Is there a secret adjectival competition between Senator Ian Campbell, Australia’s Environment Minister and Chris Carter, New Zealand’s Conservation Minister? Both seem to be finding new levels of outrage against Japan’s scientific research program and the very idea of sustainable commercial whaling. Words like “slaughter”, “absurd”, “sick”, “grotesque” and “smokescreen” appear in news columns each week. Australia, it seems, only just stopped short of piracy on the high seas in an effort to prevent Japan from lawfully harvesting whales.

The invective is strange from the perspective of whale populations. There are at least a million minke whales out there, and the actual figure is likely higher. This is more than ten times the number that existed a hundred years ago. Japanese research has shown that the population is at its natural limit. It can’t get any bigger. From an environmental point of view, consumers should be encouraged to choose meat from well-managed fisheries and if ever there was a case for a wild animal to be harvested sustainably for food, the minke whale must be it.

So, if not numbers, what is behind the outrage? Neither country has a strong national interest in the whaling issue, either strategic or economic. No one can take seriously the claim made by one Australian boater that taking ten humpbacks from the Antarctic will have a devastating impact on the whale-watching business.

Despite the fact that whales are migratory species, some Australians, and one newspaper, have asserted that the whales belong to them. Mr. Carter disagrees, saying the whales belong to New Zealand. Give me a break. Is this all really an “It’s mine!” argument?

So we must conclude that the overwhelming convictions of Senator Campbell and Mr. Carter can best be explained by something else. We suspect that they regard it as morally wrong to kill whales even if they are abundant. If so, they should say so.

But if this is the case, how should we understand Antipodean ethics? First, try this simple test. With apologies to the vegetarians amongst us, put the following in order of immorality and then give a rational justification for your choices:

· Harvesting hundreds of minke whales on a sustainable basis · Harvesting millions of kangaroos on a sustainable basis · Breeding and harvesting millions of baby sheep

Now, let’s throw in a second issue. Explain the ethical difference between killing a minke whale, a kangaroo and a lamb if, in each case, you do so to provide food? After all, nobody has to eat any of these animals because, if we wish, other meats or even vegetables can be substituted. It is an issue of preferences.

So what is the difference? Mr. Campbell has referred to whales being part of the “Australian psyche” and has said, “we owe it to future humanity to make this stand”. Is it a matter of how the animals look? Is it a matter of their relative intelligence? Is it a matter of how mankind has treated them in the past? Is it a matter of how humanely an animal is killed? Is it a matter of the size of the markets for the particular meat?

It is no longer possible to pretend that all whale populations are in peril, anymore than it would be to decry endangered kangaroos or sheep. Everyone knows that the whale has been saved from over-exploitation. We should at least have the opportunity to understand the ethical reasoning that lies behind the Antipodean invective. Why the moral crusade against sustainable whaling?