Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 10
Send Topic Print
NSW coalition, re: Batemans and Port Stephens (Read 70312 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35887
I like fish
NSW coalition, re: Batemans and Port Stephens
Nov 7th, 2010 at 8:27am
 
Prior to the last state election, the NSW coalition promised to abolish the marine parks at Batemans and Port Stephens. I wrote to the NSW opposition a while back asking them whether they had abandoned this policy. I still haven't recieved a response. Does anyone know what their policy currently is?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281669694/26#26

More recently, the NSW coalition released a policy which they claimed put new marine parks 'on hold'. However, the details of the plan appear to involve more marine parks, which merely require the same sort of review that both Labor and the coalition have done before every new marine park in Australia. The plan also involves $15 million in handouts for the sector. $10 million will go to aquaculture and $1 million will go to the recreational fishing sector to establish and promote a 'peak body'.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1333
Gender: male
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #1 - Nov 7th, 2010 at 8:48am
 
freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2010 at 8:27am:
Prior to the last state election, the NSW coalition promised to abolish the marine parks at Batemans and Port Stephens. I wrote to the NSW opposition a while back asking them whether they had abandoned this policy. I still haven't recieved a response. Does anyone know what their policy currently is?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281669694/26#26

More recently, the NSW coalition released a policy which they claimed put new marine parks 'on hold'. However, the details of the plan appear to involve more marine parks, which merely require the same sort of review that both Labor and the coalition have done before every new marine park in Australia. The plan also involves $15 million in handouts for the sector. $10 million will go to aquaculture and $1 million will go to the recreational fishing sector to establish and promote a 'peak body'.


Could you put up a link to this policy FD. I'd be surprised if they were offering more marine parks.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35887
I like fish
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #2 - Nov 7th, 2010 at 10:19am
 
It is in the link I posted. The one about the new policy is one post up. You posted it.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1333
Gender: male
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #3 - Nov 7th, 2010 at 1:05pm
 
freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2010 at 10:19am:
It is in the link I posted. The one about the new policy is one post up. You posted it.


Well it doesn't sound like we have been reading the same statement if you think there is no difference between the coalition's proposed review and Labor's version.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35887
I like fish
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #4 - Nov 7th, 2010 at 1:08pm
 
You are right. They spin their policies in completely different directions. So they sound completely different, until you stumble across the actual detail of the policy.

Now, abolishing Batemans and Port Stephens would be an actual difference in policy. Any idea where they stand now on that one?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1333
Gender: male
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #5 - Nov 7th, 2010 at 1:15pm
 
freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2010 at 1:08pm:
You are right. They spin their policies in completely different directions. So they sound completely different, until you stumble across the actual detail of the policy.

Now, abolishing Batemans and Port Stephens would be an actual difference in policy. Any idea where they stand now on that one?


So you point is that there is no difference in policy? Doesn't the phrase 'last resort' mean anything to you? What about the Coalition's marine park in SE Australia - with no rec fishing bans within 100km of the coast?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35887
I like fish
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #6 - Nov 7th, 2010 at 1:59pm
 
Quote:
Doesn't the phrase 'last resort' mean anything to you?


Sure. Especially when it is in context.  Wink
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1333
Gender: male
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #7 - Nov 7th, 2010 at 2:02pm
 
freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2010 at 1:59pm:
Quote:
Doesn't the phrase 'last resort' mean anything to you?


Sure. Especially when it is in context.  Wink


Then how can you say that there is no difference between the Coalition's proposed review and Labor's?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35887
I like fish
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #8 - Nov 7th, 2010 at 2:04pm
 
pjb05 wrote on Nov 7th, 2010 at 2:02pm:
freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2010 at 1:59pm:
Quote:
Doesn't the phrase 'last resort' mean anything to you?


Sure. Especially when it is in context.  Wink


Then how can you say that there is no difference between the Coalition's proposed review and Labor's?


Please quote the statement I made that you would like me to clarify.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1333
Gender: male
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #9 - Nov 7th, 2010 at 2:11pm
 
[quote author=freediver link=1289082469/0#8] date=1289102679Please quote the statement I made that you would like me to clarify. [/quote]

Well how about this one. PS this is part of a recuring theme with you. Ie an appeal to the 'bandwagon effect'.



You are right. They spin their policies in completely different directions. So they sound completely different, until you stumble across the actual detail of the policy.

Now, abolishing Batemans and Port Stephens would be an actual difference in policy. Any idea where they stand now on that one?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35887
I like fish
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #10 - Nov 7th, 2010 at 2:21pm
 
I did not say there is no difference.

If you were referring to the comment in the article you posted, it does not say that marine parks will be a last resort.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1333
Gender: male
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #11 - Nov 7th, 2010 at 2:33pm
 
[quote author=freediver link=1289082469/0#10 date=1289103706]I did not say there is no difference.

You implied there was no difference, ie to support your bandwagon theme.

If you were referring to the comment in the article you posted, it does not say that marine parks will be a last resort.

This is what it said:

"As a last resort, if such consultation and negotiation does not reduce impacts below levels that are reasonably compensable, then compensation, structural adjustment or other appropriate measures will be delivered before any constraints on fishing are implemented," the policy statement says.


Now to me that looks like traditional methods would be looked at first before locking out fishing, ie green zones would be a last resort.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35887
I like fish
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #12 - Nov 7th, 2010 at 2:50pm
 
To me it looks like buisiness as usual.

It is not saying that marine parks will be a last resort. It is saying that compensation payments will be a last resort. As far as I know, the coalition is the only party that has implimented policies with marine parks in Australia that required compensation, so it hardly distinguishes them from Labor.

Of course, they spun it to make it sound like 'no more marine parks'.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1333
Gender: male
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #13 - Nov 7th, 2010 at 4:03pm
 
[quote author=freediver link=1289082469/0#12 date=1289105414]To me it looks like buisiness as usual.

There is nothing to suggest that - this is just pure fantasy on your part.

It is not saying that marine parks will be a last resort. It is saying that compensation payments will be a last resort.

More like measures restrictive enough on fishing to require compensation would be a last resort.

As far as I know, the coalition is the only party that has implimented policies with marine parks in Australia that required compensation, so it hardly distinguishes them from Labor.

Labor just decided not to compensate for the impacts of their marine parks - do you call that a good thing?




Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35887
I like fish
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #14 - Nov 7th, 2010 at 10:17pm
 
Quote:
Labor just decided not to compensate for the impacts of their marine parks


Is that the only difference you see?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 10
Send Topic Print