https://www.facebook.com/251772831360635/

Territory Seafood Crew, Darwin (2026)

03/09/2026

𝗜 𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗨𝗚𝗛𝗧 𝗔𝗟𝗕𝗢 𝗪𝗔𝗦 𝗧𝗔𝗟𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗔𝗕𝗢𝗨𝗧 𝗲𝗻𝘃𝗡𝗚𝗢 𝗜𝗻𝗰. 🤦‍♂️😂

Seriously.

I started listening to this speech and nearly fell off my chair.

“𝗗𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘀, 𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘁.”

Yep. ✅

“They’ll say anything and do anything.”

Absolutely. 👏

“𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀.”

Now we’re talking.

“𝗣𝗲𝗱𝗱𝗹𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.”

𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬! 🙌

“Turn Australian against Australian.”

𝗝𝗲𝘀𝘂𝘀, 𝗔𝗹𝗯𝗼. 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻?

For one glorious moment I thought the Prime Minister had finally discovered the environmental campaigning industry. 😂

I thought perhaps someone had shown him what Australian fishing communities have been dealing with.

🎯 The carefully selected statistics.

🎥 The overseas footage presented to Australians as if it represents what happens here.

🗺️ The scary maps.

😭 The emotional imagery.

🤔 The claims that collapse the moment somebody bothers checking what the actual fishery does, where it operates, or what the science actually says.

I genuinely thought:

𝗛𝗘 𝗚𝗘𝗧𝗦 𝗜𝗧.

Then I realised he was talking about the other side of politics.

Ahhhhh.

Of course. 🤦‍♂️

Apparently misinformation is a grave threat to democracy when it doesn't help you.

When it comes from envNGOs campaigning for policies his government supports?

𝗗𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆. 😂

Here’s the awkward bit.

𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗳𝘁-𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁-𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

You don’t get to have acceptable deception because you happen to like the cause.

Whether we voted for you our not 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿. So perhaps the new rule could be really radical:

👉 𝗜𝗙 𝗜𝗧’𝗦 𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗛𝗢𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗧, 𝗖𝗔𝗟𝗟 𝗜𝗧 𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗛𝗢𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗧.

𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗶𝘁.

Crazy idea, I know. 🤷‍♂️

03/09/2026

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗙𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗔 — 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗜𝗧’𝗦 𝗧𝗜𝗠𝗘 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗧𝗔𝗕𝗜𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗬.

At what point do we stop treating these as isolated problems and start asking some serious questions about what is happening inside parts of our University system?

𝗡𝗨𝗠𝗕𝗘𝗥 𝗢𝗡𝗘.

An environmental risk assessment targeting NT fisheries is produced and shared far and wide — including publicly to Ministers — before it is ultimately found 𝗨𝗡𝗙𝗜𝗧 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗣𝗨𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡.

By then, of course, the story they want is already out there.

𝗡𝗨𝗠𝗕𝗘𝗥 𝗧𝗪𝗢.

The Net Gains report is used to support calls to close fisheries.

It carries university branding and the authority that comes with it.

An integrity review follows — and the university branding is removed.

Again, the claims have already travelled. The Fisheries closed.

𝗡𝗨𝗠𝗕𝗘𝗥 𝗧𝗛𝗥𝗘𝗘.

Now we have a new headline: dugong numbers have apparently declined by around 50%.

That should trigger an incredibly serious scientific investigation.

𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗛𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗗? 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗗𝗜𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗬 𝗗𝗘𝗖𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗘? 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗦𝗛𝗢𝗪?

Except apparently we don't need to wait for that.

Before the underlying research and data are even available for independent scrutiny, our fisheries are already being blamed.

Think about that.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻’𝘁 𝘆𝗲𝘁 𝗮𝘃𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁 — 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗱.

That's not how this works.

And these aren't harmless academic debates.

