Its seems normal enough but it seems too hard too often. We'll pick one area of policy that's had difficulty recently, due to sadly predictable reasons, all avoidable.
The Use of GMO Grains.
This saw a court case in Kojonup, set 2 neighbours against one another, said to have split the town in half and generally polarised the community, the grain growing community. The net result was a large amount of time, effort and money was spent by allowing the whole thing to go down the adversarial path, two sides slugging it out until one wins & one loses.
It recently also saw a representative from the Pastoralists & Graziers Association crow on ABC Radio about how they successfully fought for their member and how "Steve Marsh picked on the wrong person".
Adversarial slug out solidified.
The PGA and all others in representative groups, including political, not just agri-political could have taken the middle road but didn't. It could have been the opportunity the PGA needed to show real leadership in the field and go mediator, arbiter for both sides to arrive at a settlement without legal action. By settlement I mean not a pay out, but a position the PGA could have fought for, on behalf of both farmers, even though one wasn't a PGA member.
The thing is, both parties should have the right to grow either organic certified crops, traditional crops or GMO crops without penalty or threat of penalty via contamination. One thing is for sure, the contamination thresholds were clearly too low. If there is scientifically proven threat to health by say a contamination level of 1% then show us the science. If the grain is processed it may be that all health threats are already eliminated, if indeed they existed in an unprocessed state.
Legal action may have been needed if their was malicious intent, but by media reporting it seems both parties were not malicious in planting their own crops. The fault here lay mainly with the certification bodies and if they won't change, then a multi-peril crop insurance may need to cover this eventuality in the future.
In any case, it wasn't about ensuring a middle ground sensible approach that could avoid a community split, it was about 2 sides and the whiff of a legal triumph in the wind the PGA noticed and sought to capitalise upon. A trump rather than seek a solution via legislation in the state parliament.
And yes, there is fault to be found there with the WA Parliament too. This should have been nipped in the bud to allow leeway for 2 neighbouring properties to grow what they prefer without penalty but with some sort of safety net.
Its now developing into a pro GM & anti GM battlefield with the lines drawn and common sense is the first casualty. If we were to set policy, we'd need to look at this without bias and see how both parties can be able to plant which ever crop they choose, without great penalty. Clearly the GM threshold is too low for some certified organic crops and it leaves growers exposed to great loss if they exceed very low levels.
Is there a health risk? Answer I've found so far is there'd be no risk at 40% and if that were the cut off threshold, most growers would seek new certified clean grain once it got to 25% levels perhaps lower. The thing is, both the Organic Grower needs his/her crop protected to some point, and the GM neighbour needs legal protection to some point too.
This outcome pushed 2 sides against one another, split a community and derailed the chances of sensible policy amongst the PGA, the parliament and the community. Now we have 2 opposite sides, instead of 2 groups in the one industry. Divided neighbours who may never come together ever again. How that can be portrayed as any sort of good outcome I'll never know.
Policy setting in this instance was adversarial and not middle ground with the grain industry as a whole in mind. It was a prime chance to set 2 different parts of the grains industry as 2 parts of the same community. Instead one side went on the attack, the other went into siege mode & we saw a long protracted slug fest where no one except perhaps the legal community gaining any productivity out of it.
It should never have been a time to choose organic or choose GMO, it should have been a time to protect 2 parts of the same grain industry forever more.
This is a classic example where 2 pre-suppositional sides of bias went head long into battle with some people not directly involved keenly seeking out "facts" to back the position they'd already chosen,
Its very hard to avoid being pre-suppositional, but its a trait of good statesmen of times past...well if not good statesmen then at least good legislators. We were seen to be lacking in that department in WA with the PGA now copping (fairly or unfairly) some flak over getting involved to turn a big visual public relations boost.
The Organic/GMO stand off continues but it serves as a poignant reminder that debate without rigour is policy death. The destination is not your side winning, but the industry as a whole having a fair outcome.
If we don't return to traditional community supportive outcomes we will continue down the path of becoming American like where legal action is the first and last option and the wealthiest litigant will prevail whether they're right or not.
Policy has to be clear, well thought out, be in the nation interest or the interest that serves the best for the most in society or those involved. It must also have good science involved and yes sharp rigour from devil's advocates lest you end up with emperor's new clothes syndrome.
Once its arrived at, it needs to be widely known and as best as is possible, be widely understood. Agreement is not always widely found, but if its formed properly even I can go with policy I'm not in full agreement with because sometimes fairness is not found within pre-suppositional bias or ideology.
Ever seen bad policy?
Ever wondered why?
Ever wondered if there is a better way? There is...or there used to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment