Forum

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

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 
Send Topic Print
NSW coalition, re: Batemans and Port Stephens (Read 40352 times)
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1329
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #105 - Mar 17th, 2011 at 7:44pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 17th, 2011 at 7:25pm:
Are you avoiding the question? Are you suggesting the coalition is only going to care about damage to the marine environment if it is in a marine park?



No, are you?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 24307
in front of a computer
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #106 - Mar 17th, 2011 at 8:58pm
 
No. I think it's just more meaningless gibberish in coalition policy.

Feel free to 'interpret' it for us again.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1329
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #107 - Mar 17th, 2011 at 11:29pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 17th, 2011 at 8:58pm:
No. I think it's just more meaningless gibberish in coalition policy.

Feel free to 'interpret' it for us again.



And what are you doing if not interpeting it? Time and time again you show you don't have any arguments of substance so you just project your own faults back onto your opponents.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jasignature
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3925
Scam Syd-i-knee
Gender: male
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #108 - Mar 18th, 2011 at 6:56pm
 
Smiley

Back to top
 

U.nited&&F.ederation of&&O.ceania&&...for all Austr-Aliens
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 24307
in front of a computer
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #109 - Mar 18th, 2011 at 9:00pm
 
Quote:
And what are you doing if not interpeting it?


I think there is nothing there to interpret. Tell us what you think it means in practice PJ.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1329
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #110 - Mar 19th, 2011 at 11:18am
 
freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2011 at 9:00pm:
Quote:
And what are you doing if not interpeting it?


I think there is nothing there to interpret. Tell us what you think it means in practice PJ.


Yes, well I suppose something that doesn't involve the most costly and inconvenient solutions to purely hypothetical problems is too much for your minset to comprehend.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 24307
in front of a computer
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #111 - Mar 19th, 2011 at 11:24am
 
pjb05 wrote on Mar 17th, 2011 at 6:07am:
In this case if an urban developement was going to have an adverse effect of the marine environment then the marine park authority can have some input on it.



But only if it is a marine park?
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1329
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #112 - Mar 21st, 2011 at 8:27pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 19th, 2011 at 11:24am:
pjb05 wrote on Mar 17th, 2011 at 6:07am:
In this case if an urban developement was going to have an adverse effect of the marine environment then the marine park authority can have some input on it.



But only if it is a marine park?


There are plenty of other arms of government to concern themselves with other areas. Plus there is the rec fishing consultaive body you saw fit to malign.

PS even some greens are now saying they may have got it wrong with their obsession with fishing bans rather than looking at pollution and degradation.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 24307
in front of a computer
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #113 - Mar 23rd, 2011 at 10:08pm
 
So we should have two separate government departments to assess development applications depending on their proximity to marine parks?

Is this you 'interpretting' coalition policy again, or are you just making it up as you go along?
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1329
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #114 - Mar 24th, 2011 at 6:05am
 
freediver wrote on Mar 23rd, 2011 at 10:08pm:
So we should have two separate government departments to assess development applications depending on their proximity to marine parks?

Is this you 'interpretting' coalition policy again, or are you just making it up as you go along?


No you are. Eg who said that marine park authorities would assess developement activities?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 24307
in front of a computer
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #115 - Mar 24th, 2011 at 7:15pm
 
OK. They would 'have some input' into DAs, depending on their proximity to marine parks.

Would this be a rubber stamp, or would it actually have teeth? And if so, why deny the level of protection to other areas?

What is the point of having a different process for DAs depending on their proximity to marine parks?

Does the coalition policy, or your naive interpretation of it, actually mean anything at all? Or is it just more meaningless waffle?
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1329
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #116 - Mar 24th, 2011 at 7:34pm
 
OK. They would 'have some input' into DAs, depending on their proximity to marine parks.

Would this be a rubber stamp, or would it actually have teeth?

It's a question of balance. Plus you keep ignoring the other half of the statement, ie they will remove the over emphasis on fishing as a threatening process. 

And if so, why deny the level of protection to other areas?

It's only natural that marine parks will have interest in and knowledge of areas within their jurastiction. You seem to have contradicted yourself too - your whole philosophy is one of total protection for some areas and even a relaxing of restrictions for the remainder.


What is the point of having a different process for DAs depending on their proximity to marine parks?

Ironic given you views on how fisheries should be managed.

Does the coalition policy, or your naive interpretation of it, actually mean anything at all? Or is it just more meaningless waffle?

It's your magical thinking regarding marine parks that's naive.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 24307
in front of a computer
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #117 - Mar 24th, 2011 at 7:53pm
 
So what does it actually mean in practice PJ?

Quote:
It's only natural that marine parks will have interest in and knowledge of areas within their jurastiction.


Their jurisdiction is the marine parks, or the marine environment. There is no good reason for the government department responsible for marine parks to have any authority over DAs, because their is no good reason to have different standards based on proximity to marine parks.

Perhaps you should give an example.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1329
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #118 - May 26th, 2011 at 7:33am
 
This makes your front papge article look more than a bit stupid, FD:


Minister to overturn recent changes to Marine Parks
25 May 2011


THE NSW Government is set to abolish changes to the zoning plans for the Jervis Bay and Solitary Islands marine parks made by the former Labor Government, Minister for Primary Industries Katrina Hodgkinson and Minister for the Environment Robyn Parker said today.

Minister Hodgkinson will today move in the Legislative Assembly that Labor's recent zoning regulations be disallowed.

The decision means fishing rules in both marine parks will revert to those in place before March 2011, which have been in place since 2002. The use of the marine park for recreational purposes is unchanged.

The Ministers said there will be thorough community consultation before any future zoning plans for Jervis Bay and Solitary Islands marine parks are implemented.

"The NSW Government is committed to commonsense marine parks policy that is based on science, not politics," Minister Hodgkinson said.

"We will disallow these most recent changes, overturning Labor's politically motivated plans for Jervis Bay and Solitary Islands.

"This will ensure the fishing rules revert back to those that have been in place since 2002, which the community, in particular the fishing community, had only just become accustomed to.

Minister Parker said the NSW Government has also committed to an independent scientific audit of the effectiveness of the existing zoning arrangements within marine parks.

"Any marine park policy must find the right balance between protecting the marine environment and providing opportunities for fishing, diving, whale watching and other activities that generate opportunities for tourism," Minister Parker said.

Minister Parker also welcomed greater scrutiny of marine parks.

In a press release the Australian Marine Conservation Society has slammed the government's decision, which it says will see the percentage of sanctuary zones in the Solitary Islands Marine Park reduced from 19 to 12 per cent, and trawlers allowed back into Jervis Bay Marine Park.

Spokesman for the Nature Conservation Council, Pepe Clarke, has also condemned the zoning decision, saying complaints about inadequate consultation are ridiculous.

"In the case of Solitary Islands more than 6500 submissions were received in response to the draft zoning plan. There were dozens of stakeholder meetings and community information days . The consultation extended over a three month period," Clarke told the ABC.

"So any claim that this zoning plan was rushed through in the dying days of the previous government is unfounded."

Back to top
« Last Edit: May 27th, 2011 at 5:15pm by pjb05 »  
 
IP Logged
 
Jasignature
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3925
Scam Syd-i-knee
Gender: male
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #119 - May 27th, 2011 at 1:29pm
 
Ok. It seems I loose.
The Libs have opened up a lot of Reserves/Santuaries/etc for Fishing.

Guess I'm gonna have to don my scuba gear and start drilling holes in boats for some more wreck dives ...especially French Fishing Boats. Shouldn't be any different to when I used to wear black trackies and get around all of Sydney city upon very rainy nights - even in front of unseeing cops. Even the Lodge was not spared when a mate and I lived at Kirribilli (that old white buiding that housed junkies/alcos/hookers). Kinda helped when Keating's security guards were asleep though Wink.

Is what I am doing wrong and detrimental to the wellbeing of this nation's future in a most selfish way? Quite possibly. Undecided
I'll stop at x100 Fishing Boats as if I too am 'restricted' from going over a quota. Its a 'sustainable' amount I'm sure.
Back to top
 

U.nited&&F.ederation of&&O.ceania&&...for all Austr-Aliens
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 
Send Topic Print