Australian Politics Forum - NSW coalition, re: Batemans and Port Stephens

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47442 At my desk.	Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens Reply #90 - Mar 13^th, 2011 at 9:13pm I have updated the site home page regarding the new policy release. http://www.ozpolitic.com/index.html
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

pjb05 Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 1402 Gender:	Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens Reply #91 - Mar 14^th, 2011 at 6:35am freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2011 at 9:13pm: I have updated the site home page regarding the new policy release. http://www.ozpolitic.com/index.html Pretty much the same rubbish you posted originally. You have some hide putting it back up seeing you haven't been able to defend it on this thread.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47442 At my desk.	Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens Reply #92 - Mar 14^th, 2011 at 9:06pm Can you quote an example, not limited to marine parks, of the coalition accusing Labor of failing to adress those other issues, or claiming to adress them better?
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #93 - Mar 15^th, 2011 at 6:21am

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 9:06pm:

Can you quote an example, not limited to marine parks, of the coalition accusing Labor of failing to adress those other issues, or claiming to adress them better?

Anyone without an axe to grind will realise that it's not limited to marine parks - you have just siezed on some imprecise wording. One of their main points is that drawing lines on maps as Labor has done does nothing about these problems. In a bit of projection you have spun this around and thrown it back!

PS: I saw archive footage Barry O'farell criticising rampant/ uncontrolled developement under this Labor government. This certainly wasn't limited to marine parks - they weren't even mentioned.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 15^th, 2011 at 6:28am by pjb05 »

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47442
At my desk.

Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #94 - Mar 15^th, 2011 at 7:22pm

Quote:

you have just siezed on some imprecise wording

You think the coalition was careless with the wording of their policy statement? Kind of naive don't you think? I think it is the opposite. They carefully crafted the degree of ambiguity in their statement so that naive people would read what they wanted into it without the coalition actually saying it. If they actually said it, it would come back to bite them, because it would make them blatant hypocrits. That is why, even though you insist it is what they meant to say, you cannot find one single example of them actually saying it.

It is not the ambiguity I am drawing attention to, but your naivete in interpretting the ambiguity.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #95 - Mar 15^th, 2011 at 7:34pm

] Quote:

you have just siezed on some imprecise wording

You think the coalition was careless with the wording of their policy statement? Kind of naive don't you think? I think it is the opposite.

I didn't say it was careless.

They carefully crafted the degree of ambiguity in their statement so that naive people would read what they wanted into it without the coalition actually saying it. If they actually said it, it would come back to bite them, because it would make them blatant hypocrits.

How would they be hypocrites? Wouldn't they be hypocrites if they came out with a detailed zoning plan before doing the consultation and science first? What would you have them do?

That is why, even though you insist it is what they meant to say, you cannot find one single example of them actually saying it.

I just gave an example.

It is not the ambiguity I am drawing attention to, but your naivete in interpretting the ambiguity.

And I have shot all this down - zomby like you keep repeating it.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47442 At my desk.	Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens Reply #96 - Mar 15^th, 2011 at 9:05pm Quote: I just gave an example. Touche. The 'archive footage'. I suppose I'll have to take your word for it.
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

pjb05 Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 1402 Gender:	Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens Reply #97 - Mar 16^th, 2011 at 6:15am freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 9:05pm: Quote: I just gave an example. Touche. The 'archive footage'. I suppose I'll have to take your word for it. It was on the ABC a few days ago - a lengthy piece on NSW planning and developement. Must have been Stateline.
Back to top	IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 57162 Here Gender:	Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens Reply #98 - Mar 16^th, 2011 at 6:45am Unfortunatly with an election which is a foregone conclusion this is a nothing issue which they can all get away with just paying basic lip service to.
Back to top	IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #99 - Mar 16^th, 2011 at 6:34pm

I found this in their policy release as well. Give up now FD?

• Ensure that the NSW Liberals & Nationals Marine Parks Policy will be in accord with future fisheries reforms and greater integration with urban planning, including issues surrounding agricultural land use and water run-off from urban areas.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47442 At my desk.	Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens Reply #100 - Mar 16^th, 2011 at 11:49pm Marine park policy in accord with urban planning? Do you even know what that means?
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #101 - Mar 17^th, 2011 at 6:07am

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 11:49pm:

Marine park policy in accord with urban planning? Do you even know what that means?

It means more than just drawing lines on maps. 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47442 At my desk.	Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens Reply #102 - Mar 17^th, 2011 at 6:45pm pjb05 wrote on Mar 17^th, 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	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #103 - Mar 17^th, 2011 at 6:59pm

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 6:45pm:

pjb05 wrote on Mar 17^th, 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?

30% of NSW waters are marine parks!

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47442 At my desk.	Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens Reply #104 - Mar 17^th, 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?
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged