One of the best methods we have for building resilience in the marine environment - and protecting against such diverse threats - is setting some areas aside for biodiversity protection: areas where no extraction is allowed – no fishing and no mining; where the natural environment is allowed to flourish as best it can. Just like national parks on land, marine parks, and specifically no-take marine sanctuaries, are critical to the long-term health of those environments.

Putting such areas aside means that when there is a big storm, a bleaching or pollution event or a misjudgment in fishing controls, there are healthy and biodiverse areas that can seed the recovery.

Marine parks are not the only solution, but they are a critical part.

It's frustrating to see misinformation put out in the name of "fishers" to oppose the proposal for a Sydney Marine Park. A specific proposal for a marine park for Sydney was made public for consultation last month, although the plan has been subject to public consultation in some way or another since 2014. The misinformation is being spread by vested interests in the tackle industry, fishing TV personalities and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party. It’s narrow-minded, self-interested and opportunist.

We saw the NSW government backflip on the greyhound racing ban. It should not give in to the narrow agenda of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party on new marine protections. The public will overwhelmingly support a stance that protects our marine environment for future generations.

Under the marine park plan, just 5 per cent of the areas between Wollongong and the Central Coast would be made sanctuaries or zoned for conservation. Other areas would be put aside specifically to serve the interests of recreational fishers, including areas around artificial reefs. Between 90 and 95 per cent of the total area would remain open to some or all types of recreational fishing.

Change can be difficult at any time, and for people who have fished in areas that are now proposed to become no-take sanctuaries, the push-back is understandable. It is hard to see how one fisher can have an impact, but there are about 600,000 licensed recreational fishers in the region that would be covered by the proposed park.

There are also many other users of the marine environment who should get a say in its future.

This debate should not be between fishers and environmentalists alone. We all share an interest in the future of our oceans. Whether you are a fisher, diver, ocean swimmer, paddler, surfer, sailor, run a business on the water or just breathe the air that is moved and cleansed by the plants and currents of the seas, the health and wellbeing of our oceans should be a concern.