logo
‘Alarming' bill to protect Tasmanian salmon farming could stop communities challenging other projects

‘Alarming' bill to protect Tasmanian salmon farming could stop communities challenging other projects

The Guardian25-03-2025

A new bill being introduced by the Albanese government to protect Tasmanian salmon farming could stop communities challenging other decisions, including coal and gas developments, and may not even be effective in its principal aim, experts have warned.
The government plans to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act to end a formal reconsideration by the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, into whether an expansion of fish farming in Macquarie harbour in 2012 was properly approved.
Environmental Justice Australia, which analysed the draft bill to be introduced to parliament on Tuesday, said the Albanese government was 'simply wrong' to confidently claim its proposed legislation would only affect the salmon industry in Macquarie harbour.
The organisation's co-chief executive and lawyer, Elizabeth McKinnon, said the draft bill was not industry or geographically specific, prompting concerns the changes could have much wider ramifications and be applied to other decisions, including on mining, land clearing or housing and infrastructure development.
Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton's Clear Air column as a free newsletter
'We fear they'll lead to alarming wide-scale rollback of environmental protections in federal law,' she said. 'These changes to Australia's national environment laws could gut the ability of community and environment groups to challenge destructive projects – from new coal and gas projects to deforestation or salmon farms.'
Separate preliminary legal advice to the Australia Institute questioned whether the legislation would do what the government wanted, suggesting the amendment might not survive a legal challenge if applied to salmon farming in the harbour.
The institute's strategy director, Leanne Minshull, said the government's proposed change to the law would 'create more chaos than clarity'.
'Trying to push laws through at the last minute has never worked in the past and is not going to work now,' she said. 'We need to have a proper look at the salmon industry outside of the pressure of an election campaign and the politics.'
The reconsideration of the Macquarie harbour decision was triggered by a legal request in 2023 from three environment groups, partly due to concern about the impact of salmon farming on the Maugean skate, an endangered fish species. Plibersek has been reviewing whether the 2012 decision that deemed the farming was not a controlled action – meaning it did not need a full federal environmental assessment – was correct.
Such reviews can be requested if substantial new information comes to light about risk of harm to a protected species or habitat after the decision is made. An environment department opinion released under freedom of information laws suggested that it could lead to salmon farming having to stop in the harbour while an environmental impact statement was prepared.
The Albanese government's legislation would prevent reconsideration requests by third parties in some cases in which developments had been deemed 'not a controlled action'. It would apply when the minister had specified in their decision that the development required state or territory oversight or management, was already under way, and had been ongoing or recurring for at least five years since the decision was made.
EJA said the absence of specific location or industry information in the wording of the bill meant the proposed legal changes could have implications that extended to many more projects that had been deemed not controlled actions.
'Not only has the Albanese government backed away from its promise to fix the broken environment laws in this country – it's now quietly removing the ability of community members to scrutinise harmful projects,' McKinnon said.
A government spokesperson said the change was 'this is a very specific amendment to address a flaw in the EPBC Act'.
'The existing laws apply to everything else, including all new proposals for coal, gas, and land clearing,' they said.
'Our environment laws are broken. They don't protect the environment adequately, nor do they give businesses timely decisions or protect workers and communities they live in.'
On Monday, amid internal angst from pro-environment MPs, the government said it remained committed to broader reforms to strengthen environmental protections and speed up decision-making.
'We will consult on specifics in a second term with the states, business and environment groups,' a spokesperson said.
On Tuesday morning, the Greens said they would ask the Senate to send the bill to an inquiry by a Senate committee. With the government's bill expected to have support from the Coalition, this move was likely to fail.
'The government's rushed legislation to gut environment laws must be scrutinised properly,' the Greens environment spokesperson, Sarah Hanson-Young, said.
'Murky legal questions about the environmental consequences must be answered before the Senate rushes this legislation through.'
At a joint press conference with environment groups and independent MPs on Tuesday morning, Hanson-Young said 'this is being done under the cover of the budget, because the Labor party knows it stinks, the law stinks, the rotten salmon stinks, and the whole process stinks'.
Andrew Wilkie, the independent MP for Clark, which covers Hobart and surrounding areas, described the move as 'one of the most egregious attacks on our environment'.
The independent senator David Pocock said the legislation was an example of why voters should consider voting independent at the forthcoming election.
'[Australians] value nature, and they want to see politicians look to the long term.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Scottish council's U-turn on decision to close four nurseries hailed as 'victory'
Scottish council's U-turn on decision to close four nurseries hailed as 'victory'

