Home | About Us | Membership | Publications | Resources | Events | Members Directory | Employment | Shop | Contact | Contact
HIDDEN TREASURES
By CLAIRE MILLER
The Age
T uesday 16 January 2001
Bass Strait has a tough reputation. A wasteland of wild seas and relentless winds that pick up speed and a bad attitude sweeping in from the Southern Ocean. On the sunniest of days the waters still boil, bubbling over on to Victoria's famously treacherous coastline. And it is mostly cold in that incessant surf. Surely not an environment conducive to the flowering of life.
Yet appearances are deceiving. Beneath the familiar brew lies a wonderland rivalling the coral reefs of Queensland in its diversity of plants, structures and creatures. There are tall kelp forests as vast, dark and mysterious as any terrestrial wilderness. There are seagrass meadows, corals and complex sponge gardens harboring an array of creatures and plants found nowhere else. Victoria's temperate marine environment is, in short, something special on an international scale.
But, like all native terrestrial ecosystems, it is under pressure from a cocktail of human-induced threats: population growth, coastal development, competition from exotic species, fishing and the effects of polluted run-off from cities, towns and farms. The degradation is all the more insidious for the fact it is occurring largely out of sight. "Our baseline of what we think are unimpacted marine environments, is sliding," said Tim Allen, coordinator of the Marine and Coastal Community Network. "Marine habitats have changed, but the changes have not been chronicled as they occurred. For the most part it's a stray comment here, an anecdote there."For example, we know that rock pools at Sorrento contained huge numbers of rock lobsters in 1804. You'd be lucky to see a lobster there now. I continually hear stories from older scuba divers about near-shore reefs that are ghosts of their former selves, denuded of marine life through recreational and commercial overfishing."
In an effort to protect still-pristine areas, and to help others recover, the State Government is considering recommendations to declare a series of highly protected marine national parks and sanctuaries along Victoria's coastline. The Environment Conservation Council recommendations were tabled in parliament in October after nine years of investigations and, at times fraught, consultation with fishing representatives and coastal communities. The 24 proposed sites - 13 parks and 11 sanctuaries - cover 63,000 hectares or 6 per cent of Victorian waters, and would be operated on a strictly look, but do not take or disturb basis. That means diving, snorkling, swimming and rockpooling, but no fishing, collecting, catch-and-release or mining and mineral exploration.
Only three tiny sites have this level of protection: the Pope's Eye and Point Cook marine reserves in Port Phillip Bay, and part of the Bunurong Marine Park. The council has recommended incorporating the latter two into expanded, highly protected areas.The rest of Victoria's waters would be managed as a multiple-use marine reserve allowing a regulated mix of all activities.
The government would need the support of both houses of parliament to declare the parks, but Premier Steve Bracks has suggested the main impediment is budgetary. He said last month that the parks would need to be properly resourced, and the government was considering the costs before the budget is brought down in May."Obviously we have the right to accept all, part, or parts of this," Bracks said. "We have said we will have significant extension to marine national parks and we stand by that."If the government fulfils its policy promises on marine national parks, Victoria will join only a handful of regions worldwide to take this step. The prospective move is supported by tourism bodies, diving clubs, marine scientists and conservationists.
British biologist Professor David Bellamy, in meetings with the government in November, urged it to embrace the council's recommendations, saying it was a chance for Victoria to return to the forefront of international conservation programs. "Wherever marine national parks have been created, changes occur to the marine communities," said Allen, who spent three months overseas last year on a Churchill Fellowship studying international conservation experiences. "Populations of many fish species increase dramatically. Larger, older individuals of species predominate. You get a chance to see what marine environments are like without human pressure."
THE Leigh Marine Reserve off New Zealand's north island was one of the first in the world closed to fishing after scientists studying the area observed marine life diminishing. The fishing fraternity was unwilling to accept that stocks were being overexploited and opposed a reserve being declared. After 12 years of consultation and public education, the reserve was declared in 1977.Misgivings in the local community evaporated as the reserve proved its worth. The size of lobsters, snapper and red moki increased rapidly, according to scientific reports cited in Fully Protected Marine Reserves: A Guide, published by the World Wide Fund for Nature and the University of York last year. By 1980, scientists concluded that Leigh was helping to replenish nearby lobster fishing grounds.Commercial fishermen began to set their traps near the boundaries for the best catches. From 1984 to 1994, summer tourist numbers increased from 14,000 to 100,000.
The guide reports similar experiences for no-take sanctuaries set up in South Africa, Chile, the United States and France. In Tasmania, four fully protected reserves were created on the east and south-east coasts in late 1991. In the largest, Maria Island, the number of fish species had increased 5 per cent six years after it was protected; outside the boundaries, biodiversity declined 23 per cent. Invertebrates and algae diversity increased 25 per cent and 11 per cent respectively, while falling 7 per cent and 5 per cent outside the reserve.The density of big fish jumped from 2.6 on average per 500 square metres to 9.2. Outside Maria Island, density remained constant at about one big fish per 500 square metres. Rock lobster numbers jumped 260 per cent, and their size roughly doubled. Proponents describe marine national parks as insurance for fisheries management. Stocks are notoriously hard to assess, with little known about the range, habitat requirements and reproductive capacities of many species.
Despite Australia's good reputation for fisheries management, the 1996 federal State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia observed that the nation's record was generally not good. Most states and the Commonwealth lacked fisheries management for many years, and all commercial fisheries were overcapitalised and often overexploited. Even now, conservation of the resource does not feature as a non-negotiable cornerstone in fisheries policy.There is a real risk that species will not recover once overfished. Greenlip abalone numbers in Victoria collapsed in the 1970s, and have not bounced back despite bans on their collection. As catches of key shallow-water species have declined, the fishing industry has compensated by switching to new, previously unexploited species. Many are deep-water inhabitants such as orange roughy about which almost nothing is known.
Meanwhile, new markets such as the live reef fish trade are exploding with little effort to study the ecological implications. Advanced locational technology with depth sounders and satellite positioning mean marine life has nowhere to hide from its two-legged hunters."We are fishing down sea-life populations and the food chains of which they are part, progressively weakening the essential links of ecosystem health and functioning," warned Allen. "Fishery managers continually treat species as isolated targets that have no important links to other species or the habitats of which they are part."But marine national parks put the ecosystem first, and simult-aneously protect the target species, their habitats, and the ecological processes that underpin fish production."
But Ross Hodge, executive officer for Seafood Industry of Victoria, said commercial operators were concerned that while the proposed parks covered only a small fraction of Victorian waters, they included some of the most productive reefs, which the industry believed were being sustainably fished. Many factors affected the marine environment, Hodge said, including introduced species, sediments and excessive nutrients washing in from the land. Banning commercial and recreational fishing in national parks would not solve these problems.He said the answer was to set up small no-take reference sites within multiple-use national parks, and to provide appropriate resources for research to identify the various threats to biodiversity and habitat.
Some coastal towns with commercial fishing fleets are concerned about the potential economic impact of no-take national parks. But social-economic assessments commissioned by the Environment Conservation Council during consultation indicate marginal effects outweighed by the benefits.The most recent assessment, by consultants Essential Economics, estimated that commercial fisheries within the recommended national parks were worth about $7 million a year. It said the impact on operators of losing those areas depended on the extent to which the catch could be made up elsewhere. In the event it could not, the potential jobs loss was 0.3 per cent of all employment in affected towns."It is expected that individual incomes would be reduced rather than jobs lost, and the net effect on a town's economy is not expected to be significant," the consultants concluded.
Still, Craig Ingram, independent member for East Gippsland, said a lot of communities felt the council spent a lot of time talking and not enough listening. As a result, it had not come to grips with the real nature of local unease.Ingram, who will not be voting on the parks because he part-owns an abalone diving licence, said poaching and resourcing were serious issues the government must consider in implementing its decision on marine parks.Ingram said the parks would work only with adequate resources for policing and enforcement - and few people in his region had much faith given their experience with underfunded, understaffed, weed-infested terrestrial national parks.
"The problem is we declare the parks and never back them up with the resources to look after them," he said. "They are declared for biodiversity and then neglected so they deteriorate to the point they are not as good as they were."He said there was room for no-take zones, and there were magnificent marine areas that did need protecting."To make these succeed, you have to have the support of the local community and it has to be seen to be a benefit to the local community," Ingram said. "The reserves that are declared have to be protected, so that in the long term they are a benefit to the community. We can do that, but it has to be done properly and that has been the concern all the way through; that areas will be taken away from the commercial and recreational fishers and given to the poachers."
