ACoRF

Advisory Council on Recreational Fishing
C/o NSW Department of Primary Industries
PO Box 21
Cronulla NSW 2230

Dear ACoRF committee members,

Re: Questions regarding statements made by the Chair of ACoRF

In correspondence with AAG the Acting Executive Director, Fisheries Compliance and Regional Relations wrote on 15th October 2008:

?The legislation requires the Minister to appoint the chairperson of ACoRF, whose role is to oversee and facilitate meetings. The current chair in not a member of the advisory council and therefore does not have voting rights for any issue.?

In view of the stated role of the Chair of ACoRF, would ACoRF respond to the following questions:

i)   Under what auspices did the Chair of ACoRF make the comments on the Hi-Tide radio program on Saturday 20th December 2008, and again on Sunday 28th December 2008 that trust fund money will be spent on contracting credible scientists to review the NPA document ?The Torn Blue Fringe??
ii)   Has the allocation of funds mentioned been discussed by ACoRF and approved? Has this approval been minuted?
iii)   If expenditure has been approved and minuted, then
a.   why does ACoRF consider it to be the recreational fishers responsibility to review the science contained within the NPA?s document and not the responsibility of DPI/Fisheries?
b.   Why can Minister Tebbutt refer the NPA report to her department and Minister Macdonald cannot do the same?
c.   Why can Minister Macdonald and DPI/Fisheries comment on the Hunter Community Environment Centre?s report ?Empty Oceans
Empty Nets: an evaluation of NSW fisheries catch statistics from 1940 to 2000? and not comment on the NPA?s report?
d.   Isn?t it the Government?s responsibility to evaluate the science behind marine parks and proposal and exactly why can?t DPI/Fisheries undertake this review?
e.   Who will make the decision as to which person/agency will be awarded the contract to evaluate marine parks and marine park proposals?
f.   Why does ACoRF consider a possible scientific rebuttal of the NPA?s report will carry any weight, especially as Professor Kearney and his address to the Australian Society for Fish Biology in September 2007 was pilloried in Parliament during the discussion on the Marine Park Amendment Bill?
g.   Were other alternatives such as engaging a publicist or publicity company seriously discussed and considered?
iv)   If expenditure has not been approved and minuted, then:
a.   Why is the Chair of ACoRF making statements to the effect that it has been approved and will be spent?
b.   Under what auspices can the Chair of ACoRF make unsolicited comments regarding decisions that have not been made by ACoRF?
c.   Under what auspices can the Chair of ACoRF lobby the public on behalf of ACoRF?

Moneys in both recreational fishing trust funds is scarce enough and is to be used for the benefit of recreational fishing. It is neither the Minister?s nor the DPI Department?s money to be used for the Government?s core businesses and the Government?s work. And the procedures set in place by previous Ministers need to be followed and those in the roles on the various advisory committees must not only limit themselves to their roles, but must also be seen to be limiting themselves to their roles.

Yours sincerely
Phillip Ingram
President
Anglers Action Group