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. #

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 # ...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

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

........

[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)

i think what you are doing is good but you need to take the bad coments onboard as much as the good

[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.