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

I would like to make a statement and get a few things on the record in relation to what Senator Colbeck just discussed. There were no triumphant statements from the Greens about recent additions to the debate between Dr Wadsley and other unnamed people on blog sites. We simply highlighted that a report had been put on the AFMA website, incorrectly put up under the August media releases rather than under the September media releases, which did express a difference of opinion on estimation methods. We said that that, if converted using statistical methods, could show a difference in the total allowable catch for jack mackerel.

This debate between Dr Wadsley and other scientists—well, we suspect they are scientists based on the level of their understanding expressed on blog sites—has been going on for months. I mentioned a few days ago we have never pushed Dr Wadsley out there as a fisheries scientist nor have we highlighted his work in Hansard, in our media releases or at forums, although I did attend a recreational fisheries forum in Campbelltown where Dr Wadsley spoke.

I would like to take the opportunity to defend him here today in terms of his integrity, which I think Senator Colbeck has tried to tear down. I am not aware of his politics. He is a petroleum scientist. He works in the oil and gas industry. He would not be what I would classify as a green, in the sense that that is his career. I have done a fisheries modelling course myself at the University of Tasmania and I am aware of the differences in predictive power between Microsoft Excel and other packages which I have also used, although not as well as some of my colleagues, I must admit, and I actually think it is a very simplistic analysis. Microsoft Excel is used by Dr Wadsley in his risk consulting business for things such as the oil and gas industry.

Senator Colbeck mentioned earlier his participation in the pulp mill debate. He came out and did an analysis of the level of dioxin that was going to be put into Bass Strait and said that the official scientific reports, based on the work of a number of scientists, were incorrect. I cannot remember exactly what it was but it was a factor of billions, so one to the power of 10. In the end, after fighting a very similar campaign to have his analysis taken seriously, it was proven to be correct and we had a retraction in a statement about the potential level of dioxin in Bass Strait and in the fishery. That was thanks to his dogged determination—and I would not say it was about his philosophy on pulp mills but rather the science in this instance and especially the statistics. What he has focused on here is simply statistics. It is about the difference in estimation methods.

Scientific models are very complex and the amount of data that they use is enormous, particularly the ecosystem model. I was very fortunate to have a chat last night to the CSIRO scientist who is the champion of the ecosystem model in Hobart, and I am well aware of the complexities of models. I have myself used information from models that are some of the most complex mathematical models in the world in terms of trying to predict the linkages between financial variables, for example. There are literally potentially millions of variables involved in these models, so I know the difference between risk and uncertainty and how they function, and everybody does the best they can.

I want to highlight what this issue is to me in terms of scrutiny versus attacking the scientists. The Liberals have run a very consistent line both in the house and against me personally that by scrutinising science we are somehow attacking the scientists. This is from the editorial today in the Mercury, obviously one of the key newspapers in the south of Tasmania where a lot of these scientists are based. I will quote a small section of it. It is talking about scrutiny in terms of the science of the quota setting, localised depletion and the ombudsman's investigation:

This type of scrutiny is rare for an organisation like AFMA, which generally operates behind a veil and in its own domain. It is king, judge, jury and all powerful. Suddenly, its authority is being questioned and issues have been identified to suggest its processes and science need review. This is healthy democracy at work. It does not necessarily mean the scientists and public servants at AFMA are bad people or that they have consciously been deceitful or negligent or even failed in their duties.

It does, however, mean they must be accountable, transparent and above board. They must explain, in laymen's terms, their decisions. They must accept public scrutiny.

In terms of Dr Wadsley, who my statement refers to, I see this as an ongoing debate and I am very pleased that he has been brought into the tent and he is talking with AFMA. I mentioned the other day that I have made attempts to try and get him to talk directly with scientists at various organisations so that they can sort this out behind closed doors. I can guarantee to the house today that that is exactly what Dr Wadsley has wanted. I am very pleased that it has got to the stage where his analysis is being taken seriously. I saw a post on the same blog site that Senator Colbeck was referring to this morning where Dr Wadsley is still insistent that his analysis is correct. It is also worth pointing out that he did recently put out a research report which was peer reviewed and has been submitted for an article publication. So this is not just typing up rats and mice on a blog site; he has actually now published his work, his full statistical analysis of the whole chain of events that have led to this analysis.

My point I want to get on the record is that this is still ongoing and it is healthy that citizens in our community take an interest in this and that these things are scrutinised. I say sorry to the fishery scientists if they believe this has not been conducted the right way. It is unfortunate, as Senator Colbeck pointed out, that this was not done differently in the beginning, but at the end of the day Dr Wadsley feels very much attacked as well personally and very much under the pump. I am looking forward to seeing the end result of this work because I do believe that scrutiny is important and that should be taken into account.