Same thing happened in Batemans Marine Park.  The "Questionnaire" had a map for people to show where they fished.  Or maybe it was just coincidence...

Continue
Senator BOSWELL—I am in coalition. And thank goodness we are in coalition because if we were not in coalition the fishing industry would be so impacted it would still be being damaged. This has cost the government over $200 million. There are 400 claims which have been processed and about another 200 to go. Now we are getting to the sharp end, or the end where it is really going to cost money, the food or fish processing, because when you close down the industry or a certain part of the industry—or take 33 per cent of fishing off the reef—then you must compensate the boats that are squeezed into the remaining area. You can see that 100 per cent of the boats going into 60 per cent of the area just will not go, so you have to buy them out. The implications of that are that you have to buy out the net makers, the fishing industry and the fishing boats. We are still processing those claims. We are still dealing with the mess.

As I said, this just could not happen in private enterprise or someone would suffer the consequences. The process was that there was very limited consultation. Maps were produced but were not shown to the fishermen or even to members of parliament. Then, when they were produced, they were given out on videos which would not fit into the computers of the fishermen. We got access to them late. Then the commercial fishermen and the recreational fishermen were asked by GBRMPA to go out and mark the spots that they required. The fishermen said, ‘These are the areas that are of the utmost importance to us, so if you are going to have biodiversity areas do not put them there.’ What happened? These very areas were the areas that were zoned out in the final maps.

No-one would dispute the need for protection of the reef, but we do not have to go through this process. A spanner crab fisherman who provided preferred fishery details to GBRMPA found that his prime fishing ground within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, earlier determined as a model fishery by the state government, was now declared a green zone. He was asked to mark out what he required. He did that, and it automatically became a green zone.

A prime prawn-fishing ground was closed due to concern for migratory turtles, even after the sensible suggestion was made to close the area only during the three-month turtle season. Green zones were placed on lee sides of islands, in sheltered areas where fishermen could safely fish. The zones that they were allowed to fish in were on the windward sides of islands, where they could hardly ever go. An aquarium fishing business lost its primary fishing ground to green rezoning after providing details to GBRMPA. Areas productive for catching brood prawns, essential for the continued success of the North Queensland aquaculture industry were excluded after mapping details were given to GBRMPA. No wonder no-one had any faith in this process! When GBRMPA asked them to mark on the maps what they required to continue their businesses, those very areas were zoned out.

GBRMPA has the distinction of being able to achieve something that few other people have been able to achieve—that is, alienate both commercial and recreational fishers. Recreational fishermen lost their fishing areas after providing details of them. During the election campaign, the government agreed that this process would be reviewed, and the result of that review is the bill before us: the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007. I believe that we need legislation where the minister is responsible for such actions and is aware of any reactions that they might cause. GBRMPA will no longer be able to unilaterally get away with this type of subterfuge.

Senator Scullion, Warren Entsch and I secured a package to compensate the fishermen. It is not easy to ask for these things. Initially, we received $10 million. It was then raised to $26 million. Then it was uncapped for restructure funding assistance. We are still sorting out this mess; it is still going on. There are families who are still being hurt. There are people who are still waiting for their payments. There are people who are still ringing me up constantly. I have received phone calls from people who have said: ‘The keys to my trawler are here. You can take over the thing. You’ve bankrupted me.’ That is why Senator Scullion, Warren Entsch and I went in there and fought for and got an uncapped package. The packages include competitive tender licence buyouts, restructuring grants for onshore and offshore businesses, and small payouts for retrenched deckhands and trawler skippers. We also secured payments for outdoor motor retailers, fishing retailers and a number of other people who were impacted by the GBRMPA process.

The impact of RAP has been to take a lot of fish out of the market. You almost have to be a millionaire now to get a feed of good fish because fewer fish are being caught. It is a product of supply and demand that, as fewer fish are caught, the more expensive fish is. We have ruined businesses and families. We have made criminals out of recreational fishermen. There are 320 people with criminal records as a result of dropping a line in a green zone. By the goodwill of the minister, this infringement system has been taken care of. There is no question of a criminal offence for someone who takes his kids or grandkids out fishing in a tinnie with an eight-horsepower motor and who, without a GPS, finds that he has lobbed into a green zone because he does not know how to navigate. There are 320 people with a criminal record from dropping their line in a green zone. This is not what I think you would want to support, Senator McLucas. We now have the infringement system in place, but there is still the matter of retrospectivity.

It was perhaps four or even six months ago that GBRMPA were taken to court by people who ascertained that GBRMPA could not charge someone using a GPS system. That decision has not been appealed by GBRMPA. But prior to this decision, a number of people, including both professional fishermen and commercial fishermen, were charged. While those charges remain, the court has ruled that no-one in future can be charged on GPS coordinates. Those charges should be reversed, and I am working with the Prime Minister to do that.

One of the other impacts that we have found is that people just do not go fishing anymore. They are frightened to go fishing. They are frightened that they are going to drift into or end up in a green zone. The fine is huge; it is very significant. People cannot relax. Fishing is supposed to be a relaxing hobby, not one where you are constantly worried about where you are. It takes certain skills and a lot of money to put GPSs in boats. GBRMPA said: ‘Well, it’s the football season, the cost of fuel’s gone up and everything is militating against people going fishing. That is why fishing has been reduced.’ But the real reason fishing has been reduced on the Great Barrier Reef is that people are frightened to take their children and their grandchildren out on their boats.

That has impacted on the bait suppliers, the fishing tackle suppliers and the commercial boat builders. Tourism operators have been forced to travel further and have been squeezed into smaller areas. A lot of people have sold up and got out. Onshore businesses, like boat, motor and tackle shops, have been severely impacted. Processing industries have all been impacted. I went to see one marina owner who just could not believe that this could happen—that GBRMPA had the authority to do this.

That is why we have brought down the legislation which we are debating now. It makes GBRMPA more responsible to the minister. No longer can GBRMPA just do its own thing. The minister was elected. The minister is part of the Westminster system, where we and the coalition appoint a minister to take responsibility. That is what we have now. It is time to bring GBRMPA to account. GBRMPA will now answer to the government. I did not get into this place to appoint an unelected body to deprive people of their livelihoods, take away their aspirations and even make criminals of them if they drift into a green zone when they take their children out fishing. We need to make GBRMPA more accountable, and that is why we have this legislation before us today. The legislation will lock down the RAP zoning plan for a minimum of seven years from the date it came into force. (Time expired)

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2008 at 10:05pm:


Well, I could overlay the map I drew at the consultation meeting (where we collated everyones favourite spots) with the current zoning plan, if I could find the bloody thing.  I have a feeling it got thrown out when we moved house over Xmas.  You'll just have to trust me when I say it couldn't possibly be a coincidence.

I've met Nigel Scullion, he's a nice guy.

Heres another example from the Port Stevens marine park:

If sanctuary zones are supposed to be representative, which is to say that if the zoning is 20.6% as it is on the Port Stephens Draft then each different habitat type should be 20.6% sanctuary. There is 16 different Habitat types. Port Stephens Marine Park has 1468ha of intermediate reef (20-60m), so the sanctuary in this type of habitat should be 302ha, (20.6% of 1468) but it is actually 708ha or 48% of intermediate reef habitat, it is the highest % of any habitat type to be locked into sanctuary (it also happens to be the habitat most desired by fisherman ) that takes almost half of our reefs.

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2008 at 11:15am:



How much evidence do you want FD? The fact that sutainable fisheries have been shut down is pretty good evidence I would have thought! Also you can't just dismiss out of hand stat decs and statements of those affected.

Regarding Port Stevens the MPA actually had a table of habitat type and % sanctuary zone on its website. thats where this information came from:

To the editor, Canberra Times:

Marine Park Sanctuary Zones are meant to contain a "representative sample" of each habitat type.  For the Port Stephens Marine Park, the Draft Zoning is 20.6% total Santuary Zone.

However, 48.2% of all intermediate reefs (20-60m deep) are in Sanctuary Zones.  These reefs make up less than 2% of total habitat.

Also, recreational anglers will be locked out of 16% of all beaches and 11% of all rocky shores, despite these comprising less than 0.5% of the total habitat.

Conversely, only 18% of off-shore sand is in Sanctuary Zones, despite comprising over 80% of the total habitat.

Hardly "representative" at all.  Is it just coincidence that the majority of recreational fishing activity occurs in reefs, beaches and headlands?

The Marine Park Authority are clearly in breach of the "spirit" of the Marine Park Act.  No wonder anglers are outraged...

They actually got the percentages closer to "representative" in Batemans Marine Park.  Not perfect, but closer.

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2008 at 5:16pm:


Shows they are learning at least.

www.mpa.nsw.gov.au, if they haven't removed it like they did with some other stuff that people had questioned or criticised them for (such as their woeful "science paper").

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 10:26am:


The habitat percentages should be, don't recall.  The zoning percentages won't be.  It's worth a read anyway.

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 10:54am:


The zoning percentages won't be in the Bioregional Assessment, because it was written BEFORE the zoning was done.  

I don't know why the stuff was taken down from the MPA website, call them and ask them why.

FFS, do you have to question and doubt everything that anyone else posts up?  Why do you think this stuff was made up?  I know for a fact it wasn't made up, or even guessed.  It was taken from material published by the MPA, which, for whatever reason know only to the MPA, is no longer on their website.

If that isn't good enough for you, then stiff sh*t.

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 11:48am:


Well, you did miss it, just how closely were you monitoring things?

RecFisher wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 2:13pm:


We've already established that FD has never looked at any of the NSW fisheries assessments or the associated EIS statements so I wouldn't be surprised.

Even if you do provide the information FD demands he will either question its validity or ignore it. 

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 5:52pm:


The problem is you don't respond with anything useful. Any computer literate 14 year old would know how to find the fisheries assessments. Just google NSW Fisheries, DPI or DEH (Dep of Environment and Heritage).

Rgarding the % habitat table it was on the MPA site but was pulled. Its quite obvious that reef areas are over represented in most marine parks in any case. If you don't agree FD why don't you provide figures that prove your case?

Any computer literate 14 year old would know how to find the fisheries assessments.

Sure, but can he find information that doesn't exist because it was made up? The onus is always on the person providing the statistics to back them up. Expecting other people to find it for you is absurd. People constantly make up stuff and post it online. It is not my job to prove them wrong. I would be here all day just chasing up the dodgy numbers posted to this site. It is sufficient to merely point out that the numbers cannot be verified.

Who's absurd? Your the one who has formulated a policy on fisheries which will effect people's pastimes and even livelyhoods. You have seen to have done remarkably little reseach on the subject, apart from reliance on an overseas (so called) consensus.  

Rgarding the % habitat table it was on the MPA site but was pulled.

So I've heard, but even if it was pulled there would be some evidence of it's previous existence, as I have already pointed out.

If you don't agree FD why don't you provide figures that prove your case?

It's not that I don't agree. I just see no point in deluding myself that I have evidence to back up my suspicions when I don't. I want to have the information. I don't want to make a fool of myslef by believing some conspiracy about information disappearing from a government website with zero evidence that it ever existed. I may even agree with you, but I don't want to come across as you are coming across right now.

Well the zonings are pretty real. If you have any knowledge of these areas you will know the eye teeth have been picked out of the good fishing spots and reefs are over represented. Eg in Byron Bay virtually all the inshore reef is a green zone, Cairns lost most of its reefs, etc.

You have seen to have done remarkably little reseach on the subject

You're basing this on my unfamiliarity with imaginary statistics? Or just my refusal to accept claims you can't back up?

Mainly on your earlier denial of my reference to NSW fisheries reviews and the fact that you apparently have never looked at then. 

If you have any knowledge of these areas you will know the eye teeth have been picked out of the good fishing spots and reefs are over represented.

I heard similar claims about the GBR, but they couldn't be verified, even though it was in the itnerest of those making the claims to put in the effort to back them up.

Why don't you tell us then what proof will satisfy you. If not then I suggest you drop this silly argument.

