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

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47364
At my desk.

Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #45 - Feb 20^th, 2011 at 8:19am

Quote:

For starters I was 'wrong' at all as I just said it was something I heard.

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

Quote:

Maybe it was true at the time the quote was made.

Doubt it. Why are we still discussing this?

Quote:

And what about all the money that goes to green groups?

Is this something else you 'heard about'?

Quote:

Also the fact that commercial fishermen can sell their licence/ share to get out of the industry - they don't need to wait for a marine park buy out.

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

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 #46 - Feb 20^th, 2011 at 9:19am

[] Quote:

For starters I was 'wrong' at all as I just said it was something I heard.

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

Now thats an ironic statement.

Quote:

Maybe it was true at the time the quote was made.

Doubt it. Why are we still discussing this?

It's largely true now. Ie there is little in the way of green zones in SE Australia with 100 km of the coast.

Quote:

And what about all the money that goes to green groups?

Is this something else you 'heard about'?

Don't be silly - it's a matter of public record.

Quote:

Also the fact that commercial fishermen can sell their licence/ share to get out of the industry - they don't need to wait for a marine park buy out.

That is probably a good idea, provided the latent effort is cut back first. [/quote]

The point is it undermines your pork barreling theory.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47364
At my desk.

Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #47 - Feb 20^th, 2011 at 10:16am

Quote:

Don't be silly - it's a matter of public record.

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:

The point is it undermines your pork barreling theory.

No it doesn't.

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 #48 - Feb 20^th, 2011 at 5:04pm

[] Quote:

Don't be silly - it's a matter of public record.

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?

Don't just minlessly throw the faults in your own argument back at me. In any event you can't compare the Coalitions 15 million compensation fund to the pork barelling to greens.

For example the NSW Government has been funding green groups to the tune of around 24 million year after year to do with as they please. The Coalition's compensation fund on the other hand is a one off. Do you understand what the term compensation means? They are only paying to compensate people for the loss of their livelyhood - ie there is not likely to be any net gain for them.

Quote:

The point is it undermines your pork barreling theory.

No it doesn't.

What a brilliant retort - you must have put some thought into that!

See above.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47364
At my desk.

Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #49 - Feb 20^th, 2011 at 7:45pm

Quote:

For example the NSW Government has been funding green groups to the tune of around 24 million year after year to do with as they please.

Can you elaborate please?

Quote:

Do you understand what the term compensation means? They are only paying to compensate people for the loss of their livelyhood

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.

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 #50 - Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 3:52pm

[
Quote:

Do you understand what the term compensation means? They are only paying to compensate people for the loss of their livelyhood

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. [/quote]

Then why did you mention the compensation money?

PS: How would the relatively small amount of funding for the representative dody have any undue influence?

Back to top

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #51 - Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 7:08pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47364
At my desk.

Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #52 - Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 10:13pm

Quote:

Then why did you mention the compensation money?

You will have to be more specific.

Quote:

PS: How would the relatively small amount of funding for the representative dody have any undue influence?

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.

Quote:

"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."

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

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 #53 - Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 6:35am

1298376816] Quote:

Then why did you mention the compensation money?

You will have to be more specific.

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

Quote:

PS: How would the relatively small amount of funding for the representative body have any undue influence?

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:

"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."

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

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47364
At my desk.

Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #54 - Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 7:49pm

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

Are the Coalition's policies meaningless as well?

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

Quote:

Also tell me; who are the leaders of the 'anti marine park movement'. Give me some names

Sorry, I don't pay that much attention.

Quote:

And what makes you think it is a top down organisation?

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.

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

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 #55 - Feb 24^th, 2011 at 3:51pm

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:

Are the Coalition's policies meaningless as well?

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:

Also tell me; who are the leaders of the 'anti marine park movement'. Give me some names

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:

And what makes you think it is a top down organisation?

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57150
Here
Gender: male

Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #56 - Feb 24^th, 2011 at 5:44pm

pjb05 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 7:08pm:

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

It seems to me that they have gone to a lot of trouble to say they either do not know what their policy is or they are not going to tell us.

They have pages and pages of policy on this issue now but they all say about as close to nothing as you can get.

Back to top

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #57 - Feb 24^th, 2011 at 6:17pm

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

pjb05 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 7:08pm:

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

It seems to me that they have gone to a lot of trouble to say they either do not know what their policy is or they are not going to tell us.

They have pages and pages of policy on this issue now but they all say about as close to nothing as you can get.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57150
Here
Gender: male

Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #58 - Feb 24^th, 2011 at 9:08pm

pjb05 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2011 at 6:17pm:

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.

The way I read it thay are saying they will put a hold on everything and tell us what they are going to do after the election when they work it out themselves.

The rest is pretty much empty rhetoric which could lead to any result.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47364
At my desk.

Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #59 - Feb 24^th, 2011 at 10:57pm

Quote:

How do you know it will be meaningless?

History repeating.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

but they all say about as close to nothing as you can get

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:

The way I read it thay are saying they will put a hold on everything and tell us what they are going to do after the election when they work it out themselves.

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.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged