Now that the recriminations have flown around after the “Kings of Tennis” debacle, it would be a pity if this episode is allowed to peter out without any real lessons being learned.
There are larger lessons here for the state when dealing with private companies coming up with all sorts of ideas and proposals:
1. Protect the public interest at all times, ahead of private interests.
2. Check out the track record of the companies concerned. Do they have a history of successful ventures? Are they in financial trouble? Check out the directors’ backgrounds.
3. Don’t get too “pally” and cosy with the business community. State government officials are there to uphold and defend the public interest. It’s fine to encourage economic activity, but when dealing with private companies, always do so at arm’s length.
4. Beware of things which appear to be free and cost nothing to the state. What do they expect in return – if not in cash, then in kind? Are they looking for relaxation of regulations, easier licences, cheap land, monopolistic advantage or a stepping stone to related ventures?
5. If they are introducing new technology, chemicals, etc, is the technology proven and safe? Remember the Precautionary Principle:
The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.
The principle implies that there is a responsibility to intervene and protect the public from exposure to harm where scientific investigation discovers a plausible risk in the course of having screened for other suspected causes. The protections that mitigate suspected risks can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that more robustly support an alternative explanation. In some legal systems, as the law of the European Union, the precautionary principle is also a general and compulsory principle of law.
In other words, the burden of proof lies with those introducing the technology to prove that it is safe – and NOT with the public to prove that it is harmful.