It is however inevitable that if you do a proper public consultation there will be some people, generally the best fishermen, who end up seeing it like you do.

What proper public consultation? The submissions I know of have been overwhelmingly against the zonings and they went ahead anyway. In Byron Bay they even closed off extra areas for good measure. 

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 5:26pm:


So I am a liar?  I suggest you call the MPA and ask them about the "Habitat Types per Zone" document they produced for the Port Stephens Marine Park.  It wasn't a PDF, rather an Excel document and the document properties say it was authored by Celia Eastman.

That should be enough for you to go on.  If you get stuck, I can send you my copy of it.

Mainly on your earlier denial of my reference to NSW fisheries reviews

I denied your reference? WTF does that mean?

Why don't you tell us then what proof will satisfy you. If not then I suggest you drop this silly argument.

Some possibilities for evidence (not necessarily proof): the data collected by the GBR and used to select the zones, or a smaller random sample of fishermen and their submissions and the relevant outcomes. Many people, including yourself, have made this argument. I was mostly pointing out how silly it was, but giving those responsible for it the opportunity to back up their claim before accusing them of anything. Go tell the people who keep repeating this gibberish to drop the silly argument rather than pointing the finger at me for saying how silly it is.

The submissions I know of have been overwhelmingly against the zonings

Did you seek out people who supported the zonings, or people who shared your views?

So I am a liar?

I didn't say that.

That should be enough for you to go on.  If you get stuck, I can send you my copy of it.

Why don't you just send me your copy rather than playing hard to get? If you tell me how big it is I will set it up so you can attach it to a post.

Why don't you want to share your copy? Are you worried it may not convince me?

Why do you want me to call them? It seems like you are trying to trick me into making a fool of myself, by calling them up and demanding a file from them when I have zero evidence that the file exists. I can't think of any other reason for the stance you are taking.

What was it convincing you of again?

That was really just a jab at pj's excuses. However, I would like to have evidence to back up some claims.

So you won't prove that a file exists because I said it doesn't exist? Interesting logic. So tell me, why did it take you so long to make this claim that you had a copy of the file?

I am not being paranoid. What you are suggesting is absurd.

freediver wrote on Mar 27^th, 2008 at 9:12pm:


Well, you are the one that doesn't think it exists.  I know myself that it does, because I have a copy.  I'm just suggesting you prove it to yourself.  You are sounding like the spoilt little kid who didn't get any lollies.  I told you how to get the lollies.  I'm not sharing mine because you hurt my feelings.

Why is it absurd that I suggest you ring the Marine Parks Authority?  Do you think they are part of the conspiracy against you?  I have no ulterior motives against you, you are deluding yourself in that regard.

freediver wrote on Mar 28^th, 2008 at 11:01am:


Chances are you are wrong, but I'm happy to leave it at that.

RecFisher wrote on Feb 27^th, 2008 at 11:05pm:


Here you go PJ, at least Recfisher seems to understand what evidence to look for. It's a real shame the evidence 'disappeared'. This could have been a first - the anti marine park lobby backing up their claims.

Quote:


Of course. I do not doubt that he honestly believes what he is saying. It is his competence to make the judement rather than his honesty that I am calling into question.

Quote:


Taking someone's word for it that they could try to piece together evidence that may end up suppoprting their claim, if they hadn't lost the relevent pieces, is not direct evidence PJ. It is the opposite of direct evidence.

Quote:


No. I expect they will be worthless in the sense that they won't demonstrate what you think they do. It is inevitable that some people will loose their favourite spots. This is to be expected, regardless of how the GBRMPA handled the situation. So, a couple of fishermen insisting this happened to them doesn't really mean anything, no matter how hard they insist. Recfisher was at least on the right path, though I suspect his evidence (if he could produce it) would have some significant sampling bias, depending on how it was collected. In any case, maybe he did put it together and decided not to post it because it didn't show what he wanted it to.

That being said, it would be great evidence of your tendency to believe what you want to believe and to project it onto the evidence, rather than responding to the evidence, so it would not be a complete waste of time for you to post it.

yes