Feelings seem to run less high in the west of the state. Bruce Couch, the Mayor of Moyne Shire, which includes the fishing village of Port Fairy, said there were areas in the south-west where the biodiversity needed protecting. He said he was aware of operators in Port Fairy and Portland who opposed no-take parks but none had broached the subject with him. "It is a general concern if you earn your livelihood by fishing, but I am sure something could be put in place to protect both."
Some in the recreational fishing lobby are yet to be convinced. As the State of the Marine Environment Report puts it, "recreational fishers, even more than their commercial counterparts, have trouble accepting their own individually small, but collectively great impacts on stocks".It noted that a paucity of data made it difficult to assess how recreational fishing affected commercial stocks, but research suggested amateur fishermen collectively landed between 15 and 25 times more bream from Sydney Harbor and New South Wales' Richmond River estuary than the local commercial fleets.
VR Fish, the body nominally representing Victoria's estimated one million regular recreational anglers, will have none of it. Initially hostile to no-take zones excluding its constituency, VR Fish now supports most of the areas nominated as national parks. The exceptions are French Island, Port Phillip Head, Swan Bay, Corner Inlet and Yaringa - all accessible spots for city anglers.While it is prepared to work with the government to resolve outstanding issues, VR Fish's chairman Patrick Washington said it was on the understanding that "VR Fish totally rejects any inference that recreational fishing in any way damages the marine environment".
The tourism, diving, scientific industries and the environment movement have embraced the proposed parks, and are keen to see them declared. Peter O'Reilly, of the Ecotourism Association of Australia, said Victoria's coastline and marine biodiverisity were "something we should be doing our utmost to maintain. It is extremely rugged and beautiful - the tourism potential is enormous".
PLAN OVERBOARD
By ADRIAN ROLLINS and RICHARD BAKER
The Age
Saturday 16 June 2001
Less than a month ago, Sherryl Garbutt went to the Melbourne Aquarium and triumphantly announced that by mid-November Victoria would have 12 "world-class" marine national parks and 10 smaller sanctuaries. It was a decision, the Environment Minister said, that put Victoria at the forefront of the world's marine conservation movement. The response by international conservation and marine groups bore that out. The move to protect 5.2 per cent of the state's coastline from fishing, was seen as a bold initiative.But this week it sunk like a lead weight. Oddly, it went down, even though not one of the 132 members of Victoria's Parliament declared opposition to it. So why, when the crunch came on the floor of parliament on Wednesday, did the ground-breaking proposal for 12 marine national parks sink?
Ostensibly, marine national parks failed over disagreement on whether fishermen could test claims for compensation arising out of marine sanctuaries in the Supreme Court. But the truth is more complicated. Garbutt maintains the Opposition seized on the issue of compensation (and specifically, provisions in the marine national parks bill that would have prevented people pursuing compensation claims through the courts) to disguise deep divisions within its ranks on the issue.
Garbutt said such a stand by the Liberal Party smacked of hypocrisy, given that while in government it had invoked similar section 85 provisions in up to 250 pieces of legislation, including an act to close the scallop fisheries in Port Phillip Bay. But the minister's claim does not stand up to scrutiny. Apart from the majority support marine national parks received within the Liberal party room, Opposition leader Denis Napthine has given a commitment that a future Liberal government would introduce a system of marine national parks "as soon as we come to office".However, Labor figures say Napthine continues to find reasons to oppose marine national parks because he is concerned about an electoral backlash from his south-west coastal electorate, which has a sizeable fishing fraternity.
For its part, the Opposition claims Garbutt was blocked in Cabinet by Treasurer John Brumby and Premier Steve Bracks when she tried to win a bigger assistance package for fishermen. The Age has learnt that, for budgetary reasons, the Treasury was not prepared to offer fishermen any more than a total of $1.2 million in so-called transitional assistance. The government's underlying concern was the possibility that any compensation claim by fishermen could see it embroiled in long-running and expensive court actions.During the entire debate on marine national parks, the government has tried to studiously avoid use of the word "compensation". It has argued that fishermen would not need compensation because the combined effect of a crackdown on poaching and the protection of fish breeding grounds would increase fish stocks, more than making up for the impact of locking fishermen out of marine national parks.