Fisheries are being closed. Businesses, vessels and processing assets are being stranded. Jobs and Australian seafood production are disappearing. Taxpayers are spending millions.

Nets are not the cause, so.......

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗗𝗨𝗚𝗢𝗡𝗚 𝗔𝗥𝗘𝗡’𝗧 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗧𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗘𝗜𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗥.

That's the real scandal here.

If this reported decline is real, find out what caused it.

Follow the evidence. Test the hypotheses. Release the data. Let others scrutinise it.

𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲’𝘃𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲.

Three examples.

Enormous consequences.

𝗕𝗘𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗢𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗥 𝗗𝗢𝗟𝗟𝗔𝗥 𝗢𝗙 𝗣𝗨𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗖 𝗠𝗢𝗡𝗘𝗬 𝗜𝗦 𝗛𝗔𝗡𝗗𝗘𝗗 𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥, 𝗜𝗧’𝗦 𝗧𝗜𝗠𝗘 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗧𝗔𝗕𝗜𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗬.

Watch the video.

28/08/2026

𝗣𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟 𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗥𝗘 𝗪𝗢𝗡’𝗧 𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗗𝗘𝗣𝗟𝗘𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗥𝗘𝗘𝗙 𝗙𝗜𝗦𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗬 🎭🐟

I lurve a bit of theatre, but pretending this is any sort of meaningful recovery tool for Greater Darwin reef fish stocks is starting to look more like slapstick comedy.

The NT Government has announced 𝗮 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 $𝟭.𝟲 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 for 55 large artificial reef modules inside the Charles Point Wide Reef Fish Protection Area.

So what are we actually getting for $1.6 million? 🤔

For comparison, the previous 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗳 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁 $𝟭𝟰 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 and delivered more than 100 enormous reef modules weighing around 23–24 tonnes each.

Let’s be extremely generous and assume these 55 new modules create 𝟭,𝟬𝟬𝟬 𝗺² 𝗼𝗳 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗳 𝗵𝗮𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁.

Now let’s put that into perspective. 📏

Charles Point Wide covers approximately 𝟴𝟴 𝗸𝗺².

Even if we conservatively assume only 𝟮𝟬% 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗮 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗳, that’s:

𝗜𝟳.𝟲 𝗸𝗺² 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗳 𝗵𝗮𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁.

Or:

𝟭𝟳,𝟲𝟬𝟬,𝟬𝟬𝟬 𝗺².

We’re spending 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿 $𝟭.𝟲 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 to add perhaps 1,000 m².

That’s an increase of:

𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝟬.𝟬𝟬𝟱𝟳%. 📉

There could already be around 𝟭𝟳,𝟲𝟬𝟬 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗳 𝗵𝗮𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗢𝗡𝗘 𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 than the artificial reef project will add.

And then there’s the obvious question:

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗳 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗗𝗮𝗿𝘄𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻? 🌊

Once all of that natural habitat is included, the contribution of 55 concrete modules at the stock level becomes vanishingly small.

Artificial reefs aren’t the problem.

They can be great recreational fishing infrastructure when they’re placed somewhere people can actually fish them. They can create new fishing opportunities.

𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗳𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆.

But we’re putting these ones 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗻𝗼-𝗳𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗥𝗲𝗲𝗳 𝗙𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝗲𝗮. 🚫🎣

So at least they won’t put additional pressure on stocks already facing serious sustainability concerns.

But we’re still supposed to believe that adding perhaps 𝟬.𝟬𝟬𝟭 𝗸𝗺² 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 amongst potentially tens or hundreds of square kilometres of existing Greater Darwin reef habitat is a serious measure for rebuilding reef fish stocks.

It is seriously past time we moved beyond the political theatre of pretending we are doing something meaningful to recover these stocks and started asking whether the measures being announced can actually produce a measurable recovery outcome.

𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗦 𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗘 𝗜𝗧 𝗦𝗧𝗢𝗣𝗦 𝗕𝗘𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗙𝗨𝗡𝗡𝗬. ⚠️

The Government established an 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁 𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗳 𝗳𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀.

Anyone want to guess what that group’s advice was on spending $1.6 million putting artificial reef modules inside Charles Point Wide?

Because here’s the real kicker.

𝗔𝘁 𝗠𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝟯, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱.

So celebrate the announcement. 🎉

Cut the ribbon. ✂️

Take the photos. 📸

But don’t confuse this announcement with a recovery strategy.

When a government establishes an expert advisory process to help develop a recovery plan, then stops seeking that group’s advice while announcing measures supposedly designed to deliver that recovery, there is a very simple question that needs answering:

𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗛𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗢 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗬 𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗡𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗖𝗘𝗦𝗦 — 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗢𝗡 𝗪𝗛𝗢𝗦𝗘 𝗔𝗗𝗩𝗜𝗖𝗘 𝗔𝗥𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗦𝗘 𝗗𝗘𝗖𝗜𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗪 𝗕𝗘𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗠𝗔𝗗𝗘?

🎭 𝗣𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟 𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗥𝗘 𝗪𝗢𝗡’𝗧 𝗥𝗘𝗕𝗨𝗜𝗟𝗗 𝗗𝗘𝗣𝗟𝗘𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗙𝗜𝗦𝗛 𝗦𝗧𝗢𝗖𝗞𝗦.

𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲.

26/08/2026

𝗪𝗘’𝗥𝗘 𝗕𝗘𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗔𝗦𝗞𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗢 𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗖𝗜𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗦 — 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗨𝗧 𝗖𝗛𝗘𝗖𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗖𝗜𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘.

Forget fishing for a moment.
This is about something much bigger.

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘄𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗼 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀?

The Net Gains report was promoted as evidence supporting major changes to Territory and Queensland barramundi fisheries.

But when serious questions were raised, things became very interesting.

In 2024, UQ’s own Research Integrity process found that WWF had commissioned the lead author directly, that there was no formal agreement between WWF and UQ, and that the UQ branding should not have been used.

The University subsequently recommended that its logo be removed from the report.

Now, with the report under media scrutiny again in 2026, the defence sounds very different.

We are now told WWF commissioned UQ’s 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱-𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗕𝗶𝗼𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗖𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗲.

And we are reminded that a 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗲𝗳 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁 is an author.

"..........𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑒𝑓 𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑟 𝐻𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔ℎ𝑎𝑚 𝑖𝑠 𝑎 𝑐𝑜-𝑎𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑟, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡’𝑠 𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒, 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠.”

But here’s the problem:

If you compare tagged fish from 2008 with tagged fish from 2022, you have to account for everything that changed in between.

And one enormous change was the technology — including modern sounders and forward-facing sonar.

If that isn’t properly controlled for, you cannot simply look at bigger fish being caught and declare the difference was caused by removing nets.

𝗦𝗼 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘁?

When industry requested accountability, the report wasn't theirs. Nothing to see here.

When credibility is being defended, academic authority is suddenly appears to be the answer.

Meanwhile, the Commonwealth points to Queensland.
Queensland points to the former government.

𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝗹𝗸𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗼𝗿.

This is why Australians become cynical when they are simply told to “trust the science”.

𝗦𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗮 𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗼.
𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗮 𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗹𝗲.
𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆.

It is evidence that can withstand scrutiny.
So watch the video and make up your own mind.

Then ask the question nobody seems willing to answer:
𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗜𝗦 𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗨𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗚𝗢𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗢 𝗜𝗡𝗩𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗚𝗔𝗧𝗘 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗛𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗗 𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗘?

Because if the answer is nobody, the real casualty won’t just be fishing.

𝗜𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲, 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲.

If you think someone should answer that question, 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀.

