Labor's grassroots environmental group dismayed by rushed bill protecting salmon industry
Labor's grassroots environment action network has told its members it does not support legislation that Anthony Albanese rushed through parliament this week to protect salmon farming in Tasmania, describing it as 'frustrating and disappointing'.
In an email on Thursday, the Labor Environment Action Network (Lean) said it would not 'sugar coat' its reaction to a bill that was introduced to end a formal government reconsideration of whether an expansion of fish farming in Macquarie Harbour, on the state's west coast, in 2012 was properly approved.
Albanese had promised the amendment to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act to protect salmon industry laws in the remote town of Strahan after internal warnings the issue was damaging Labor's electoral chances in the Tasmanian seat of Braddon, a seat the Liberal party holds on an 8% margin.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
An environment department opinion released under freedom of information laws had suggested the reconsideration could lead to salmon farming having to stop in the harbour, while an environmental impact statement was prepared.
Lean's national campaign organiser, Louise Crawford, told the group's members the passage of the bill with bipartisan support on Wednesday night was 'not an outcome we support'.
'It is one of those incredibly frustrating and disappointing moments as a Lean member,' she said in an email seen by Guardian Australia. 'We have all worked so hard on getting the commitment for an EPA [Environment Protection Agency] and environment law reform for such a long time when no other party was talking about it nor interested in it.'
The reconsideration of the Macquarie Harbour decision had been triggered in 2023 by a legal request from three environmentally focused organisations to the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek. The request highlighted concern about the impact of salmon farming on the endangered Maugean skate, an ancient ray-like fish species found only in Macquarie Harbour.
The new legislation prevents ministerial reconsideration requests in cases in which a federal environment assessment had not been required and the development had been operating for more than five years. It was welcomed by the Tasmanian Liberal government, the Australian Workers' Union and the West Coast Council that covers Strahan and surrounding areas.
The government has dismissed conservationists' and environment lawyers' concerns that this meant it could be broadly applied beyond salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour, arguing it was 'a very specific amendment' to address a flaw in the EPBC Act and that 'existing laws apply to everything else, including all new proposals for coal, gas, and land clearing'.
Crawford said Lean believed it was a 'tight set of criteria' that did not apply to most major projects, including coal and gas operations, or to most developments that involved significant land-clearing. But she said the advocacy group would have preferred a solution that allowed the salmon farming to continue while an assessment was carried out.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
'We do not think activities should be immune from reconsideration if evidence shows they need to be given a federal environmental assessment,' she said. 'This underlines the importance of completing the full environmental reform process, and to having an independent regulator.'
Crawford urged members to 'dig deep' and resolve to help Labor craft improved laws and an EPA in the next term of parliament 'despite what happened this week'. She asked them to campaign for a group of pro-nature Labor MPs who Lean has named 'climate and environment champs' – including Ged Kearney, Kate Thwaites, Josh Burns, Jerome Laxale, Sally Sitou, Alicia Payne and Josh Wilson – so that the environment 'has strong voices in caucus and the parliament'.
She noted Albanese had committed to reforming environment laws and creating a federal EPA in the next term after shelving both commitments in this term. 'This is Labor policy so should be delivered no question. We will continue to work to deliver this. It's time. It's more than past time,' she said.
The Maugean skate has been listed as endangered since 2004. Concern about its plight escalated last year when a government scientific committee said numbers in the wild were 'extremely low' and fish farming in the harbour was the main cause of a substantial reduction in dissolved oxygen levels – the main threat to the skate's survival.
The committee said salmon farms in the harbour should be scaled back and recommended the species be considered critically endangered.
A separate report by the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies last month said surveys suggested the skate population was likely to have recovered to 2014 levels after crashing last decade. It stressed the need for continued monitoring.
The government announced $3m in the budget to expand a Maugean skate captive breeding program.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
a day ago
- Spectator
Tories will remember this assisted dying vote
'I judge a man by one thing, which side would he have liked his ancestors to fight on at Marston Moor?' So said Isaac Foot, the Liberal MP and father of Michael. For some Tories, both in and out of parliament, Friday's assisted dying debate will carry a similar weight in judgements of character. Some 80 per cent of Tory MPs voted against Kim Leadbeater's Bill at Third Reading, with 92 against, 20 in favour and five registered abstentions. Of the 25-strong new intake, elected last year, just four backed Leadbeater's Bill: Aphra Brandreth, Peter Bedford, Ashley Fox and Neil Shastri-Hurst. Social conservatives note that the Tories were much more aligned on assisted dying than Reform, which split by three votes against to two in favour. Only six MPs backed both this measure and Tuesday's abortion liberalisation vote: Brandreth, Shastri-Hurst, Luke Evans, Kit Malthouse, Andrew Mitchell and Laura Trott. A striking number of senior Tories were among the 20 who supported assisted dying including Rishi Sunak, Oliver Dowden and Jeremy Hunt. Six shadow cabinet members backed it too including Mel Stride, Victoria Atkins and Chris Philp. 'That's the end of his leadership hopes', remarks one opponent. Among those who opposed assisted dying, there is praise for Kemi Badenoch. The Tory leader had previously supported the concept in principle before coming out strongly against Leadbeater's Bill in November. Her argument centred on the legislative process: that insufficient time was dedicated to the Bill and that MPs ought to serve as scrutineers, not campaigners. Her robust stance since then has impressed begrudging internal critics. 'She did do a good job', admits one MP who backed a rival candidate. Friday's vote showed Badenoch's thinking to be firmly in-line with the majority of her own MPs on this issue. There is frustration among some of her supporters that if twelve Tory proponents had changed their mind, Leadbeater's Bill would have been sunk. Perhaps, in time, assisted dying will become accepted wisdom in Tory circles. Those in favour cite its public support and point to the party's history of belatedly backing 'progressive' measures. In March 2003, it was a minority of modernisers who disregarded Iain Duncan Smith to back scrapping Section 28. Within five years, one of them, Boris Johnson, was standing for Mayor of London. Within ten, a Tory PM was championing same-sex marriage. But for those still reeling and angry from yesterday's vote, it certainly doesn't feel that way today.
