There are enough cowboys from both sides of this debate doing the wrong thing.
Place in question is the HMAS Brisbane off the Sunshine Coast. Everyone knows it is a " dive only " site, but still the bad apples seem to have this " holier than thou " approach to their exploits and don't really give a rats. I have also seen the other side of the ledger first hand, with rec fishers near a wreck and the ( red ) Cat dive boat, drop anchor within 20 meters of the rec fisher and proceed to tell them move, " I have a dive flag up ! ".
I think the Divers should have their own sites. To be honest, ship wrecks are not the be all and end all of articifal reefs for holding fish. If the powers that be, " dive ready " a ship to be sunk, then that should be so and used for the intended purpose, much like dedicating that wreck as a Green Zone and maybe the fish stocks that accumulate there will fall for the " spill-over " effect and move out for the rec fishers to have a crack at.
Let's also face it, divers only usually go down to 40 mtrs max, after that they require specialised equipment and experience / tickets to do so. Most " tourist dives " are in less than 30 mtrs.
There are an abundance of artifical and natural dive sites around Australia, as are the fishing areas. We all ( fishers, divers, spearos etc ) are stewards of the sea and should respect the seas and the stakeholders, along with the inhabitants.
I think the more artifical reefs / wrecks sunk, dedicated to the divers, the better. It will keep them away from the current sites where divers and fishers clash.
As for wrecks being fishers targets, purpose built arti's are way better, as wrecks tend to hold more Pelagic species and the Arti's more Demersal.
.