Animals may be 'threatened species' after algal bloom
Tens of thousands of marine animals have been killed since an algal bloom was identified off the Fleurieu Peninsula in South Australia in March, and has since spread along some of the coastline.
An expert assessment of the impact of the toxic algal bloom has been expedited by the federal government to understand the impact on marine life.
The bloom has resulted in more than 400 species of marine life, including sharks, rays and fish, washing up along the coastline.
The assessment will determine if any additional species need to be added to the threatened list, which already includes whitefin swellshark, longnose skate, greeneye spurdog, grey skate, and coastal stingaree.
If any additional species are added to the list, it may trigger the development of conservation plans.
It is a similar process to the assessment after the 2019-20 Black Summer bushfires that saw the south-eastern glossy black cockatoo and mountain skink added to the threatened species list.
"We can leave no stone unturned to understand the impact of this on local marine life, so we can begin investing in the appropriate strategies to bring these important animals back to healthy numbers," Environment Minister Murray Watt said in a statement on Wednesday.
It follows Mr Watt issuing an apology to South Australians on Monday, who feel the government's response to the bloom has been too slow.
But the federal government hopes a recently announced jointly funded $28 million package will be enough to fix the damage.
The package is expected to support affected businesses, undertake more research and clean up the beaches where thousands of dead marine animals have washed up.
Federal leaders are visiting Adelaide on Wednesday, with Mr Watt arriving for a second time to meet with impacted businesses, industry and the community and Opposition Leader Sussan Ley touring impacted areas.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is also expected to visit South Australia later this week about the bloom.
Local businesses have reported a loss of income as a result of the bloom, with a recent survey by the Tourism Industry Council of South Australia revealing some have already experienced summer cancellations.
"I'm one of the busiest charter operators in the state but the phone isn't ringing," Reel Screamer Fishing Charters owner Kevin Sweeney told AAP on Tuesday.
There has been an average $52,000 loss for businesses due to a lull in tourism customers, mostly from South Australia, over fears of the algal bloom.
The algal bloom is attributed to 2022-23 Murray floodwaters pushing nutrients into the ocean, an upwelling of nutrient-rich water from deep off the continental shelf caused by changing ocean currents, and a 2.5C marine heatwave that started in 2024.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
8 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Responsibility, not legacy driving Chalmers to reform
If those who can't remember history are condemned to repeat it, Jim Chalmers has as good a chance as any at avoiding the pitfalls of reformist treasurers past. Dr Chalmers is attempting the most ambitious process of economic reform by a Labor treasurer since Paul Keating's 1985 tax summit or Wayne Swan's tax forum of 2011. While Mr Keating's summit led to significant reform around income taxes, it buried his centrepiece policy - a broad-based consumption tax like the GST - for another 15 years. Mr Swan's attempt amounted to even less. History will drive Dr Chalmers as he prepares for his own economic reform roundtable - running from Tuesday to Thursday in Canberra - speculates veteran economist Saul Eslake. "As a biographer of Keating and a former staffer for Swan, he knows the difference between treasurers who are remembered as great treasurers and treasurers who aren't, and he'd like to be in the former group, I suspect," Mr Eslake says. Dr Chalmers says he doesn't see it in personal terms. Australia's economy has made a lot of positive strides in recent years, he says. Economic developments last week backed that up, with unemployment falling, real wages growing at a five-year high and a third interest rate cut in six months. But global volatility required more economic resilience, the nation's dismal productivity performance was holding back living standards and a growing budget deficit threatened Australia's future prosperity. He sees the roundtable as an opportunity to reform the country in ways that make Australians better off. "I do feel that all of us have a responsibility to use these positions of influence to strengthen the economy and, really, we can't afford as a country to waste the next decade like our predecessors wasted the last one," Dr Chalmers tells AAP. "So I feel that responsibility but don't see it in personal terms necessarily." Already, the consultation has been worth it. "We've shaken the tree for a whole bunch of ideas," he says. "We've focused the country's attention on our big economic challenges, primarily productivity, and we've helped people understand the kinds of trade-offs and challenges the government is grappling with." Dr Chalmers says he's optimistic he'll find common ground in moves to remove unnecessary regulation holding back productivity, housing supply and the clean energy transition. One example is the