The $1.2 million in transitional assistance it offered was to help fishermen cover the costs of hunting fish further afield, as long as they could prove their catch was affected by being locked out of marine national parks.It is at this point in the debate that the pivotal position of independent MP Craig Ingram becomes apparent. Being an abalone licence holder, Ingram indicated at the outset that he would not be voting on the bill, but that did not stop him making his presence felt. He did not buy the government's argument that there would be an increase in fish stocks to make up for the loss of fisheries locked away in marine national parks."They have to justify it," he said. "They have to prove it could be done. If they've got information that it can be done, publish it." Ingram said that, in the face of broad support for marine national parks across the community, the government had bungled their introduction. He said the government should have consulted with all stakeholders and reached an agreement before the bill came near parliament. "But the spin doctors got involved and the government and the opposition were playing politics, which was really divorced from the issues in the end," he said. "The spin doctors said, `Let's get Rex Hunt on board', but it was too late by then and an issue which should have been a positive had turned into a negative."
Ingram's views were not insignificant for the government, considering the influence he could exert on his fellow independents Susan Davies and Russell Savage over the issue. As the week wore on, the voting intentions of Savage and Davies were becoming increasingly important considerations for government strategists.Section 85 provisions blocking compensation claims to the courts require the support of a statutory majority of the Lower House, which equates to 45 MPs. To achieve such a majority the government needed the support of at least one independent MP, but by late Wednesday afternoon government number crunchers decided they could not count on the support of either Davies or Savage.
Though the government could have passed the bill without their support, its section 85 provisions would have been rendered invalid, effectively delivering the opposition what it wanted. The Liberal-controlled Upper House could then have passed the legislation without the need for an amendment. Contemplating that scenario, the government decided its only option was to pull the bill.
While the political games were being played out, behind the scenes conservation and marine groups were desperately trying to salvage the bill. In the final hours of parliamentary debate before withdrawal of the bill, the nation's most powerful "greenie", Midnight Oil singer and Australian Conservation Foundation president Peter Garrett, made a flurry of calls to Bracks' advisers and directly to Napthine, pleading they put aside differences over compensation.From London came an emotional fax by internationally renowned scientist, Professor David Bellamy, urging the Liberals to approve the bill. "The Marine National Parks Act is far too important for the world of conservation to allow it to fail at this moment," wrote Professor Bellamy.
But the appeals of Bellamy, Garrett and countless others were to no avail. Though the demise of the marine national parks was a blow for groups such as the Victorian National Parks Association, Australian Marine Sciences Association and the Victorian Coastal Council, it has not broken their spirit. In fact, it hardened the resolve of the groups to have the bill passed before the spring session of parliament. "Environment groups will not accept the removal of this bill from Parliament, nor will we accept any further cuts to the marine national parks system. The Victorian community wants marine national parks because it is good public and natural resource policy ... we will not let this issue drift away," VNPA executive director Amanda Martin said.
Victorian president of the Australian Marine Sciences Association, John Sherwood, said it was essential the parks be established as soon as possible to protect Victoria's marine environment, which is renowned as one of the most unique in the world. Associate Professor Sherwood said Victoria's waters were home to an abundance of plant and animal life found nowhere else in the world.But however keen the conservation and marine groups are to get marine national parks established, they vow not to allow the government to compromise on the integrity of the original proposal by giving in to demands of fisherman and dropping the idea that marine national parks are no-take zones.
Chairwoman of the Victorian Coastal Council, Diane James, said: "Yes, we can argue that all is not lost - other measures are under way - but this was a golden opportunity to lead the way, globally. I believe a compromise (on no-take zones) is not an option. It will be caving into the demands of a few to the detriment of the health of marine areas in the state." But if the pro-marine national parks groups are unified in their position on the proposal, the same cannot be said for Victoria's fishing community. The tense relationship between recreational and commercial fisherman has boiled over in the wake of the demise of the marine national parks bill.
Ray Page, the executive director of VRFish, the state's peak recreation fishing body, was disappointed that marine national parks have not gone ahead and directed a large portion of the blame at the commercial fishing industry. Page said commercial fisherman had drastically overstated their need for compensation and had helped to ruin what was "on the whole, a good idea for Victoria".
Seafood Industry Victoria executive director Ross Hodge disputed VRFish's claims and said commercial fisherman were also disappointed by the setback to marine national parks. "We see the parks as a good thing, it is just that this particular proposal was flawed and unfair to fishing families and rural communities. The government is to blame. They didn't consult properly and just went in with an all or nothing approach" Hodge says. He said the commercial industry would meet with the government at any time to discuss alterations to the parks proposal, such as increasing compensation and reducing the size of the parks.
