduce the dividend we all get from the harvest. Your policy means a net loss to the community. We may eat more fish, but we would pay more for them than if we just bought them at the current market price. The high price of the fish is not an indication of an unfair market, it is an indication of the enourmous benefit the community recieves from selling these fish overseas.

What would be unfair is say if a foreign company entered the scene, bribed a few officials and then took away the resources (which are valued much higher than the bribes they hand out) and profited from it without the community benefiting. This is not happening in Australia, as far as I know. It is certainly not happening with the legal trade in coral trout. By the way, your policy would make the black market in coral trout much more profitable.

The way to ensure a sustainable harvest is via a TAC, not arbitrary restrictions on the market. It is misleading to point to overfishing as a reason for your policy.

I am obviously having trouble getting my point across. Please discuss the matter with someone who has studied economics at uni. Better yet, just ring the economics department of your nearest uni and explain your situation and they should help you out.

[jockey]

delete me

[Angel_Fish]

ok this was my reading for the day (alot)..

all I know is that our jobs and our seafood is all going overseas. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why cant we look at the big picture, its all about money and in the end those who can pay for it get it all.

Why cant Australia take care of Australia first....

just my non-sense, blah..blah dont listen to me!!! :-X

[nonibbles]

I had a generally supportive response to the previous post but it was a bit off topic and would only polarise opinions of those who disagree with me. #I don't want to argue a personal opinion I have no intention of changing. #So for those who did read it you've gained a bit more of an insight into what cheeses me off. #Let's leave it at that

[Gazza]

delete me

Sorry mate ,you'll have to give yourself an uppercut. [smiley=2thumbsup.gif] :P

So ,if you don't agree with the 'export' policy ,you won't vote for the FP Mob?

Which mob do you vote for? ,the dig it up ,fish it to death mob ,of course ;) ;D :D :D

[Maxg]

Ideally any export industry, should try to meet local demand before exporting anything, and should not just export the product and allow the local market to be filled by imports. But in any case the export value of commercial fishing is less that the value of the recreational fishing industry total. And there are less people employed and they pay less tax.
If you want it in a nutshell, we cannot afford the present commercial industry, because its all export putting buks into big companies and most of it ends up offshore.
And as an added incentive we cannot afford the industry which has done most to cause the biomass collapse, the destruction of turtles, dolphin, sea birds and a lot of non commercial fishes. It has mostly depleted the sharks, billfish and you name it.
So we would be better off if we scrapped it altogether, and closed our waters to commercial fishing and imported cheap aquaculture fish products. The people would be better off because of the cheaper sea food product and the marine ecosystem would improve out of sight.
Pardon me for being stupid but you have to realise that ultimately the wreckers have to share the results of their endeavours, like a bare and barren rock. Commercial fishing world wide is a very destructive industry. Very destructive, and to the point, and I keep saying this, if it where a human, the fishery would be in the worlds best hospital in intensive care with a dead tomorrow prognosis.
Maintaining a full throttle commercial fishing industry is not going to make the prognosis, getting better.
Max

[jockey]

Gazza I will probably give the FP mob my first preference in the senate. You have to take the good with the bad. In any case if they try to bring it up with more experienced politicians they'll learn the hard way.

Maxg I also think we should cut back the commercial catch where there is a risk of overfishing, but the policy we are discussing isn't really about fisheries management.

[Angel_Fish]

I had a generally supportive response to the previous post but it was a bit off topic and would only polarise opinions of those who disagree with me. #I don't want to argue a personal opinion I have no intention of changing. #So for those who did read it you've gained a bit more of an insight into what cheeses me off. #Let's leave it at that

I like to leave things in laymans term........Its nice to know that im not the only one thinking along these lines....

Have a Great Day! ::)