23/08/2026

🚨 𝗪𝗔𝗧𝗖𝗛 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗕𝗘𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗘 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗕𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗘𝗩𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 “𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗪𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗚 = 𝗕𝗨𝗟𝗟𝗗𝗢𝗭𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗢𝗖𝗘𝗔𝗡.”

This video should make people angry — because it shows just how a narrative can be manufactured.

Look at the original trawl footage.

Then look at what happens in the editing room.

Darken it.
Speed it up.
Add an ominous soundtrack.
Add confronting imagery.
Then put one of the most trusted voices in the world over the top.

Suddenly a relatively light net travelling across a muddy seabed has become something that feels like an underwater bulldozer destroying everything in its path.

𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗜𝗦𝗡’𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗖𝗜𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗪𝗘 𝗡𝗘𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗢 𝗝𝗨𝗗𝗚𝗘 𝗔 𝗙𝗜𝗦𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗬.

It is a carefully constructed campaign narrative.

And remarkably, WWF tried essentially the same story 13 years ago.

Only then was the propaganda a cartoon.

A trawl net travelled underground through a farm, ripping out trees and sweeping up livestock to convince people that trawling was the equivalent of bulldozing nature.

There was one rather embarrassing flaw:

𝗜𝗧 𝗪𝗔𝗦 𝗔𝗟𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗗𝗬 𝗔 𝗙𝗔𝗥𝗠.

The original landscape had already been cleared and modified to produce food.

The bulldozers had already been there.

And the contradiction went even further.

WWF helped create the Marine Stewardship Council — a system designed to assess whether individual fisheries, including trawl fisheries, are sustainable.

MSC has certified trawl fisheries around the world.

Yet WWF’s campaigning keeps returning to the much simpler emotional message that trawling itself equals destruction.

In 2013, that contradiction was challenged. MSC publicly objected and asked WWF to remove the campaign.

The US Senate demanded an apology.

The ad disappeared......

𝗜𝗡 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲, 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗬 𝗛𝗔𝗦𝗡’𝗧 𝗕𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗘 𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗘.

The storytellers have simply become far more sophisticated.

And this time, instead of our political leaders challenging the narrative, too many are helping amplify it.

𝗦𝗔𝗠𝗘 𝗦𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗬.
𝗦𝗔𝗠𝗘 𝗙𝗔𝗟𝗦𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗔𝗟𝗢𝗚𝗬.
𝗕𝗘𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗥 𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚.
𝗙𝗔𝗥 𝗕𝗜𝗚𝗚𝗘𝗥 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗣𝗔𝗚𝗔𝗡𝗗𝗔 𝗠𝗔𝗖𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗘.
𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗙𝗔𝗥 𝗟𝗘𝗦𝗦 𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗧𝗔𝗕𝗜𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗬.

🎥 Watch the comparison. Then share it with someone who has only ever been shown one side of the story.

23/08/2026

𝗙𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗖𝗢𝗥𝗡𝗘𝗥𝗦 𝗜𝗦 𝗔𝗦𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦 𝗔𝗕𝗢𝗨𝗧 𝗟𝗢𝗕𝗕𝗬𝗜𝗡𝗚, 𝗜𝗡𝗙𝗟𝗨𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗘𝗦𝗦 𝗧𝗢 𝗚𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧.

Good. Then let’s go much broader.

Because the lines between 𝗔𝗖𝗔𝗗𝗘𝗠𝗜𝗖 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗖𝗛, 𝗘𝗡𝗩𝗜𝗥𝗢𝗡𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗔𝗟 𝗔𝗗𝗩𝗢𝗖𝗔𝗖𝗬 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗟𝗢𝗕𝗕𝗬𝗜𝗡𝗚 have become increasingly blurred.

We now see academics working closely with advocacy organisations to develop ambitious policy positions — appearing as 𝗜𝗡𝗗𝗘𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗧𝗦 in one setting and 𝗔𝗗𝗩𝗢𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗦 in another.