For Garbutt and the government, just a month after basking in the glory of their announcement, they are left trying to salvage what they can from the wreckage of the bill's first failed foray into parliament. Among the options being considered is a proposal that a separate bill be drawn up for each marine national park or the possibility of increased compensation or assistance for fishermen.
But nothing is certain at this stage.
OPINION - OUR POLITICIANS ALL AT SEA
By PETER GARRETT
The Age
Friday 15 June, 2001
In the wake of the State Government's failure to muster bipartisan support for Victoria's world-class marine parks plan, it seems our politicians are in mourning. They are not alone. Premier Steve Bracks has described the failure as "a sad day for the environment", while Opposition Leader Denis Napthine has called it "a tragedy" and "a missed opportunity".The reality, of course, is that the tears being shed today are as much from frustration as they are for the environment and, in the case of the opposition, are a sign of gratitude for an opportunity to score political points in parliament. Although the government must take responsibility for inadequately preparing the ground for the Marine Park Bill, its withdrawal owes much to the grandstanding of the opposition.The real tragedy, of course, is that our politicians have placed a piece of political theatre and point-scoring ahead of the health and longevity of Victoria's fishing grounds and its unique marine habitats.
The Australian Conservation Foundation has supported the Victorian National Parks Association's marathon efforts to establish "no take" marine national parks in Victoria because they are integral to the protection of the state's magnificent and unique marine life.There is no doubt marine national parks are also vital to the long-term survival of our coastal communities. The benefits of these parks cannot be underestimated. Protecting our natural assets makes areas more attractive to visitors and improves the quality and quantity of commercially exploited marine species.
The spin-offs are clear - more fish, more tourists and genuinely sustainable communities. The bill's withdrawal was a direct blow to these communities. Due to the isolation of this region for more than 65 million years, Victoria's marine environment is considered one of the most important in the world. Many marine plants and animals, including 85 per cent of southern Australian fish species, are found nowhere else on earth. Despite their uniqueness and beauty, less than 0.05 per cent of Victoria's coastal waters have so far been given full protection.
Recently, no less than 150 of the world's leading marine scientists concluded that there was compelling scientific evidence that marine parks and sanctuaries conserved biodiversity, fish and fisheries. Across the world, in all climatic zones, "no take" marine parks exist. In the vast majority of cases, their introduction was initially opposed by commercial and recreational fishers and local communities. The same marine parks eventually received overwhelming local support after being allowed to work their magic on fish stocks and tourist numbers.
On October 24 last year, the final report of the Environment Conservation Council (ECC) was tabled in State Parliament. Established by the Kennett government in 1997 to replace the Land Conservation Council, the ECC was asked to advise the Bracks Government on the preferred approach and priorities for the establishment of a representative system of marine parks in Victoria.After exhaustive and painstaking consultation and research, the report recommended 13 marine national parks and 11 marine sanctuaries for Victoria's coastal waters. The proposed parks cover 62,245 hectares, about 6.2 per cent of coastal waters. The sanctuaries cover 891 hectares, with an additional 18 special management areas of 6958 hectares.
After Wednesday's events in parliament, this hugely important initiative is in limbo. What is needed to end the political impasse and to achieve the marine park system our politicians seemingly support is an urgent compromise on the transition arrangements for fishers allegedly harmed by the creation of the new parks. If the ECC and State Government are right, then the money already allocated for this transition should be adequate. But to show good faith, the government should give a commitment to provide additional funding if necessary. As former premier Jeff Kennett did for the scallop fishers of Port Phillip in 1996, an independent taskforce should be established where fishers can argue a case to substantiate their losses. The opposition, without prevarication, should endorse this process.
If the opposition support for marine national parks is genuine, it will negotiate in good faith with the government, mindful that parliament has already received the clearest recommendations possible from the ECC to support marine national parks. This week our state politicians had an opportunity to become world leaders in marine conservation. They failed. The community and the environment deserve better. By the time parliament resumes for the August session, Victorians have a right to expect genuine leadership that puts the broader interests of the community and its natural environment first.
Peter Garrett is president of the Australian Conservation Foundation.
