April 4, 2011 - 9:09AM
AAP

Premier Barry O'Farrell must rule out the introduction of hunting in national parks, NSW Opposition Leader John Robertson says, following a shake-up in the Department of Environment.

"We can't have a situation where bushwalkers are dodging bullets," Mr Robertson said in a statement on Monday.

The Opposition leader took aim at Mr O'Farrell for carving up the NSW Department of the Environment, Climate Change and Water and redirecting top issues to his office.

Advertisement: Story continues below
Mr Robertson says the premier is pandering to the Shooters and Fishers Party, whose support he may need to pass legislation in the upper house, by dropping Catherine Cusack from his front bench.

"Catherine Cusack was the only thing standing between the Shooters party and their plans to introduce hunting in national parks and now the premier has shown her the door," Mr Robertson said.

Ms Cusack was environment spokeswoman when the coalition was in opposition but failed to secure the portfolio in government, despite Mr O'Farrell promising to install all his shadow frontbenchers in the corresponding ministries in government.

Less than two weeks before the March 26 election Ms Cusack angered the Shooters party by saying hunting would not be allowed in national parks and the party was losing relevance, Fairfax reported on Monday.

The Shooters party also wants a freeze on marine parks.

Maitland MP Robyn Parker has been given the environment portfolio, sparking criticism from Mr Robertson about Mr O'Farrell's intentions.

"Former Labor premier Bob Carr established over 300 national parks in NSW and every one of those parks is now at risk," he said.

"The premier needs to cease this attack on the environment, rule out hunting in national parks and put marine parks and responsibility for land clearing back where they belong."

Under the shake-up, the director-general of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water will report to the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

Responsibility for marine parks management and decisions about land clearing will be transferred to the Department of Primary Industries, Fairfax reported.

© 2011 AAP

The military are not specialists. They are the least well trained to handle those domestic situations. That's why they are the last resort.

At the real risk of bringing this thread back on track and out of the bizarre wasteland into which it has descended, I will say that New Zealand seems to have no problem with hunting in national parks and other designated recreational areas. In fact hunters are permitted to use popular tramping tracks to access the areas where hunting is permitted.

Of course we must note that NZ has no native land mammals to shoot by accident and anything on four legs is fair game. Also they have a much more unified and homogeneous society largely without the ethnic tensions and rampant gun crime that plague Australia, hence a more relaxed and mature attitude to gun ownership.

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 4:29pm:


Frequently. I do a lot of bushwalking there.

Jas are you in the CEC by any chance?

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Apr 11^th, 2011 at 1:19pm:


Congratulations, you are the first person I ever heard express a desire to live under martial law while the rest of the world seems to be doing their damnedest to get away from it.
Maybe I should get out more.  

Well I hope you guys don't have some drugged out, crime orientated, loser, gangsta, biker, whatever shoot you or your loved ones because he just happened to be able to have a gun
...and then he gets off on mental illness because the pot made him a schizo. (Because other people can do drugs besides just the Medical Industry eh )

Who ya gonna call? GhostBusters

Well I could make a makeshift 'gun' out of a piece of pipe and a rubber glove.  Just think of the havoc I could wreak with this awesome piece of weaponry before the army arrives from across town.

Look out, he's got a slingshot!  Call the army!

I can think like a prawn hanging from between a grannies legs too.


...but the point to remember: This is why the world is still $%*#!


Oh well, at least the South Americans, especially the Bolivians will teach the white boys of the West who really is the fastest, biggest, best Military of all, especially a Military that isn't subserviant to Political whims.

Well I hope you don't have a bullet in yours.

...I like Fiji, only the Military has guns, only Polititians make laws, only Medics use drugs, only Sportspeople play with balls, only Artists use Corel Draw 7, only Chefs use steakknives, only Conservationists protect Animals, etc, etc, etc.

Alas, I think you guys like how Moslems yell out how Religious they are with a machine gun shooting in the sky.
Like Musicians with a Drug problem.

...oh well, if you guys don't get it. I don't really care much for it.

...like shooting Poachers, as they do in Africa, for instance.
Or maybe fighting as Mercenaries for UK/USA 'political' agendas?

Oh well, some Doctors get the glory and do Neurosurgery, while others have to do Gynaecology - so not every Green Militant can fight evil Empires with weapons that can anihilate this planet from a safe distance. Every now and then, they gotta do some hard yards for their fellow Greenies in the name of Conservation.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 10:11am:


Labor's marine parks were political. There was very little scientific about them and they weren't intitiated by our fisheries scientists and managers. You either don't know the history of this issue or are trying to mislead.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 4:56pm:


But which scientists? Some of them have there own agendas and are politicized. Also there is no simple right or wrong answer as to how much biomass should be left in the ocean and how this is to be achieved. We and our political representatives have every right to have a say.

Scientists are peer reviewed, so any old rubish soon gets weeded out.

Some very experienced ones are saying peer review has failed on the subject of marine parks. PS not all science undergoes peer review.

I read somewhere that commercial fishing has this 5 year cycle. They find a new fishing area, within a year or two all have jumped on board. It takes 5 years for the scientists to research the impact, and by then the stock is almost depleated.  Commercial fishermen then move on to something else.

What 'new' fishing areas are in NSW waters? Most of it has been fished for over 100 years. Also don't you know that most of our fish are highly mobile and don't fit into your emphasis on areas. 

The Orange Roughy for example was found to have a lifespan of 150 years.  Not hard to imagine that any exploitation of that fish is going to end up badly.

Contradicts your first statement. In this case the scientists got it wrong and didn't realise the fish were so slow growing.

No politician will tell you that.

Why not?