Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Minister, I would just like to ask about the use of the word 'uncertainty' which is on page 7 of the bill under Subdivision C—Final Declaration. It has been discussed a lot in the chamber in the last few weeks. Senator Brandis and Senator Abetz discussed that 'uncertainty' is a very broad term that has no legal meaning and should not find its way into a bill. I wanted to ask you whether the definition of that word related to the statistical definition of 'uncertainty'. My understanding of 'uncertainty' is that it is technically something that cannot be quantified as against probability being applied to a value, which is what we use to measure risks. If something is uncertain and it cannot be quantified at this point in time, is it a relevant word to use for such activities or such issues as local depletion? They have not been scientifically quantified, particularly in the way that the concerns have been allayed by local fishermen and discussed by conservation groups. Is it possible for us to calculate? Do we have the data to calculate things such as bycatch from an operation such as this supertrawler, particularly with a seal-exclusion device that has not been tested on this vessel?

In terms of the word 'uncertainty' which has been focused on in this bill: is it an appropriate word on its statistical definition, because it relates directly to something that is not able to be calculated versus risk which is very specifically able to be calculated by assigning of probability and an expected value? We can talk about managing risks to the fishery. But what if something is certain, statistically speaking? It cannot be calculated, or has not been calculated, which is the case with local depletion, for example. We have discussed the lack of scientific work in areas such as movement of the small pelagic fish species and our lack of understanding of impacts in local areas. Is it an appropriate word from a statistical point of view?