quote]Well what 'past experience' are you refering too. Why do you feel the need to be so evasive? [/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.
I'd get bored too if I just repeated drivel.
Consider this:
- Firstly the past is not an infallable guide to the future.
- The meaningless representative bodies and their interaction with marine parks argument applies to Labor's marine parks.
- If your going to rely on the past then surely the more recent past is more reliable than something that happened two decades ago. Ie the fact recent Commonwealth marine parks showed good consultation and outcomes concerning rec fishing. Quote:Recognising the real problems affecting the marine environment is at least a start and puts them ahead of Labor.
Are you suggesting labor does not recognise pollution and global warming as a problem?
They are neglecting them in preference to drawing lines on maps. Quote:PS to suggest a NSW government can do something about climate change is drivel (and also irrelevant).
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.
Thanks for helping my argument by pointing out the limitations of marine parks. Now where does the Coalition say they will use marine parks to fix these problems? 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."
Does that make sense to you? Do you think the NSW coalition can magically make their marine parks prevent agricultural runoff of foreign species?
See above.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.
They haven't said they 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,
Do you call 20 years 'suddenly or yet again?
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.
Tesky FD. Are you a bit miffed at seeing the writing on the wall? Quote:Yes they have - they are all up for (proper) review.
So naive.
So what should they do - announce zoning with no consultation of scientific review? Quote:They have also said the enforcement will change.
Change how? More fishermen getting fined, or less?
Make it more lenient and understanding of navigation errors/ inadventent breeches. Quote:Duh, of course you want to see nothing.
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. [/quote]
Pot kettle black. The Coalition's policy is balanced and rational. Your arguments don't even show any internal logic. And what gives you the omnipetence to know of some secret agenda on the part of their marine parks?