financial regulator ASIC's announcement on Wednesday that it will review a regulation called RG 97, which forces super funds to disclose stamp duty when reporting fees involved in housing investments. After feedback from investors at a roundtable in the lead-up to Dr Chalmers' summit, ASIC heard removing the requirement could boost housing investment by $8.7 billion and get an additional 35,000 homes built by institutional investors over the next five years. That's the low-hanging fruit. But there are signs the treasurer has been forced to lower his sights for more electorally difficult, large-scale tax reform. Dr Chalmers insists he and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese are singing from the same hymn sheet. But Mr Eslake believes the treasurer's ambition has been reeled in by his boss, "the staunchest defender of the status quo of any prime minister I can remember". "Those aspirations appear to have been shot down, as it were, by his much more cautious prime minister, who has made it clear, particularly in the tax space, they're not going to do anything they hadn't said they would do during the election campaign," he says. History shows governments can't push through major, contentious tax reform without receiving a mandate from the electorate. But Mr Albanese found himself with a slim majority in his first term, so felt he could only seek a light mandate at his second election, limiting his government to a minor agenda on tax. One of those policies, reducing the tax concession for holders of large superannuation accounts, has copped flak because it would tax capital gains on assets before they are sold and the increased value is realised. Mr Eslake would love to see the government use the roundtable as an opportunity to revisit the tax. "While I support the objective, that people with big super balances should pay more tax, I absolutely support that, I don't like the idea of taxing unrealised gains," he says. "Sometimes voters will give a government credit for saying, 'yes, I know we had this idea but we've listened to the people and we've realised it's not a good idea'." Dr Chalmers says he will listen to concerns about the policy but his intention is to proceed with the legislation regardless. "I try and have a genuinely consultative approach," he says. "But we announced that policy more than two and a half years ago, we're yet to hear an idea about a better way to go about it. I expect people will raise it at the roundtable and that's fine." While he stresses he doesn't want to pre-empt things by ruling any ideas in or out in advance, he acknowledges some policies, like raising or broadening the GST, will less likely receive his support. "The policy changes we are most likely to pick up and run with are the ones consistent with the government's values and directions," Dr Chalmers says. The government has consulted far and wide for reform ideas in the lead-up to the roundtable. Nearly 900 submissions have been received, ministers have held more than 40 roundtables of their own and regulators have pitched 280 new ways to reduce the burden of red tape. Dr Chalmers hopes he can find consensus to avoid the failures of past talkfests and has extended an invitation to shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien "in good faith". But he fears the coalition will be intentionally obstructionist, to make the roundtable appear a failure and inflict political damage on the government. "My preference would be that they're constructive about that opportunity," he says. "Unfortunately, they're showing no signs of that yet. I think it will go down badly in the room if they just try and turn it into some kind of political stunt." Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has accused Labor of choreographing the entire exercise to push through pre-determined policies, following a leaked Treasury document briefing Dr Chalmers on potential outcomes of the summit. "It just tells me this whole thing is a stitch-up," she told reporters on Thursday. "They're lining up an exercise at this productivity roundtable that is all about raising taxes. "We'll call it out when we see it." If those who can't remember history are condemned to repeat it, Jim Chalmers has as good a chance as any at avoiding the pitfalls of reformist treasurers past. Dr Chalmers is attempting the most ambitious process of economic reform by a Labor treasurer since Paul Keating's 1985 tax summit or Wayne Swan's tax forum of 2011. While Mr Keating's summit led to significant reform around income taxes, it buried his centrepiece policy - a broad-based consumption tax like the GST - for another 15 years. Mr Swan's attempt amounted to even less. History will drive Dr Chalmers as he prepares for his own economic reform roundtable - running from Tuesday to Thursday in Canberra - speculates veteran economist Saul Eslake. "As a biographer of Keating and a former staffer for Swan, he knows the difference between treasurers who are remembered as great treasurers and treasurers who aren't, and he'd like to be in the former group, I suspect," Mr Eslake says. Dr Chalmers says he doesn't see it in personal terms. Australia's economy has made a lot of positive strides in recent years, he says. Economic developments last week backed that up, with unemployment falling, real wages growing at a five-year