freediver wrote on Mar 3
rd, 2011 at 8:57pm:
Quote:Don't you understand that marine parks in their present form are a distraction from the problems mentioned in that statement and that was the meaning of the phrase in question?
So you think that coalition policy does not mean what it actually says?
No I'll leave it to you to be able to find totally hidden agendas.
Here is the relevant section:
"Fishermen in NSW have long suffered under NSW Labor's failed marine parks policy which was designed to achieve a political outcome
rather than an environmental evidence-based outcome," said Gay.
"The NSW Liberals & Nationals do not believe that Labor's approach of locking communities out of their waterways is the answer to protecting our marine environments.
"Marine parks as operated by the Keneally Labor Government concentrate solely on restricting fishing rather than addressing pollution, introduced species and agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development"?
You insipidly weak argument focuses on the fact that marine parks don't have full jurastiction over areas where these threats arise. Big deal. This does not mean they can't make recommendations or interact with other arms of government, or the government taking advice from fisheries scientists like Prof Kearney and address these problems.
You are also only covering one side of the issue - so whaterever argument you had falls down. Namely if fishing is over-emphasised as a threat then it is well within the marine parks jurastiction to treat it less proscriptively.