freediver wrote on Nov 7^th, 2010 at 8:27am:


Could you put up a link to this policy FD. I'd be surprised if they were offering more marine parks.

freediver wrote on Nov 7^th, 2010 at 10:19am:


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.

freediver wrote on Nov 7^th, 2010 at 1:08pm:


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?

freediver wrote on Nov 7^th, 2010 at 1:59pm:


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

[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?

[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.

[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?

bump

Any word yet on what they have planned for these two marine parks?

freediver wrote on Feb 6^th, 2011 at 10:26pm:



FD, do you think 3nm is out of reach of recreational fishermen?

freediver wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 8:02pm:



And how about 100 km?

freediver wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 8:38pm:


If you recall your own post (front page), you said it was nothing for fishermen to crow about that Commonwealth marine parks off Tasmania are a long way offshore. You said that being in Commonwealth waters they have to be a long way offshore. What you fail to mention is that Commonwealth waters start at 3 nm out, making you point a spurious one (and the fact the marine parks are at least 100 km out).

freediver wrote on Feb 8^th, 2011 at 7:52pm:


You said yourself that Tasmanian marine parks are a long way offshore are you just going to continue to answer a question with a question?. My understanding is that none of the Commonwealth marine parks in SE Australia are within 100km of the shore. My point stands - if they wished they could put them as close a 3 nm offshore.

freediver wrote on Feb 8^th, 2011 at 8:09pm:


Well I just looked at the map. most of the parks are well offshore and this is even without allowing for the fact that a minority of their area will be green zones. You are just being misleading to score a point.

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mpa/southeast/index.html

freediver wrote on Feb 10^th, 2011 at 9:36pm:


Don't be so obtuse FD:

The fishing party and the various lobbies opposed to marine parks must be getting so desperate for validation that they gloat over any crumbs the major parties will feed them. They even hold up some recently created marine parks in Tasmania as evidence of the coalition's pro recreational fishing stance, because they are so far offshore that they don't bother most recreational fishermen. Of course, these parks were established by the federal coalition government in federal waters and were never going to be close to shore anyway.

Now Federal waters start at 3nm. This is not far offshore at all and Federal marine parks therefore have plenty of potential to bother fishermen. In the next breadth you even mention the GBRMP which has caused a great deal of angst amonst fishermen. Don't you realise it took you the next few sentences to contradict your own argument?

freediver wrote on Feb 11^th, 2011 at 9:42pm:


No, because you haven't proven they do. Even if they do - big deal. The map shows a few of the parks go up to the 3nm mark but do not show the green zones. You can also see the park area is only small in that close and increases further offshore. Also where the parks come close to shore the area is very remote. On top of that I qualified the remark as something I heard and relating to SE Australia.

I have heard nothing from either party on this topic.

I would assume that Labor will just continue as they have been which in my opinion has been very poor in this area; the implementation in both BB and PS was abysmal.

On the other hand the Liberals are still playing small target and do not really have any policy at all, I know you can scrounge their web site and find a variety of waffle but nothing meaningful on almost any topic.

It looks to me like the coalition’s current policy is to not tell anyone what their policy is, if they even have one.

freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 8:39am:



That is the first example I have heard of a good experience dealing with these people, shelted from a southerly may have appealed for safety reasons?

double post

Quote:


You are now saying the same thing as me. I was not arguing that being 3nm offshore would be a problem for fishermen.

There are other green zones within 100km of the shore.

You seemed to think the 100km thing was important before. Anyway, at least we got that resolved.

Now, any news on the NSW coalition policy?

What is it that is bothering you now?

Quote:


You brought it up. I was just correcting you, and I only continued it for as long as it took for you to realise you were wrong.

Quote:


It did.

Quote:


The GBRMPA, on the NIMBY principle. I don't think recreational fishermen tend to go as far opffshore around Tasmania.

Quote:


I don't think pork barrelling is the correct term. It's more like vote buying, or divide and conquer.

Quote:


In any case I thought it was worth correcting, as you hear a lot of misinformation about marine parks.

Quote:


Doubt it. Why are we still discussing this?

Quote:


Is this something else you 'heard about'?

Quote:
 

That is probably a good idea, provided the latent effort is cut back first.

Quote:


Perhaps you should be a bit more specific. I still have no idea what you are on about. Also, can you explain how this is relevant? Is it OK for the government to buy votes from the anti marine park lobby because they also buy votes elsewhere?

Quote:


No it doesn't.

Quote:


Can you elaborate please?

Quote:


My criticism was directed at the 'representative body' funding, not the payouts to commercial fishermen. I have heard just as much criticism of government funded representative bodies from the other side of this debate.

All you had to do is have a bit of patience, FD:

http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/coalition-releases-rec-fishing-policy-in-election-lead-up

Coalition releases rec fishing policy in election lead-up
22 Feb 2011

THE NSW opposition today released its recreational fishing policy titled “Restoring the Balance”.

Shadow Minister for Primary Industries Duncan Gay said today at Port Macquarie the NSW Liberals & Nationals Marine Parks policy claims to outline: “Positive, practical plans based on independent, scientific evidence to give local communities a proper say in decisions that affect their livelihood and lifestyle.”

"The NSW Liberals & Nationals policy “Restoring the Balance” finds the right balance between allowing fishermen appropriate access to fishing spots and protecting the marine environment,” said Gay.

The Coalition policy includes:

* Not abolish any of the existing six marine parks and continue our moratorium on the creation of new marine parks and fishing closures, pending the outcome of our independent scientific audit.
* Immediately commission an independent scientific audit of the effectiveness of existing zoning arrangements in meeting domestic and international commitments to the conservation of marine biodiversity.
* A separate audit to examine which lead agency (Fisheries or the Department of Environment and Climate Change) is more appropriate to manage Marine Parks.
* Trial appropriate recreational fishing techniques in marine parks under review.
* Expand the current Habitat Protection Zones within marine parks subject to the results of the scientific independent audit.
* Local Community Social and Economic Impact Statements included in the audit.
* Commit to removing pressure on our fish stocks and marine environment through a $16 million, 4-year commitment for a commercial fisherman buyout policy.
* Audit the current management of NSW Fishing Trust funds and the process by which trust funds are allocated.
* Create a new Joint Recreational and Commercial Fishing Advisory Committee including stakeholders from the fishing industries.
* Improve the awareness of anglers of zoning arrangements so fines are not handed out to unsuspecting people drifting into restricted areas.
* Improve the current system of compliance.

"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 diseases, some agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development."

Stay tuned to fishingworld.com.au for more related news in the lead-up to the NSW election.

1298376816] Quote:


You will have to be more specific.

You mentioned the figure of 15 million dollars didn't you?

Quote:


By getting the leaders of the anti marine park movement on side. Given the small number of people actively involved in the movement it would be pretty cheap to buy them off with an official position on a meaningless body.

Are the Coalition's policies meaningless as well? Also tell me; who are the leaders of the 'anti marine park movement'. Give me some names. And what makes you think it is a top down organisation? In fact it is grassroots, and real grass - not the astroturf of the pro marine park lobby.

Quote:


Are they suggesting they can make marine parks do those other things better than labor? [/quote]

quote]You mentioned the figure of 15 million dollars didn't you? [/quote]

Yes. That was for context. You would have equally criticised me for leaving that out.

It has nothing to do with context - more like for the sake of exaggeration.

Quote:


I don't think you can lump them all together like that. The represntative body one is pretty meaningless.

How do you know it will be meaningless?

Quote:


Sorry, I don't pay that much attention.

If your theory has some basis in fact you would know who these so called leaders are.  

Quote:


I don't. But leaders are inevitable. The movement is fringe enough as it is. If you take out the few sane sounding people it will become even more fringe.

Bandwagon device. As to the 'sane sounding' jibe you have quite some hide given your pathetically inept missives.

Are they suggesting they can make marine parks do those other things better than labor?

Wouldn't be hard. At least they are showing signs of seeing beyound the anti fishing bias that surrounds Labor's marine parks.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 5:44pm:



Actually there are quite a few specifics in the policy. Also it is quite reasonable that they haven't gone into the details of actual zoning at this stage. 

Quote:


History repeating.

Quote:


So you think the coalition will use marine parks for "addressing pollution, introduced species and diseases, some agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development"?

Quote:


The bit about not abolishing any marine parks is substantial and definitely needed to be cleared up given what they said last election. The rest does barely differentiate them from Labor on the marine park front - the devil is in the detail, which they are not providing.

Quote:


Kind of what you would expect them to do, but it leaves just about every option open to them, and they have made no indication of changing their view on anything.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 11:56pm:



They have offered a general direction, it looks lke your both just seeing what you want to see.

Quote:
 

Youa re confused PJ.
Quote:


So the coalition are the real envuironmentalists? Are they addressing for example climate change better than Labor? Can you explain this bit:

Quote:


Is this just meaningless drivel?

Quote:


Their marine park policy says nothing meaningfull about no take zones. Does this not concern you at all, coming from the party that gave us the biggest marine park in the world? It leaves things wide open.

Quote:


But that's just it PJ - there is nothing to see. Do you think that is what I want to see?

Quote:


Perhaps it will help if I repost the conversation for you:

PJ: Are the Coalition's policies meaningless as well?

FD: I don't think you can lump them all together like that. The represntative body one is pretty meaningless.

PJ: How do you know it will be meaningless?

FD: History repeating.