high and a third interest rate cut in six months. But global volatility required more economic resilience, the nation's dismal productivity performance was holding back living standards and a growing budget deficit threatened Australia's future prosperity. He sees the roundtable as an opportunity to reform the country in ways that make Australians better off. "I do feel that all of us have a responsibility to use these positions of influence to strengthen the economy and, really, we can't afford as a country to waste the next decade like our predecessors wasted the last one," Dr Chalmers tells AAP. "So I feel that responsibility but don't see it in personal terms necessarily." Already, the consultation has been worth it. "We've shaken the tree for a whole bunch of ideas," he says. "We've focused the country's attention on our big economic challenges, primarily productivity, and we've helped people understand the kinds of trade-offs and challenges the government is grappling with." Dr Chalmers says he's optimistic he'll find common ground in moves to remove unnecessary regulation holding back productivity, housing supply and the clean energy transition. One example is the financial regulator ASIC's announcement on Wednesday that it will review a regulation called RG 97, which forces super funds to disclose stamp duty when reporting fees involved in housing investments. After feedback from investors at a roundtable in the lead-up to Dr Chalmers' summit, ASIC heard removing the requirement could boost housing investment by $8.7 billion and get an additional 35,000 homes built by institutional investors over the next five years. That's the low-hanging fruit. But there are signs the treasurer has been forced to lower his sights for more electorally difficult, large-scale tax reform. Dr Chalmers insists he and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese are singing from the same hymn sheet. But Mr Eslake believes the treasurer's ambition has been reeled in by his boss, "the staunchest defender of the status quo of any prime minister I can remember". "Those aspirations appear to have been shot down, as it were, by his much more cautious prime minister, who has made it clear, particularly in the tax space, they're not going to do anything they hadn't said they would do during the election campaign," he says. History shows governments can't push through major, contentious tax reform without receiving a mandate from the electorate. But Mr Albanese found himself with a slim majority in his first term, so felt he could only seek a light mandate at his second election, limiting his government to a minor agenda on tax. One of those policies, reducing the tax concession for holders of large superannuation accounts, has copped flak because it would tax capital gains on assets before they are sold and the increased value is realised. Mr Eslake would love to see the government use the roundtable as an opportunity to revisit the tax. "While I support the objective, that people with big super balances should pay more tax, I absolutely support that, I don't like the idea of taxing unrealised gains," he says. "Sometimes voters will give a government credit for saying, 'yes, I know we had this idea but we've listened to the people and we've realised it's not a good idea'." Dr Chalmers says he will listen to concerns about the policy but his intention is to proceed with the legislation regardless. "I try and have a genuinely consultative approach," he says. "But we announced that policy more than two and a half years ago, we're yet to hear an idea about a better way to go about it. I expect people will raise it at the roundtable and that's fine." While he stresses he doesn't want to pre-empt things by ruling any ideas in or out in advance, he acknowledges some policies, like raising or broadening the GST, will less likely receive his support. "The policy changes we are most likely to pick up and run with are the ones consistent with the government's values and directions," Dr Chalmers says. The government has consulted far and wide for reform ideas in the lead-up to the roundtable. Nearly 900 submissions have been received, ministers have held more than 40 roundtables of their own and regulators have pitched 280 new ways to reduce the burden of red tape. Dr Chalmers hopes he can find consensus to avoid the failures of past talkfests and has extended an invitation to shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien "in good faith". But he fears the coalition will be intentionally obstructionist, to make the roundtable appear a failure and inflict political damage on the government. "My preference would be that they're constructive about that opportunity," he says. "Unfortunately, they're showing no signs of that yet. I think it will go down badly in the room if they just try and turn it into some kind of political stunt." Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has accused Labor of choreographing the entire exercise to push through pre-determined policies, following a leaked Treasury document briefing Dr Chalmers on potential outcomes of the summit. "It just tells me this whole thing is a stitch-up," she told reporters on Thursday. "They're lining up an exercise at this productivity roundtable that is all about raising taxes. "We'll call it out when we see it." If those who can't remember history are condemned to repeat it, Jim Chalmers has as good a chance as any at avoiding the pitfalls of reformist treasurers past. Dr Chalmers is attempting the most ambitious process of economic reform by a Labor treasurer since Paul Keating's 1985 tax summit or Wayne Swan's tax forum of 2011. While Mr Keating's summit led to significant reform around income taxes, it buried his centrepiece policy - a broad-based consumption tax like the GST - for another 15 years. Mr Swan's attempt amounted to even less. History will drive Dr Chalmers as he prepares for his own economic reform roundtable - running from Tuesday to Thursday in Canberra - speculates veteran economist Saul Eslake. "As a biographer of Keating and a former staffer for Swan, he knows the difference between treasurers who are remembered as great treasurers and treasurers who aren't, and he'd like to be in the former group, I suspect," Mr Eslake says. Dr Chalmers says he doesn't see it in personal terms. Australia's economy has made a lot of positive strides in recent years, he says. Economic developments last week backed that up, with unemployment falling, real wages growing at a five-year high and a third interest rate cut in six months. But global volatility required more economic resilience, the nation's dismal productivity performance was holding back living standards and a growing budget deficit threatened Australia's future prosperity. He sees the roundtable as an opportunity to reform the country in ways that make Australians better off. "I do feel that all of us have a responsibility to use these positions of influence to strengthen the economy and, really, we can't afford as a country to waste the next decade like our predecessors wasted the last one," Dr Chalmers tells AAP. "So I feel that responsibility but don't see it in personal terms necessarily." Already, the consultation has been worth it. "We've shaken the tree for a whole bunch of ideas," he says. "We've focused the country's attention on our big economic challenges, primarily productivity, and we've helped people understand the kinds of trade-offs and challenges the government is grappling with." Dr Chalmers says he's optimistic he'll find common ground in moves to remove unnecessary regulation holding back productivity, housing supply and the clean energy transition. One example is the financial regulator ASIC's announcement on Wednesday that it will review a regulation called RG 97, which forces super funds to disclose stamp duty when reporting fees involved in housing investments. After feedback from investors at a roundtable in the lead-up to Dr Chalmers' summit, ASIC heard removing the requirement could boost housing investment by $8.7 billion and get an additional 35,000 homes built by institutional investors over the next five years. That's the low-hanging fruit. But there are signs the treasurer has been forced to lower his sights for more electorally difficult, large-scale tax reform. Dr Chalmers insists he and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese are singing from the same hymn sheet. But Mr Eslake believes the treasurer's ambition has been reeled in by his boss, "the staunchest defender of the status quo of any prime minister I can remember". "Those aspirations appear to have been shot down, as it were, by his much more cautious prime minister, who has made it clear, particularly in the tax space, they're not going to do anything they hadn't said they would do during the election campaign," he says. History shows governments can't push through major, contentious tax reform without receiving a mandate from the electorate. But Mr Albanese found himself with a slim majority in his first term, so felt he could only seek a light mandate at his second election, limiting his government to a minor agenda on tax. One of those policies, reducing the tax concession for holders of large superannuation accounts, has copped flak because it would tax capital gains on assets before they are sold and the increased value is realised. Mr Eslake would love to see the government use the roundtable as an opportunity to revisit the tax. "While I support the objective, that people with big super balances should pay more tax, I absolutely support that, I don't like the idea of taxing unrealised gains," he says. "Sometimes voters will give a government credit for saying, 'yes, I know we had this idea but we've listened to the people and we've realised it's not a good idea'." Dr Chalmers says he will listen to concerns about the policy but his intention is to proceed with the legislation regardless. "I try and have a genuinely consultative approach," he says. "But we announced that policy more than two and a half years ago, we're yet to hear an idea about a better way to go about it. I expect people will raise it at the roundtable and that's fine." While he stresses he doesn't want to pre-empt things by ruling any ideas in or out in advance, he acknowledges some policies, like raising or broadening the GST, will less likely receive his support. "The policy changes we are most likely to pick up and run with are the ones consistent with the government's values and directions," Dr Chalmers says. The government has consulted far and wide for reform ideas in the lead-up to the roundtable. Nearly 900 submissions have been received, ministers have held more than 40 roundtables of their own and regulators have pitched 280 new ways to reduce the burden of red tape. Dr Chalmers hopes he can find consensus to avoid the failures of past talkfests and has extended an invitation to shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien "in good faith". But he fears the coalition will be intentionally obstructionist, to make the roundtable appear a failure and inflict political damage on the government. "My preference would be that they're constructive about that opportunity," he says. "Unfortunately, they're showing no signs of that yet. I think it will go down badly in the room if they just try and turn it into some kind of political stunt." Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has accused Labor of choreographing the entire exercise to push through pre-determined policies, following a leaked Treasury document briefing Dr Chalmers on potential outcomes of the summit. "It just tells me this whole thing is a stitch-up," she told reporters on Thursday. "They're lining up an exercise at this productivity roundtable that is all about raising taxes. "We'll call it out when we see it." If those who can't remember history are condemned to repeat it, Jim Chalmers has as good a chance as any at avoiding the pitfalls of reformist treasurers past. Dr Chalmers is attempting the most ambitious process of economic reform by a Labor treasurer since Paul Keating's 1985 tax summit or Wayne Swan's tax forum of 2011. While Mr Keating's summit led to significant reform around income taxes, it buried his centrepiece policy - a broad-based consumption tax like the GST - for another 15 years. Mr Swan's attempt amounted to even less. History will drive Dr Chalmers as he prepares for his own economic reform roundtable - running from Tuesday to Thursday in Canberra - speculates veteran economist Saul Eslake. "As a biographer of Keating and a former staffer for Swan, he knows the difference between treasurers who are remembered as great treasurers and treasurers who aren't, and he'd like to be in the former group, I suspect," Mr Eslake says. Dr Chalmers says he doesn't see it in personal terms. Australia's economy has made a lot of positive strides in recent years, he says. Economic developments last week backed that up, with unemployment falling, real wages growing at a five-year high and a third interest rate cut in six months. But global volatility required more economic resilience, the nation's dismal productivity performance was holding back living standards and a growing budget deficit threatened Australia's future prosperity. He sees the roundtable as an opportunity to reform the country in ways that make Australians better off. "I do feel that all of us have a responsibility to use these positions of influence to strengthen the economy and, really, we can't afford as a country to waste the next decade like our predecessors wasted the last one," Dr Chalmers tells AAP. "So I feel that responsibility but don't see it in personal terms necessarily." Already, the consultation has been worth it. "We've shaken the tree for a whole bunch of ideas," he says. "We've focused the country's attention on our big economic challenges, primarily productivity, and we've helped people understand the kinds of trade-offs and challenges the government is grappling with." Dr Chalmers says he's optimistic he'll find common ground in moves to remove unnecessary regulation holding back productivity, housing supply and the clean energy transition. One example is the financial regulator ASIC's announcement on Wednesday that it will review a regulation called RG 97, which forces super funds to disclose stamp duty when reporting fees involved in housing investments. After feedback from investors at a roundtable in the lead-up to Dr Chalmers' summit, ASIC heard removing the requirement could boost housing investment by $8.7 billion and get an additional 35,000 homes built by institutional investors over the next five years. That's the low-hanging fruit. But there are signs the treasurer has been forced to lower his sights for more electorally difficult, large-scale tax reform. Dr Chalmers insists he and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese are singing from the same hymn sheet. But Mr Eslake believes the treasurer's ambition has been reeled in by his boss, "the staunchest defender of the status quo of any prime minister I can remember". "Those aspirations appear to have been shot down, as it were, by his much more cautious prime minister, who has made it clear, particularly in the tax space, they're not going to do anything they hadn't said they would do during the election campaign," he says. History shows governments can't push through major, contentious tax reform without receiving a mandate from the electorate. But Mr Albanese found himself with a slim majority in his first term, so felt he could only seek a light mandate at his second election, limiting his government to a minor agenda on tax. One of those policies, reducing the tax concession for holders of large superannuation accounts, has copped flak because it would tax capital gains on assets before they are sold and the increased value is realised. Mr Eslake would love to see the government use the roundtable as an opportunity to revisit