Research papers, reports and policy concepts can move between universities, NGOs and government — sometimes later 𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗣𝗣𝗘𝗗 𝗢𝗙 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗫𝗧 that originally lent them credibility in the public debate.

Then add organisations such as 𝗣𝗘𝗪, 𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗘𝗡𝗣𝗘𝗔𝗖𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗪𝗪𝗙, their relationships with researchers, academic institutions, departments and ministers, and the issue becomes much bigger than traditional corporate lobbying.

𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗜𝗦 𝗗𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗟𝗢𝗣𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗖𝗬?
𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗜𝗦 𝗙𝗨𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞?
𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗜𝗦 𝗟𝗢𝗕𝗕𝗬𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗜𝗧?

𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗘 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 𝗜𝗡𝗗𝗘𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗦𝗖𝗜𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗘𝗡𝗗 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗢𝗥𝗚𝗔𝗡𝗜𝗦𝗘𝗗 𝗔𝗗𝗩𝗢𝗖𝗔𝗖𝗬 𝗕𝗘𝗚𝗜𝗡?

If Four Corners wants to investigate influence on Australian governments, this deserves exactly the same scrutiny.

𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗦𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗬 𝗦𝗛𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗𝗡’𝗧 𝗗𝗘𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗗 𝗢𝗡 𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗥 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗟𝗢𝗕𝗕𝗬𝗜𝗦𝗧 𝗪𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗦 𝗔 𝗦𝗨𝗜𝗧, 𝗔𝗡 𝗡𝗚𝗢 𝗟𝗢𝗚𝗢 𝗢𝗥 𝗔𝗡 𝗔𝗖𝗔𝗗𝗘𝗠𝗜𝗖 𝗧𝗜𝗧𝗟𝗘.

21/08/2026

🚨 𝟗𝟕%+ 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐋𝐃’𝐒 𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐆𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐌𝐀𝐑𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐊 𝐍𝐄𝐓𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐖𝐋-𝐅𝐑𝐄𝐄.

Why can't Australia do the same?

Because it already has!
🇦🇺 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗛𝗘𝗔𝗗𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗘 𝗜𝗦 𝗔𝗨𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗟𝗜𝗔'𝗦 𝗠𝗔𝗥𝗜𝗡𝗘 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗞 𝗡𝗘𝗧𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞.

“𝘎𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘸𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘴” sounds compelling.
Until you add some context.

With Lord Howe and Norfolk added, Australia’s marine park network will exceed 𝟓.𝟐 𝐌𝐈𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐊𝐌² — an area larger than the entire European Union.

And more than 97% of it is already trawl-free.

So perhaps the question is no longer:
“Why can’t Australia protect its marine parks from trawling?”

Perhaps it is:
👉 𝐈𝐅 >𝟓 𝐌𝐈𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐊𝐌² 𝐈𝐒𝐍’𝐓 𝐄𝐍𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐇, 𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐄𝐗𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐋𝐘 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐍𝐃 𝐆𝐎𝐀𝐋?

The envNGO campaigns are no longer simply about protecting marine parks from trawling. We need to ask for some answers before Australian Seafood is taken off the Menu.

𝑶𝑼𝑻𝑹𝑨𝑮𝑬 𝑰𝑺 𝑬𝑨𝑺𝒀.
𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐗𝐓 𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐄𝐒 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐆.

21/08/2026

😂 𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗟𝗬 𝗜’𝗠 𝗢𝗡 𝗙𝗔𝗖𝗘𝗕𝗢𝗢𝗞 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗢𝗟𝗘 𝗨𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗟 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘 𝗜𝗦 𝗦𝗢𝗥𝗧𝗘𝗗.

Conditions of release: 𝗧𝗘𝗫𝗧 & 𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗟𝗟 𝗣𝗛𝗢𝗧𝗢𝗦 𝗢𝗡𝗟𝗬. 😂

🎥 No videos.
🚫 No sudden movements.
😇 No fun.

