Extensive and intensive debate on the uses of MPAs around the world has converged on acceptance that well designed and implemented area management can be an extremely useful tool for biodiversity conservation. But this same debate increasingly highlights the pitfalls of assuming that closing areas to fishing will automatically provide protection and benefit fish resources. Benefits to efficient fisheries management from area closures remain even more elusive. Sedentary organisms tend to respond well to protection of components of their total distribution, while the management of more mobile species is often not aided by restricting catches over parts of their habitats.

The pros and cons of MPAs as a fisheries management tool are still hotly contested. Opposing views can not all be correct. Unfortunately some views remain based on inadequate science or misrepresentation of the available evidence. People who have been misled, for whatever reason, by biased misinformation have been hoodwinked.

It is generally acknowledged that considerable improvement in fisheries management is essential if the world's capture fisheries are to produce optimum returns. Fisheries science has often not been compelling and management and industry have exploited the resulting uncertainty for short-term gains, often at the expense of sustainability. However, exploitation of imprecise or inadequate 'science' in the interests of unjustified restrictions on fishing is no more acceptable, and often no less destructive of the interests of ecologically sustainable development. Assertions based on inadequately peer reviewed science can harm not only efficient management but also the credibility of scientists and the organisations for which they work. Management actions based on incorrect assumptions harm the long-term sustainability of biodiversity itself.

Documentation used to support the recently declared Batemans Marine Park is used as an example of the quality of science on MPAs in NSW and the impact of this science on policy and management.

Questions are raised on the possible role of ASFB in protecting the standard of fisheries science in Australia and the reputations of our scientists.