E-mail: media@acfonline.org.au
MARINE PROTECTED AREAS
http://www.theage.com.au/news/state/2001/07/31/FFX5EVW4RPC.html
TALKS TO MAP OUT MARINE PARK
By Richard Baker
Tuesday 31 July 2001
Victoria's main fishing and environmental groups will put aside their differences and hold a forum on marine parks in an attempt to give the State Government a blueprint for reviving the issue. The Victorian Coastal Council is intending to bring together representatives from commercial and recreational fishing bodies, the dive industry, tourism and environmental groups within three weeks. Council chairwoman Diane James said the aim of the meeting was to find principles the various stakeholders agreed on and to identify areas where further work needed to be done by the government. "We hope to provide the government with a detailed report on the outcome of the forum so it can get on with the job of getting this very important legislation through parliament," Ms James said. "Because the longer we leave this the more issues we're going to get arising from left field, which will create even more problems."
The political debate over marine parks intensified yesterday after Opposition Leader Denis Napthine said the government should look at the issues of park boundaries and no-take zones as well as compensation for fisherman. Environment Minister Sherryl Garbutt seized on Dr Napthine's comments, saying they were proof the Liberal Party had never been fully supportive of no-take marine parks. Ms Garbutt said Dr Napthine's stance on marine parks was inconsistent. She said he had never raised the issues of no-take zones in any discussions before the withdrawal of the marine parks bill last month and had in fact criticised the government for not accepting all of the Environment Conservation Council's recommendations. "They said all along their only issue was compensation and now we see that was just a smokescreen," she said. But Dr Napthine said the government ought to review issues such as no-take zones and boundaries, together with compensation, now that it had been forced to take its entire marine parks plan "back to the drawing board".
He defended his change of stance by saying that although the Opposition would have supported the government's original marine parks legislation- including a system of complete no-take zones-if there had been adequate compensation, the proposal was "by no means perfect". Victorian National Parks Association acting director Jason Doyle urged both political parties to stop trying to score points. "Marine national parks are the most significant marine management reform in the history of this state and are crucial to the sustainable management of our marine environment ... far too important to play political games with," Mr Doyle said.
Following is a copy of the VNPA press release responding to Dr Napthine's comments in yesterday's Age...
MEDIA RELEASE
30 July 2001
Attention Chiefs of staff
Dr Napthine's mixed messages on marine national parksThe Victorian National Parks Association (VNPA) today called on Dr Denis Napthine to urgently and publicly clarify the Liberal Party's commitment to no-take Marine National Parks and the full implementation of the Environment Conservation Council's (ECC) recommendations.
VNPA's call follows statements by Dr Napthine in today's Age in which he called for more flexibility on no-take zones.Mr Jason Doyle, VNPA's Acting Director, said that Dr Napthine's comments were in stark contrast to those contained in a letter he recently sent to VNPA and many marine national parks supporters.
'Dr Napthine's comments show that the Liberal Party might be turning its back on its own creation, the independent ECC, by wanting to ditch the advisory body's marine national parks recommendations that were the culmination of ten years of study and public consultation', said Mr Doyle. While attacking the government for not fully implementing the ECC recommendations, Dr Napthine told VNPA in his letter that: "I am strongly supportive of the creation of marine national parks in Victoria to protect and preserve our unique marine environment."
Dr Napthine also wrote that: "The Liberal Party will remain committed to establishing a system of marine national parks accompanied by a fair package of compensation as suggested by VNPA, ACF and other conservation groups."
'The Liberal Party should not be surprised that VNPA and other marine national parks supporters have interpreted these statements as support for the clearly communicated and firm position taken by environment groups on the issue', Mr Doyle said. 'We expect the ECC's recommendations to be implemented in full, and have suggested a fair, independent and transparent process to assess fishers' claims for assistance. This is the only way to break the deadlock, and all sides should be supportive of it.'There is a major inconsistency between this and Dr Napthine's comments in The Age, where he has raised the possibility of further concessions to fishers over whether the parks are no-take or not. What's the use of a Marine National Park if it allows continued fishing? We need fully protected, no-take Marine National Parks, not "business as usual" multiple-use parks.' 'We've had ten years of consultation and studies on this, so there's absolutely no basis for continuing to placate the vested interests of a few fishers', Mr Doyle said. 'Marine national parks are the most significant marine management reform in the history of this state, and are crucial to the sustainable management of our marine environment - far too important to play political games with.
'VNPA calls on the Liberal Party to publicly support full implementation of the ECC recommendations for no-take Marine National Parks and Sanctuaries, and work with the government to achieve a satisfactory outcome along these lines.'
| Contact | FAQ | Privacy Policy | |