𝗜’𝗟𝗟 𝗧𝗥𝗬 𝗧𝗢 𝗕𝗘 𝗚𝗢𝗢𝗗.

20/08/2026

𝗪𝗘𝗟𝗟… 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗡𝗢𝗪, 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧’𝗦 𝗔𝗟𝗟 𝗙𝗢𝗟𝗞𝗦. 👋

It looks like someone is in the process of locking down my account.

Apparently, somewhere along the way, we’ve managed to annoy somebody. I can’t imagine how. 😂

But seriously, if this is where things go quiet for a while, I just want to say thank you.

Thank you to everyone who has followed, shared, commented, argued, laughed, challenged me and backed what I’ve been trying to do.

It’s been one hell of a ride.

We’ve rattled a few cages.
Asked some uncomfortable questions.
Called out things that needed calling out.
And hopefully made a few people stop and think along the way.

I’ve never expected everyone to agree with me. That was never the point.

The point was to make sure the people who grow our food, catch our seafood, run businesses and live with the consequences of decisions made a long way from them still had a voice.

And judging by some of the reactions lately, perhaps that voice was getting a little louder than some people were comfortable with.

But let me make one thing absolutely clear:

𝗪𝗘 𝗔𝗥𝗘 𝗗𝗘𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗜𝗧𝗘𝗟𝗬 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗗𝗢𝗡𝗘.

If we don’t make it back here, I can guarantee you one thing:

𝗪𝗘 𝗪𝗜𝗟𝗟 𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗗 𝗔 𝗩𝗢𝗜𝗖𝗘.

And when we do, it will be louder than ever before.

You don’t spend this long fighting for the people and industries you believe in and simply disappear because a social-media account gets shut down.

So for now, that’s all folks.

Hopefully this gets sorted and I’ll be back annoying everyone again soon.

And if it doesn’t?

We’ll find another way. We always do.

Until then — genuinely — thank you for coming along for the ride.

It has meant more to me than you probably realise.

🎣❤️

This will not be goodbye.

19/08/2026

🚨 𝗟𝗢𝗢𝗞 𝗔𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗠𝗔𝗣. 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗛𝗔𝗦 𝗟𝗢𝗦𝗧 𝗜𝗧𝗦 𝗪𝗔𝗬. 🚨

🌊 Marine parks were meant to protect 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 while allowing sustainable use.

Now virtually the entire Queensland east coast sits inside marine parks — and environmental NGOs are campaigning to 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗼𝗴𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿. 🎣❌

🤔 Think about what that means.

1️⃣ Put almost everything inside a marine park.
2️⃣ Then argue that because it is inside a marine park…

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗙𝗜𝗦𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗛𝗔𝗦 𝗧𝗢 𝗚𝗢.

👏 That is some impressive circular logic.

This is not a minor conservation adjustment.

🐟 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗦 𝗔 𝗣𝗔𝗧𝗛𝗪𝗔𝗬 𝗧𝗢 𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗢𝗩𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗔𝗨𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗟𝗜𝗔𝗡 𝗦𝗘𝗔𝗙𝗢𝗢𝗗 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗗𝗨𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡

And the government is proposing another 671,500 km² of highly protected waters around Norfolk and Lord Howe. 🗺️🔒

More ocean.
More closures.
More colouring-in. 🖍️

🎥 𝗪𝗔𝗧𝗖𝗛 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗢.
👀 𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗡 𝗟𝗢𝗢𝗞 𝗔𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗖𝗔𝗟𝗘 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗬𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗦𝗘𝗟𝗙.

At what point did protecting representative areas become…

🔒🌊 𝗟𝗢𝗖𝗞 𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗬𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗨𝗣?

Territory Seafood Crew

03/09/2026

03/09/2026

28/08/2026

26/08/2026

23/08/2026

23/08/2026

21/08/2026

21/08/2026

20/08/2026

19/08/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request