CONGRATULATIONS CANCELLED Minister McVeigh Fisheries Review

[Macks forever]

Unfortunately it seems I jumped the gun.

I have just seen an email identifying the glaring flaws in the Qld Fisheries Review.

I previously raised concerns about getting a truly independent reviewer. It appeared Minister McVeigh considered this worthy and stated it would be independent. I gave him credit for that.
Then the invitation to tender went out.

Would you believe the tender document states that all tenders have to be in by 11am on the 7th April?

To quote from the email:
''This is simply impossible for any decent consultant/applicant to comply with, especially international consultants, and smacks of Fisheries/Govt-

• already having someone lined up to do it, or
  
• having no intention of a real independent review, or
  
• having no idea what is really involved in the review.

The time line of 6 months [May to November] also makes it impossible to do a thorough and complete job and smacks of political/election timing.
SOMETHING IS STARTING TO SMELL LIKE THE ROTTING CARCASS FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ALREADY IS IN QLD.''

What is the bet the budget is also a joke? No intention of really getting a proper review done. Throw a few bucks at a mate who you know will write a report that you want, ghost written by Fisheries Qld?

[Mike Delisser]

I think it would be fair to say that since McVeigh took on the Fisheries portfolio, the pleas of rec anglers have gone basically unanswered, while "Pros" and the commercial sector have done very well. I hope this review is not used as an instrument to continue the same.

[Lucky_Phill]

I have read the invitation to be part of the committee for the review.

Qualifications or Experience sort by the Minister are more than any normal recreational fisher would have, IMO. That is not to say recreational fishers will not qualify for said committee, but with all the " strings attached " the Minister then says there will be NO renumeration.

I am sceptical once again of the intentions of a " committee " set up to review Fisheries.

On one hand they want the best of the best, but do not want to pay for the privelege, information and expertise. Then no matter the result, which may well go against the grain of recreational fishers expectations, the Minister will trot out the " All stakeholders were consulted and outcomes agreed "... leaving the poor rec representatives at the mercy of their peers.

I hope I am wrong. There are some very respected and well educated rec fishers out there, that should play an important role within this committee / review.

NO matter how much material I read on DAFF ( DPI&F, DEERM, DEEDI etc etc ), the agenda / priority seems to be that Commercial Fishing is at the heart of the department.

LP

[Macks forever]

Phill
I totally agree with you on that.

But I think we need to clarify the difference between the Minister's Advisory Committee and the tender invitation for the professionals who will actually do the review. They are 2 completely separate animals.

The advisory committee is expected to be a volunteer group from all stakeholder groups who traditionally never agree on any reform and, as the call for those nominees states, this group is only one of the ones that the minister may choose to take advice from, or not. It will meet once every 2 - 3 months to discuss the progress of the review, which is to be done by the successful tenderer. Individual nominees for these positions could easily put in an application in a week or so. This application process can be viewed here:
http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/fisheries...sory-committee
Interestingly they have until the 14th April to apply.

The tender document I refer to in this thread is the one that asks for the potential independent nationally or internationally recognized professionals to tender for the role of carrying out the review. This by rights should be a major tender and any self respecting competent person would simply walk away if they were told to put a team together and get a tender together in 7 days.
This document can only be accessed through a convoluted registration process at the following address:
https://secure.publicworks.qld.gov.au/etender/index.do
This closes at 11am on the 7th April and this can only be interpreted as saying that Fisheries Qld DO NOT WANT any real professionals applying: they probably have their favorites lined up already.

I have read the invitation to be part of the committee for the review.

Qualifications or Experience sort by the Minister are more than any normal recreational fisher would have, IMO. That is not to say recreational fishers will not qualify for said committee, but with all the " strings attached " the Minister then says there will be NO renumeration.

I am sceptical once again of the intentions of a " committee " set up to review Fisheries.

On one hand they want the best of the best, but do not want to pay for the privilege, information and expertise. Then no matter the result, which may well go against the grain of recreational fishers expectations, the Minister will trot out the " All stakeholders were consulted and outcomes agreed "... leaving the poor rec representatives at the mercy of their peers.

I hope I am wrong. There are some very respected and well educated rec fishers out there, that should play an important role within this committee / review.