Scotsman

timea day ago

  • Scotsman

Scottish council's U-turn on decision to close four nurseries hailed as 'victory'

The move comes after series backlash from communities affected by the initial closure announcement. Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... A council said it plans to drop its decision to close nurseries temporarily ahead of an emergency meeting next week. Aberdeenshire Council announced earlier this year it planned to mothball four nurseries across the region. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The move was met with a major backlash by communities affected by the proposals, with parents accusing the council of acting unlawfully. The affected nurseries include Crossroads, Ballogie, Glass and Sandhaven. Campaigners protesting against the temporary closure of Glass nursery after the announcement to mothball the facility was made earlier this month | Supplied An emergency meeting on the proposed closures is still due to go ahead on Monday. But in an unexpected U-turn, just days before the meeting, the council revealed it intends to pause any future mothballing of nurseries underway while it examines official guidance on the process. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Head of Aberdeenshire Council Gillian Owen said while the unusual decision was made to state the administration's intention ahead of the official meeting, next steps would 'still require to be considered through the decision-making process at full council'. Ahead of the meeting, Alexander Burnett, the MSP for Aberdeenshire West, had received confirmation from the Scottish Government the council should have held a public consultation, under the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010, before any decision was taken. The Act states councils should engage as 'early as possible' with families affected by proposals to mothball a nursery. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Scottish Conservatives MSP for Aberdeenshire West Alexander Burnett | Katharine Hay In letters sent to councillors ahead of the meeting, a parent group said: 'We firmly believe that the council has acted illegally and improperly when making the decision to mothball these settings and we would urge you to please consider our position in detail prior to the meeting. 'Crossroads Nursery is a thriving rural nursery which serves our local rural community, this is not a nursery with struggling numbers or for which there is a low demand. This is a much-needed rural service which has provided exceptional care and the best start in life for our young people.' Mr Burnett described the council's decision to remove the plans from the table as 'a victory for our rural areas'. 'These nurseries help form the pillar of our communities and they are assets that we must keep open across Aberdeenshire,' the MSP said. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'I am pleased Aberdeenshire Council has listened to the concerns of parents and has also agreed to review its mothballing policy, which I have also been campaigning for.' Mr Owen said: 'The administration is minded to seek a review of our mothballing guidance to incorporate a consultation process with parents. 'We acknowledge the strong feelings concerning the four settings and appreciate the concerns of parents who highly value their local early learning facilities. We are trying to balance the needs of children and families, with a challenging financial position – but it is critical we do this in the right way. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'We will be recommending that we pause planning for all future mothballing activity currently underway, whilst we examine the guidance. Whilst we have been engaging with parents, we need to consult at a much earlier stage to inform the decision-making process, and we will explore how to integrate this into the procedure. 'We will also recommend reversing the budget decision identifying this as a saving in our 2025/26 budget process and seek to identify the saving from elsewhere.

Bosses of six water firms banned from getting bumper bonuses under new law
Bosses of six water firms banned from getting bumper bonuses under new law

