Dearest Peter, Saturday is crunch time for Australia. In the Senate it will either be a vote for the Greens in bigger numbers, providing accountability, or a return to Coalition domination. I will come back to these options, but first I want to talk about the campaign. Three messages have been repeated to me from people in the streets of Australian cities and towns these last weeks as I travelled from Darwin to Melbourne, from Mackay to Cygnet, from Orange to Gunghalin, from Adelaide to Perth. First, elections are bad for business. People stop spending. Whether it's at the newsagent or the petrol pump, receipts are down. Sunday can't come too soon for small businesses across Australia. Second, a pox on both their houses. There is enormous disappointment and frustration with both the bigger parties; at their in-fighting and failure to lay out a vision for Australia. Third, there has been a very warm-hearted response I've had from people in the streets - ‘I'm voting for the Greens this time', ‘Good on you Bob', ‘I hope the Greens go well', ‘at least you stand for something!' This country wants leadership and it is the Greens who are delivering leadership. -- Peter Lucas Brisbane Australia X/No/Achieve; yes Help reign in capitalism"s rampage; Vote http://greens.org.au
There is NO WAY I am cross-posting a reply to aus.services.defence, rec.food.cooking, aus.tv etc. The Greens have also rejected a mandatory Internet filter, proposing a requirement similar for internet service providers to be required to offer a filter if sought by a customer. This sounds quite good to me and enables me to avoid both the ALP and the neo-liberal party. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reign : the exercise of sovereign power. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rein : to direct or stop a horse by using reins.
yea awesome.. lets close every bit of bush to the country for "the people of the future" and one of the loons wants to ban fishing.
Electronic form of an popurtune laimed teller, one of those papre things we used to spot in a laim box. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d & e; metformin 1500mg
How is the green party there? Here in Italy it's always been a very leftist group, always teaming up with parties like "Rifondazione Comunista" and "Comunisti Italiani." Green outside, red inside. Nowadays they collect very few votes, in the last elections (2008) they didn't even reach the minimum votes to enter the parliament and are currently out of it.
There is a stated policy of 30% of east coast area for marine parks (fishing lock out), that doesn't sound like a 'fishing ban' but the areas that make up the 30% are those that are most productive (and accessible) for recreational (and in some cases local commercial) fishers (boat based). This is being implemented without any scientific studies to determine if it's necessary or even useful in maintaining or increasing fish stocks on a ideology bases. Further more no allowance is being made to compensate either commercial fishers for loss of lively hood/income or recreational fishers for the no longer usable (to them) boats and gear they've sunk a lot of money into. The Australian Fishing and Lifestyle party and the Shooters and Fishers parties have both called for a moritorium on further marine parks without peer reviewed scientific evidence of their necessity which seems reasonable to me. The Coalition have recently announced a similar policy. So no... no 'ban on fishing' as such, just a stealth approach by the Greens to achieving an outcome having much of the same effect. G-S
sustainable in green terms = reducing already sustainable take levels. except they're primarily inshore where the proposed parks aren't. which aren't defined at all so no one can meet this criteria. Not required, fish levels are already sustainable in near Australian waters, this is spin attempting to justify fishing lock outs. Which doesn't require peer reviewed scientific data and which process is deeply flawed as a result. In a blatant attempt to justify unneeded further restrictions on take levels and methods. Based on no peer reviewed scientific data, just unsupported claims, again not needed. What communities?! Are they claiming Australian towns need to fish illegally to survive? That's not only insulting, it's farcical. Increase regulations making it harder and more expensive for local aqua culture business to survive, businesses that reduce dependance upon wild catch fish! This IS a ban on part of the fishing industry, a moritorium on a business will drive them into closure. Not needed and constitutes a ban on fishing in various areas. See again a ban on part of the fishing industry. You already provided it! There are various analysis of the effects of these policies available from AFLP and recfish. So... we have bans, restrictions, extra regulations etc etc G-S
Th AFLP Not solely the 'political party called the Greens' but yes "Greens". uhuh that's my question to them, how does one define 'environmentally benign' in a black and white way? You first, I asked first I doubt that. Not at all. I agree with their views on coal fired power, their views on euthanasia, their views on gay rights and other things. They've got marine/fishing policy wrong though (timber also). AFLP did, no response. AFLP did, no response. The status quo don't supply information to keep it that way, people looking to change the status quo do... in this case that's the Greens. They are looking to alter a system that is working, so they need to supply proof why they think this is required. only a semi precious one... you're way more precious than me G-S
I'm suggesting that the fishing species that are allowed to be fished are not 'vulnerable populations ' (in Australian waters) and that the populations of 'fished' species are limited by local food sources and not by fishing take. G-S
recfish asked them on my behalf, I'm not assuming anything. Because the Green movement (despite being asked by recfish and the AFLP to provide their peer reviewed scientific evidence) have been unable to do so. In this case we are both assuming, but I'll will ask S&F and get back to you on this one. I'm still waiting for you admission that I'm not automatically anti green as evidenced by my examples above. It's NOT on the web site but it is in their discussion papers. No, it's the way the world works or at least the way that sensible people in the world work (seriously). Changing the status quo? The requirememnt for evidence is in your court bucko. The Greens assertion that 'the system isn't working' is unsupported and since they are attempting to change the status quo the requirement to provide evidence lays with them. Then the various fishing lobbies can examine their case and determine the validity (or otherwise) of the Greens argument. At the moment the Greens (party this time) won't even talk to the people with the greatest stake in this area (recfish). G-S
Since there are no vulnerable fish populations in any of the areas proposed as marine parks (fishing lock out zones) then point 25 simply becomes "increase the number of Australia's marine reserves" and the ideology is clear. There ARE areas where marine parks would be of benefit but they are primarily inshore where significant numbers of non boating users would be disadvantaged, which I suspect explains the reluctance to place them there. If they were serious about addressing these vulnerable areas they would ban commercial inshore net fishing which targets breeding aggregations. G-S
I've read much more detailed articles than that about the temperature shift issue. I repeat that the problem is caused by lack of regulation inshore in large degree, pollution (mainly fertilizer) run off in NSW and QLD is a major contributing factor. Put rules in place governing inshore areas and much of the problem will go away. Of course it's much easier to 'look' like you're doing something (like the Greens current marine park fishing lock outs) than it is to actually do something *sigh*. G-S
