Anglers are getting locked out

[Mike Delisser]

Mike, i do understand how preferncing works and the corruption and cheating that occurs as a result. Are you suggesting that no deals are done for preferences? Or are questioning the transitive assertion I make?

Of course deals are done for preferences, they can become quite complicated too, particularly cross house exchanges involving Senate preferences but I wouldn't call that corruption or cheating, perhaps dishonest if it's denied and hidden from the public. The campaign teams will do what ever deals they can to get their candidates across the line, every party and just about every Ind does preference exchanges and they are legal. Perhaps you should give a few examples of what you understand to be corruption and cheating in preference swaps.

But.......what I did ask you was in relation to your assertion that Katter was lumping himself in with the Greens, and would you also say that the Shooters and Fishers were in turn lumping themselves in with the Fred Nile Group.

Cheers

[lampuki]

Hi Mike.

I understand what you are saying, and there is merit in the example you provided questioning the over simplified assertion that I stated, however they are different situations. Labor formed government with the greens, and have had a long standing relationship, despite the more recent public spats. There is no such link between the coalition and the FNG, nor does the FNG have any significant bargaining power to influence policy decision.

This is not the case with the Greens. The greens preferences have been crucial, and unless its a landslide, will continue to be crucial in the upcoming election. Without the Greens, Labor would have been irrelevant for the past decade or so. Unless Labor come out and follow the coalition lead, Labor will be continued to be seen as aligning themselves with the greens imo.

All Kevin has to do is come out and say that he will be preferncing the greens last, and then, their can be no question about their position. Any party, independent etc that assists Labor to hold onto power is directly helping the greens cause. Katter is no exception.

To get back on track, the Greens would have a wish list they will use (and good on them) to negotiate, and one of them will undoubtedly be something like what is being proposed in post #1
.

[blockerroach]

nice map, why didnt you upload the actual map from the government website?
propaganda aimed at emotional voters on here.
ask anyone on here if they are delighted at spending heaps of money on boats, fishing gear and bait to come home with a few fish only at times.
real facts please, not hyperbole.

[Richo1]

I'm of the opinion that recreational fishers are benefiting from the reserves that are in place now and so can see benefits extending them.

the "cargo and bulk carriers" statement also displays a distinct ignorance because 'bulk' is 'cargo'.

will probably get banned or deleted now

The shipping industry uses the term cargo and bulk to describe the type of operation. Yes they are both cargo, however the difference is the way the product is carried.
Cargo ships carry products in individual, packaged, containerized, or boxed form. Often carrying a multitude of different products at the same time.

Bulk carriers carry one particular product in large quantities ( in bulk) stowed in holds eg. Grain, bauxite, iron ore, salt, sugar etc.

Bob Katter voted against a ALP government at the last election unlike the other independents, he also voted against the expansion of marine parks in parliament.

Mark Robinson if you think KAP will side with the greens or The ALP in the next election then you don't know Bob Katter very well do you?

Regards
Richo

[Camhawk88]

nice map, why didnt you upload the actual map from the government website?
propaganda aimed at emotional voters on here.
ask anyone on here if they are delighted at spending heaps of money on boats, fishing gear and bait to come home with a few fish only at times.
real facts please, not hyperbole.

In Phill's defence he has just put up the email he received- I received the same one and I couldn't see the map properly either.

Agree it is deliberately so in order to appeal to emotion rather than critical thinking. It still concerns me that this is the not so thin edge of the wedge.

[Mike Delisser]

Hi Mike.

I understand what you are saying, and there is merit in the example you provided questioning the over simplified assertion that I stated, however they are different situations. Labor formed government with the greens, and have had a long standing relationship, despite the more recent public spats. There is no such link between the coalition and the FNG, nor does the FNG have any significant bargaining power to influence policy decision.

This is not the case with the Greens. The greens preferences have been crucial, and unless its a landslide, will continue to be crucial in the upcoming election. Without the Greens, Labor would have been irrelevant for the past decade or so. Unless Labor come out and follow the coalition lead, Labor will be continued to be seen as aligning themselves with the greens imo.

All Kevin has to do is come out and say that he will be preferncing the greens last, and then, their can be no question about their position. Any party, independent etc that assists Labor to hold onto power is directly helping the greens cause. Katter is no exception.

To get back on track, the Greens would have a wish list they will use (and good on them) to negotiate, and one of them will undoubtedly be something like what is being proposed in post #1
.

Agreed every situation is different but the Fred Nile Group (Christian Democratic Party), along with the Shooters n Fishers do hold the balance of power in the NSW upper House of Barry O'Farrell's Coalition Government.
As you used the line "you can't have it both ways" I was just interested to see how far that extended, broadly speaking. Personally I don't think any 2 separate parties could be said to share a policy agenda just because they share a preference deal with a common 3rd party.

A preference deal such as Katter's and Labor's is about winning seats, nothing more, nothing less. The actual deal is Katter Party will be preferenced ahead of the Greens on Labor's Qld Senate ticket. This move should give Katter's mob a Senate seat at the expense of one of the Greens, well that's the plan anyway. I don't know about you, but I would much rather see a Katter Party member in the Senate than another Green. In return Katter will preference Labor in a few Qld lower house seats, 1 seat Labor hopes to hang on to, and 2 seats it could have a slight chance of winning off the Nats.

If anyone is trying link Katter with the Greens on Marine Parks they are trying to pull the wool over your eyes. On this issue (and most others) his party is opposed to the Greens. Even now, and right from the start Katter's party has been working with Rex Hunt and the group "Keep Australia Fishing" to fight against Labor's Marine Park closures. Hell!, Katter voted against the Carbon Tax and his party will be voting with the Coalition to repeal it after the election, hardly in bed with the Greens is it.

Don't get sucked in, Katter's mob is still fighting against the Marine Park closures, and unlike Labor or the Coalition they actually want to return the parks to fishermen. Dig deep enough and you'll discover those pushing links between Katter and Marine Parks expansions are really just worried about Labor picking up a central Qld seat off the Nationals.

Cheers

[Mark Robinson MP]

At this federal election:
A vote for Greens = more lockouts
A vote for Labor = more lockouts
Now, since Katters preference deal with Labor
A vote for Katter = more lockouts

Only a vote for LNP = no new lockouts

[Mark Robinson MP]

At this federal election:
A vote for Greens = more lockouts
A vote for Labor = more lockouts
Now, since Katters preference deal with Labor
A vote for Katter = more lockouts

Only a vote for LNP = no new lockouts

[Richo1]

At this federal election:
A vote for Greens = more lockouts
A vote for Labor = more lockouts
Now, since Katters preference deal with Labor
A vote for Katter = more lockouts

Only a vote for LNP = no new lockouts

This morning the KAP said, media reports that preference votes are going to ALP are false! It appears some preference votes will go to ALP in queensland to force out the greens.

[Triple]

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2013-0...s-deal/4894508

[lampuki]

Hi Mike,

Since my post, Katter's position has become clear and my fears were unfounded. I have learnt not to trust a politicians future decisions by their actions/comments of the past.

"As you used the line "you can't have it both ways" I was just interested to see how far that extended, broadly speaking. Personally I don't think any 2 separate parties could be said to share a policy agenda just because they share a preference deal with a common 3rd party."

It extends all the way. I agree with the above comment, unless the ploicy agenda was included as part of the preference deal.

I despise the amount of power minority groups hold over the majority, wether that be the FNG, greens or whoever.

[Richo1]

Hi all,
Got this email today from the KAT party;


"We are currently subject to one of the most devious and misleading media campaigns by the Liberal Party regarding preferences.

