The dictionary defines 'stakeholder' as "a person or group that has a financial investment, share, or other significant personal interest in some thing or activity." In law such status is recognised by the concept of legal standing (locus standi) and it requires the ability to demonstrate sufficient connection to a matter to be potentially harmed by the legal outcome. There is a well-established body of law which recognises a right to have a voice in affairs which affect us personally; but, we have no right to interfere in matters remote from ourselves which are, in effect, none of our business.

However, almost without notice, environmentalism has redefined the fundamental concept of being a stakeholder in Australia. Despite having nothing invested and with no risk to themselves, environmental Non-government organisations (NGOs) have managed to claim the status of stakeholders in remote matters and be accorded an equal voice to those whose entire lives, livelihood and assets are being affected.

Australia has the third largest fisheries zone in the world and the lowest harvest rate, at only about three per cent of the global average. We import 70 per cent of the seafood we eat, all of it from resources far more heavily impacted than our own. This is unconscionable. We pay for it by selling off non-renewable mineral resources and call it sustainable management. This is moronic.

The Reef is in excellent condition

A recent report by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, dated 1 June 2012, expresses great concern over threats to the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) from coastal development, poor water quality and climate change. It states that: "there are a number of developments that, were they to proceed, would provide the basis to consider the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger."The response to this report from the legions of eco-righteousness might best be described as delighted, with the news media and environmental groups widely presenting it an important problem demanding forceful action by government."

However, like all such concerns about “threats” to the GBR, these are all only hypothetical possibilities that might occur but with no evidence to indicate that anything detrimental is actually happening.

In reality the reef is in near-pristine natural condition.

Australia: MPAs (marine protected areas) are an ill-considered and expensive idea that address no demonstrated problem. Bypassing full parliamentary scrutiny while permitting a single minister to exercise personal discretion in implementing a vast, costly, unneeded network of them is gross misgovernance.

The claim that international treaty obligations require establishment of the planned MPAs is untrue. Pandering for Green votes is the only real purpose.

In April, a frequent writer for Baird Maritime, Walter Starck, wrote: “The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), headquartered in Townsville, has grown into a $45 million a year bureaucracy charged with “managing” the reef...