Daily Mirror

time2 days ago

  • Daily Mirror

Bosses of six water firms banned from getting bumper bonuses under new law

Unfair bonuses have been banned for senior executives at six water companies, under Labour's new measures in the Water (Special Measures) Act Bosses of water firms who pollute Britain's rivers have been banned from taking bonuses under new laws taking effect from Friday. Water bosses awarded themselves over £112 million in bonuses and incentive payments in the last decade. ‌ Unfair bonuses have been banned for senior executives at six water companies, under Labour's new measures in the Water (Special Measures) Act. ‌ The ban applies to Thames Water, Yorkshire Water, Anglian Water, Wessex Water, United Utilities, and Southern Water. They have all been banned under new rules which prevent bonuses from being paid if a water company does not meet environmental or consumer standards, does not meet financial resilience requirements, or is convicted of a criminal offence. The six companies are not under an indefinite ban, and those firms may be able to offer rewards for the 2025/26 year, provided they stick within the Ofwat rules, under the Water (Special Measures) Act which comes into force on Friday. If a company pays a bonus while it is under a ban, the water regulator Ofwat has the power to claw the money back. Environment Secretary Steve Reed said: 'Water company bosses, like anyone else, should only get bonuses if they've performed well, certainly not if they've failed to tackle water pollution. Undeserved bonuses will now be banned as part of the Government's plan to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good. Promise made, promise delivered.' Campaign group River Action have called the move a "welcome step" but said that increased salaries should be prevented. ‌ Chief executive James Wallace said: "We won't end pollution for profit until water companies are refinanced and governed for public benefit. "Any attempt to inflate base pay as a workaround must be stamped out. "The era of rewarding criminal leadership must end. No more cream for the fat cats." ‌ Wessex Water have said that under their own rules, "which require the achievement of specific customer and environmental performance targets", neither the chief executive nor chief financial officer would receive any bonus. A spokesperson added: "Looking ahead, we are planning a step change in the maintenance of our sewerage infrastructure, with a proposed investment of approximately £300 million by 2030." A Southern Water spokesperson said: "We note the Government's announcement and await full details of how this will impact our existing approach to performance-related reward. ‌ "This is already closely tied to the delivery of improvements in customer satisfaction and environmental performance. "Any bonuses are paid by shareholders, not customers, and are overseen by an independent committee." It comes after Thames Water were fined £122.7 million, the largest penalty the water watchdog has ever issued, after two investigations into wastewater and dividend payments. The utility giant will pay £104.5 million for breaches of rules relating to its wastewater operations, and an extra £18.2 million for breaking rules related to dividend payments.

Judge orders Trump administration to provide due process to some migrants deported to El Salvador
Judge orders Trump administration to provide due process to some migrants deported to El Salvador

NBC News

time3 days ago

  • NBC News

Judge orders Trump administration to provide due process to some migrants deported to El Salvador

A federal judge today ordered the Trump administration to provide hundreds of migrants sent to CECOT, a maximum-security terrorism confinement center in El Salvador, habeas relief, ordering the government to provide the individuals an opportunity to challenge their detention and removal under President Donald Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. The order applies to all noncitizens removed from U.S. custody and transferred to CECOT "on March 15 and 16, 2025, pursuant solely to the Presidential Proclamation entitled 'Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua.'" It will not apply to migrants such as Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran native removed from the country around the same time, but for reasons outside of Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. 'Defendants plainly deprived these individuals of their right to seek habeas relief before their summary removal from the United States — a right that need not itself be vindicated through a habeas petition,' U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg wrote in the order. 'Perhaps the President lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act. Perhaps, moreover, Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs are gang members. But — and this is the critical point — there is simply no way to know for sure, as the CECOT Plaintiffs never had any opportunity to challenge the Government's say-so.' Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act in March to target members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang deemed a foreign terrorist organization by the administration and accused of engaging in "mass illegal migration to the United States to further its objectives of harming United States citizens." By invoking the war-time law, Trump was able to swiftly detain and remove immigrants he claimed were members of the gang. One day after invoking the Act, the Trump administration announced it had deported hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members across at least two planes to El Salvador, even as Boasberg in a ruling at the time blocked the deportations and ordered any flights carrying migrants subject to the presidential proclamation return to the United States. The Trump administration challenged the block on its Alien Enemies Act deportations, but the ruling was upheld by the D.C. Circuit of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court later faulted the administration for giving the Venezuelan detainees only 24 hours to challenge their deportations before returning the case to an appeals court for further proceedings. Boasberg in his ruling noted that the Supreme Court unanimously agreed "that those subject to removal under the Act must be allowed to challenge their removability in federal court before being deported." "Defendants instead spirited away planeloads of people before any such challenge could be made. And now, significant evidence has come to light indicating that many of those currently entombed in CECOT have no connection to the gang and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations," Boasberg wrote. Boasberg has provided the government a week to propose a plan as to "how they intend to facilitate the ability of the CECOT class to seek habeas relief," making clear the Venezuelan migrants must be granted the opportunity to contest their removal under the Alien Enemies Act, but conceding that "such a remedy may implicate sensitive diplomatic or national-security concerns." The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Lawyers for the non-profit groups representing the migrants praised Boasberg's ruling as affirming that the right to due process extends to individuals in the country illegally. 'The court properly recognized that the government cannot send people to a notorious foreign gulag without due process and then wash its hands of the situation,' said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who serves as lead counsel on the case.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store