Members need to understand firstly the facts surrounding the issue and some of the likely impacts. It is highly important that this is then communicated aggressively throughout your networks so that people are better informed.

Here are some facts:

* KAP is running in 7 states in the upper house.
In only one out of the seven we have preferenced ALP ahead of LNP. This is clearly a heavy bias towards LNP in the upper house.

* The major preference deal made was to swap preferences with the Katter’s Australian Party (KAP) and Palmer United Party across Australian in the lower house.

* Many other deals were made with all parties in the upper house including heavy consultation with the Liberal party.

* Of the 150 Lower House seats in Australia we are running in 65. Candidates ultimately determine their own preference flows in the Lower House seats not the Party. At this stage maybe 7 of these will preference ALP ahead of LNP. Again, it could be said that this is too heavy a bias towards the LNP.

* In the last federal election it was LNP preferences that got the only Greens member elected in the lower house, Adam Bandt. Ironically the LNP are now preferencing ALP in this seat. You could easily argue now that a vote for the LNP in that seat is a vote for Labour.

The major parties can’t afford to have the KAP consolidate its political position nationally and will use any dirty trick necessary to undermine our campaign. This latest strategy of saying we are preferencing ALP will only be successful if people remain uninformed.

It is critical that we transcend these diversionary tactics and stick to the real issues that are the foundations of our existence. The Labor Party, the Liberals and the rural division of the Liberal Party have all embraced policies that are destroying industry and prosperity in Australia. If the debate descends into political games then the big guys have won. We need the debate to focus on preserving agriculture, small business, manufacturing and jobs in Australia

We like all other parties have made deals to maximise our chances of success this election. If we don’t aim to do this we may as well pack up and go home or become a branch of one of the major parties. The deals we have done have given us the opportunity to ascend to be the next major political force in Australian politics and as major media outlets have reported, we have been quite successful in this approach.

It is vital that members across Australian see beyond this scare campaign by the Liberal Party who are terrified of the growth we are capable of. In Queensland state parliament our three state members have been on the end of the most vicious attacks. The LNP government in Queensland also introduced and passed legislation then voted with the ALP in the last hour of parliament last year to deny the KAP any minor party resources. These are desperate acts from a party terrified of a growing threat.

We exist to take on the major party duopoly without fear or favour. This is the time to show some resolve for what we believe in and not succumb to the bullying tactics of the major parties.

I am confident that people will continue to follow us so long as the debate remains on substance not political spin.

Kind regards,
Robbie Katter
Party President"

Cheers Richo

[Lucky_Phill]

Media Release – 26 August 2013

Abbott answers Aussie anglers call – he won’t lock us out!

Addressing the Australian Fishing Trade Association’s 2013 Fishing Tackle, Marine and Outdoor Trade
Show, Coalition Leader The Hon Tony Abbott said he had listened to Australia’s rec fishers and will
suspend the Marine Park process and initiate an independent scientific review.
Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation’s Managing Director, Allan Hansard, said “rec fishers
around Australia will thank Mr Abbott and his party for their commitment to the recreational fishing
community and to stop the marine park the lock outs.”

Mr Abbotts statement followed calls by the rec fishing community through a media campaign for an
immediate independent scientific review of the marine park process. “We are pleased he has
answered. We are still waiting for Mr Rudd to answer our call.” Mr Hansard said.

ENDS
Media Contact: Alice Logan Edwards
Mob: 0419 464 270
Email: alice.loganedwards@afta.net.au

[Mike Delisser]

At this federal election:
A vote for Greens = more lockouts
A vote for Labor = more lockouts
Now, since Katters preference deal with Labor
A vote for Katter = more lockouts

Only a vote for LNP = no new lockouts

I thought the Mods of this forum frowned upon misleading posts

[Mark Robinson MP]

My point is that there is a difference between 1. ordering preferences without a deal and 2. preference swaps as a deal. If there is a deal, doesn't that create a partnership of sorts? If so then my comments are relevant.