NO matter how much material I read on DAFF ( DPI&F, DEERM, DEEDI etc etc ), the agenda / priority seems to be that Commercial Fishing is at the heart of the department.

LP

[Lucky_Phill]

Yep... it's all tied together...somehow.

I am unsure about your total non-affiliation for the Review. professionals .

I think somehow there has to be instilled into the sytem the cultural significance of recreational fishing in Australia.


As part of the review, there needs to be a terms of reference including Social Interaction, Health & Well-Being, Economic, Educational, Historic and other significant contributing factors to the fishery. Would an overseas " professional " weigh up these factors with the right amount of respect... ?

LP

[Macks forever]

Phill

I believe that a thorough review would have to be done by a team rather than just one person, all with differing expertise. If an international project manager was to tender then they would have to use local expertise for some of that.
The tender document does specify an amount of stakeholder engagement as well.

The document also calls for comparisons with, and using experience from, other fisheries in the world as well as having comprehensive understanding of international fisheries management.

Yep... it's all tied together...somehow.

I am unsure about your total non-affiliation for the Review. professionals .

I think somehow there has to be instilled into the sytem the cultural significance of recreational fishing in Australia.


As part of the review, there needs to be a terms of reference including Social Interaction, Health & Well-Being, Economic, Educational, Historic and other significant contributing factors to the fishery. Would an overseas " professional " weigh up these factors with the right amount of respect... ?

LP

[Mike Delisser]

I will be extremely surprised if Qld rec anglers aren't required to pay a fee for the privilege of wetting a line once the review is completed.

[Macks forever]

IF, and it is a big IF, they did a proper review, and the govt implemented the review without fear or favour, and created a fisheries management body with modern values, and created net free areas close to population centres, and absorbed the RUF and the SIP, and then and only then created a fee, then I might not complain too loudly.

I will be extremely surprised if Qld rec anglers aren't required to pay a fee for the privilege of wetting a line once the review is completed.

[Lovey80]

This smacks of a formality to lend some sort of credibility to a predetermined set of adjustments.

Macs I am with you. If QLD got serious about recreational fishing and set up expansive recreational fishing havens in salt water areas that involved monies spent on restocking programs and environmental regeneration outcomes in those havens, I wouldn't have a problem with a license. I don't fish fresh water but would be more than happy for the whole gambit to be rolled into one fee provided the freshwater funding got grandfathered to see that they didn't lose any funding.

McVeigh doesn't want to ever see this happen. He knows his job is to feather the nests of the commercial sectors. Eventually these havens would have to be rolled into a tourism type portfolio and he'd lose funding also.

[Lucky_Phill]

I will be extremely surprised if Qld rec anglers aren't required to pay a fee for the privilege of wetting a line once the review is completed.

I am hearing you Mike ( fingers in ears, but still hearing you )

If said fee arises, at least then, rec anglers would have an " official " stake in the fishery.

LP

[bondy99]

I've got the quals, BSc (Hons) Marine Biology plus, no one sent me an invite , does sound fishy to me this so called review.

Bondy

[Mike Delisser]

I am hearing you Mike ( fingers in ears, but still hearing you )

If said fee arises, at least then, rec anglers would have an " official " stake in the fishery.

LP

I know what you mean Phil but "having a stake in the fishery" (BTW is that like surf n turf) is worth diddly squat unless we have a SAY in the fishery. And I haven't seen any evidence from this Gov that we won't get crumbs while the Pro's will get what they want.
Take the net buy back for example, the exercise is purely 100% aimed at sustaining the commercial fishing industry, and making the remaining net licences more profitable. Yet we had a Member of this Gov and a couple of his mindless followers on here telling us this is all for the benefit of Qld's rec anglers.

[Steeler]

Is mindless > than blind, MD ?.

[Horse]

I've got the quals, BSc (Hons) Marine Biology plus, no one sent me an invite , does sound fishy to me this so called review.

Bondy

I wonder if they had read your post on Nuggets where you could not identify a Morwong. That may have encouraged a misplacement of your "invite". Everyone else was asked to submit an application to join the advisory committee.

[Apollo]

Bahahahahaha