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Daily Mail
Cringeworthy moment Labor brags about building 17 new homes in seven months in a far cry from 1.2million goal
Labor has been slammed for bragging about building 17 new homes in Canberra in seven months - a far cry from its target of 1.2million homes in five years. 'We're here in Canberra visiting some brand spanking new homes, what do you reckon Chris?' Minister for Housing Clare O'Neil said in a TikTok on Friday. In an awkward game of catch, she tossed the phone to Chris Steel, ACT Minister for Planning and Sustainable Development, who then turned the camera on himself. 'Pretty good, 17 class C adaptable homes for new residents,' said a grinning Steel. He then threw the phone to Labor MP David Smith, who added: 'A great example of two Labor governments working together and taking pressure off housing right here in Bean'. 'And the good news is we're just getting started,' O'Neil said after Smith had tossed the phone back to her. 'This is 17 out of 55,000 social and affordable homes that our government is going to deliver to Australians over the coming few years.' The 55,000 social and affordable homes O'Neil mentioned fall under Labor's broader target of building 1.2million homes over five years from mid-2024. The policy known as the National Housing Accord includes $3.5billion in payments to state, territory and local governments to support the delivery of new homes towards the target, and a one-off $2billion payment to help states and territories to increase social housing stock. Aussies were quick to criticise the video, slamming the lacklustre seven-month timeframe for building just 17 houses. '17 homes in seven months... At that rate it will take you 1,886 years to complete the remaining 55,000 homes,' one said. 'You should reach your target by 2080 - what a joke,' said another. 'Do you realise another major building company has just declared bankruptcy?' a third asked. Critics have labelled Labor's housing target unrealistic, if not impossible, amid soaring construction costs and unfettered immigration. Australia had a record level of construction company insolvencies in 2025, a 24 per cent increase over last year's rate. Labor's policy requires 240,000 homes to be delivered every single year for five years - a significant improvement on Australia's record year of construction in 2017, when about 223,000 homes were built. Leith van Onselen, who formerly worked at the Australian Treasury and is the chief economist at MacroBusiness, said the construction sector was struggling. 'As a result, builders are caught between a rock and a hard place whereby they can't deliver stock at a profitable level, and that has created a major handbrake on housing construction,' Mr van Onselen said. 'We're still seeing lots of builders going under, and they're struggling to make a profit at the moment, which just means this housing construction target from the federal government is completely unrealistic. 'It's just too expensive to build housing in Australia at the moment, for a variety of reasons, and that just means that less housing is going to be built at the same time the government has the throttle on immigration.'
NBC News
2 days ago
- NBC News
In a scathing dissent, Justice Jackson says the Supreme Court gives the impression it favors 'moneyed interests'
WASHINGTON — Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized her colleagues on Friday in a scathing dissent on a case involving vehicle emissions regulations. In her dissenting opinion, she argued that the court's opinion gives the impression it favors 'moneyed interests' in the way they decide which cases to hear and how they rule in them. The court had ruled 7-2 in favor of fuel producers seeking to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's approval of California clean vehicle emissions regulations. She also said she was concerned that the ruling could have "a reputational cost for this court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests." With the Trump administration reversing course on many of Biden's environmental policies, including on California's electric vehicle mandates, the case is likely moot, or soon to be, Jackson wrote, making her wonder why the court felt the need to decide it. "This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this court than ordinary citizens," Jackson wrote. The case said that the producers had legal standing to bring their claims, resting on a theory "that the court has refused to apply in cases brought by less powerful plaintiffs," she added. The decision has little practical importance now, but in future, "will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act," she said. "Also, I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests," she added. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has often faced claims that it is particularly receptive to arguments made by big business. The conservative justices have been especially skeptical of broad government regulations and they have consistently made it harder for consumers and workers to bring class action lawsuits. Last year, the court overturned a 40-year precedent much loathed by business interests that empowered federal agencies in the regulatory process. Some legal experts have pushed back, saying such allegations are misleading. Jackson concluded her dissent by noting the court's "simultaneous aversion to hearing cases involving the potential vindication of less powerful litigants — workers, criminal defendants, and the condemned, among others." Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the majority opinion, responded to her claims, saying that a review of standing cases "disproves that suggestion." He mentioned several recent rulings in which liberal justices were in the majority, including one last year finding that anti-abortion doctors who challenged the abortion pill mifepristone did not have standing to sue. The bottom line, he added, is that the government "may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders." The underlying case stems from the EPA's authority to issue national vehicle emissions standards under the federal Clean Air Act. In recognition of California's historic role in regulating emissions, the law allows the EPA to give the state a waiver from the nationwide standards so that it can adopt its own. The case focused on a request made by California in 2012 that EPA approve new regulations, not the state's 2024 plan to eliminate gasoline-powered cars by 2035 for which it also sought a waiver.