PJ: Thanks for pointing out the flaws in the design and implementation of existing Labor marine parks.

FD: Youa re confused PJ.

Got it now? I am not being evasive. I'm just getting bored.

Quote:


Are you suggesting labor does not recognise pollution and global warming as a problem?

Quote:
 

It is equally stupid to sugggest that marine parks will prevent pollution, introduced species, etc. Yet this is exactly what the NSW coalition is claiming they can do.

Quote:


Does that make sense to you? Do you think the NSW coalition can magically make their marine parks prevent agricultural runoff of foreign species? It looks to me like the marine park policy of the NSW coalition amounts to nothing more than the regurgitation of the empty headed spin coming from the anti-marine park movement. And the anti marine park movement are yet again being duped into thinking the coalition will stop marine parks. It is comical what some people will fall for - like the party that gave us the biggest marine park in the world suddenly doing a backflip and opposing marine parks, even if they don't actually say that. At least Julia Gillard lied about a carbon tax. The coalition did not even have to promise you lot anything and you suddenly turn into lapdogs.

Quote:


So naive.

Quote:


Change how? More fishermen getting fined, or less?

Quote:


No PJ. What I want to see is the coalition taking a public, principled and rational stance on marine parks. No matter what I think of the anti marine park movement, I don't think it is fair for the coalition to take advantage of them like this. If a politician is going to impliment a policy you don't like, they should be upfront about it and tell you, not promise meaningless reviews.

pjb05 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 5:25pm:



The way I read it the direction is that general that it falls short of even saying which direction they are going.

The libs have many pages which boil down to we will put a hold on the current position till we get advice, that advice could be to go in any direction from dismantling the current parks to extending them to 100% of everything. While neither of these options look probable it is the range they have clearly left open.

Full speed ahead - which direction - they don't know and they don't care.

Quote:


They criticised the operation by Labor of marine parks for failing to address those problems. Is this is a valid criticism, they obviously think they can operate marine parks in a way that does. I think it is just meaningless drivel. How about you?

Quote:


Nothing. It just means that their criticism of labor's use of marine parks is meaningless gibberish. They might as well complain that labor's traffic laws don't stop domesitc violence. It is not the sort of thing you expect to see in an official policy release.

Quote:


If the coalition criticised labors use of pro buyouts for example because they didn't prevent introduced species then I would also criticise them for putting meaningless gibberish in their policy. The fact that both are part of fisheries policy doesn't make it any less meaningless. We are only going off on this tangent because you tried to argue that it was not meaningless gibberish. These simple points only become long drawn out tangents because you try to argue against the bleeding obvious.

Quote:


So you think that coalition policy does not mean what it actually says?

PJ you are the one offering the real meaning of what the coalition says, not me.

I think the coalition deliberately avoided directly accusing Labor of failing to address those other threats because it would make them look like hypocrits. This left them little room to saying anything with meaning - hence the meaningless gibberish.

Can you find an example of the coalition accusing Labor of not addressing those issues that is not limited in scope to marine parks?

None, if they merely mention it. But if you look at what they actually said they limited the scope of their criticism to marine park policy. This is so they can 'say' something that is not true, without actually saying it, because they phrase it in a way that gullible people will think they said it.

That is why you cannot find an example of the Coalition actually saying what you think they say. This is because if they actually said it, they would open themselves up to accusations of hypocrisy and turn public attention to how well they compare on those other issues. So instead they quietly slip in a bit of meaningless gibberish that they cannot be held accountable for but which will pick up a few votes from those who see what they want to see.

Quote:


Because labor has a better record in dealing with those other threats to the marine environment. That is why the coalition is not prepared to say that Labor has failed to address those issues. They are only prepared to say that labor's implimentation of marine parks has failed to solve problems that marine parks are not intended to solve in the first place.

That is why they rely on people like you to 'interpret' what they say - because they cannot honestly say it themselves and cannot risk the inevitable accusations of hypocrisy.

This is why you cannot come up with an example of the coalition actually saying what you 'interpret' from their meaningless gibberish. This is why the coalition had to resort to putting meaningless gibberish in their policy statement.

Quote:

So can you find an example of the coalition accusing Labor of failing to adress those other issues, or claiming to adress them better?

Can you quote them for me? Do they limit the scope of their criticism to Labor's implimentation of marine parks?

I can't see it.

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2011 at 9:13pm:



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.

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


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.

] Quote:


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.

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 9:05pm:


It was on the ABC a few days ago - a lengthy piece on NSW planning and developement. Must have been Stateline.

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.

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


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.

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



30% of NSW waters are marine parks!

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 7:25pm:



No, are you?

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 8:58pm:



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.

Quote:


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

pjb05 wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 6:07am:



But only if it is a marine park?

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?

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?

So what does it actually mean in practice PJ?

Quote:


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.