the tax. "While I support the objective, that people with big super balances should pay more tax, I absolutely support that, I don't like the idea of taxing unrealised gains," he says. "Sometimes voters will give a government credit for saying, 'yes, I know we had this idea but we've listened to the people and we've realised it's not a good idea'." Dr Chalmers says he will listen to concerns about the policy but his intention is to proceed with the legislation regardless. "I try and have a genuinely consultative approach," he says. "But we announced that policy more than two and a half years ago, we're yet to hear an idea about a better way to go about it. I expect people will raise it at the roundtable and that's fine." While he stresses he doesn't want to pre-empt things by ruling any ideas in or out in advance, he acknowledges some policies, like raising or broadening the GST, will less likely receive his support. "The policy changes we are most likely to pick up and run with are the ones consistent with the government's values and directions," Dr Chalmers says. The government has consulted far and wide for reform ideas in the lead-up to the roundtable. Nearly 900 submissions have been received, ministers have held more than 40 roundtables of their own and regulators have pitched 280 new ways to reduce the burden of red tape. Dr Chalmers hopes he can find consensus to avoid the failures of past talkfests and has extended an invitation to shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien "in good faith". But he fears the coalition will be intentionally obstructionist, to make the roundtable appear a failure and inflict political damage on the government. "My preference would be that they're constructive about that opportunity," he says. "Unfortunately, they're showing no signs of that yet. I think it will go down badly in the room if they just try and turn it into some kind of political stunt." Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has accused Labor of choreographing the entire exercise to push through pre-determined policies, following a leaked Treasury document briefing Dr Chalmers on potential outcomes of the summit. "It just tells me this whole thing is a stitch-up," she told reporters on Thursday. "They're lining up an exercise at this productivity roundtable that is all about raising taxes. "We'll call it out when we see it."
Perth Now
8 hours ago
- Perth Now
Responsibility, not legacy driving Chalmers to reform
If those who can't remember history are condemned to repeat it, Jim Chalmers has as good a chance as any at avoiding the pitfalls of reformist treasurers past. Dr Chalmers is attempting the most ambitious process of economic reform by a Labor treasurer since Paul Keating's 1985 tax summit or Wayne Swan's tax forum of 2011. While Mr Keating's summit led to significant reform around income taxes, it buried his centrepiece policy - a broad-based consumption tax like the GST - for another 15 years. Mr Swan's attempt amounted to even less. History will drive Dr Chalmers as he prepares for his own economic reform roundtable - running from Tuesday to Thursday in Canberra - speculates veteran economist Saul Eslake. "As a biographer of Keating and a former staffer for Swan, he knows the difference between treasurers who are remembered as great treasurers and treasurers who aren't, and he'd like to be in the former group, I suspect," Mr Eslake says. Dr Chalmers says he doesn't see it in personal terms. Australia's economy has made a lot of positive strides in recent years, he says. Economic developments last week backed that up, with unemployment falling, real wages growing at a five-year high and a third interest rate cut in six months. But global volatility required more economic resilience, the nation's dismal productivity performance was holding back living standards and a growing budget deficit threatened Australia's future prosperity. He sees the roundtable as an opportunity to reform the country in ways that make Australians better off. "I do feel that all of us have a responsibility to use these positions of influence to strengthen the economy and, really, we can't afford as a country to waste the next decade like our predecessors wasted the last one," Dr Chalmers tells AAP. "So I feel that responsibility but don't see it in personal terms necessarily." Already, the consultation has been worth it. "We've shaken the tree for a whole bunch of ideas," he says. "We've focused the country's attention on our big economic challenges, primarily productivity, and we've helped people understand the kinds of trade-offs and challenges the government is grappling with." Dr Chalmers says he's optimistic he'll find common ground in moves to remove unnecessary regulation holding back productivity, housing supply and the clean energy transition. One example is the financial regulator ASIC's announcement on Wednesday that it will review a regulation called RG 97, which forces super funds to disclose stamp duty when reporting fees involved in housing investments. After feedback from investors at a roundtable in the lead-up to Dr Chalmers' summit, ASIC heard removing the requirement could boost housing investment by $8.7 billion and get an additional 35,000 homes built by institutional investors over the next five years. That's the low-hanging fruit. But there are signs the treasurer has been forced to lower his sights for more electorally difficult, large-scale tax reform. Dr Chalmers insists he and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese are singing from the same hymn sheet. But Mr Eslake believes the treasurer's ambition has been reeled in by his boss, "the staunchest defender of the status quo of any prime minister I can remember". "Those aspirations appear to have been shot down, as it were, by his much more cautious prime minister, who has made it clear, particularly in the tax space, they're not going to do anything they hadn't said they would do during the election campaign," he says. History shows governments can't push through major, contentious tax reform without receiving a mandate from the electorate. But Mr Albanese found himself with a slim majority in his first term, so felt he could only seek a light mandate at his second election, limiting his government to a minor agenda on tax. One of those policies, reducing the tax concession for holders of large superannuation accounts, has copped flak because it would tax capital gains on assets before they are sold and the increased value is realised. Mr Eslake would love to see the government use the roundtable as an opportunity to revisit the tax. "While I support the objective, that people with big super balances should pay more tax, I absolutely support that, I don't like the idea of taxing unrealised gains," he says. "Sometimes voters will give a government credit for saying, 'yes, I know we had this idea but we've listened to the people and we've realised it's not a good idea'." Dr Chalmers says he will listen to concerns about the policy but his intention is to proceed with the legislation regardless. "I try and have a genuinely consultative approach," he says. "But we announced that policy more than two and a half years ago, we're yet to hear an idea about a better way to go about it. I expect people will raise it at the roundtable and that's fine." While he stresses he doesn't want to pre-empt things by ruling any ideas in or out in advance, he acknowledges some policies, like raising or broadening the GST, will less likely receive his support. "The policy changes we are most likely to pick up and run with are the ones consistent with the government's values and directions," Dr Chalmers says. The government has consulted far and wide for reform ideas in the lead-up to the roundtable. Nearly 900 submissions have been received, ministers have held more than 40 roundtables of their own and regulators have pitched 280 new ways to reduce the burden of red tape. Dr Chalmers hopes he can find consensus to avoid the failures of past talkfests and has extended an invitation to shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien "in good faith". But he fears the coalition will be intentionally obstructionist, to make the roundtable appear a failure and inflict political damage on the government. "My preference would be that they're constructive about that opportunity," he says. "Unfortunately, they're showing no signs of that yet. I think it will go down badly in the room if they just try and turn it into some kind of political stunt." Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has accused Labor of choreographing the entire exercise to push through pre-determined policies, following a leaked Treasury document briefing Dr Chalmers on potential outcomes of the summit. "It just tells me this whole thing is a stitch-up," she told reporters on Thursday. "They're lining up an exercise at this productivity roundtable that is all about raising taxes. "We'll call it out when we see it."
ABC News
a day ago
- ABC News
Is this the end of the debate over salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour?
Tasmania has a long list of emotive, nation-shaping environmental debates. From the Franklin Dam dispute that ultimately set a template for where responsibility sits for matters of national environmental significance, to the Gunns pulp mill battle that mobilised mass protest. Salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour is another on the list — this time, resulting in federal environmental reform that decreased the ability of the public to challenge past decisions. And, like the dam and the pulp mill, it's been coloured by protest and emotive argument. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had to speak over the sound of protest while visiting a Tassal facility in Tasmania's south. On Thursday, federal Environment Minister Murray Watt — while guaranteeing the future of salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour — was met by a group of protesters in Devonport. Macquarie Harbour has a blend of remoteness, uniqueness and natural beauty. It's six times the size of Sydney Harbour, at the mouth of the Gordon River in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. Macquarie Harbour is also the only place in the world where the endangered Maugean skate is found, a ray-like species that relies on dissolved oxygen reaching the bottom of the harbour. The skate needs a delicate and unique set of circumstances to survive. Salmon farming started in the harbour in the 1980s. In 2012, it received federal environmental approval to expand. By 2015, it had reached 20,000 tonnes of fish. When water quality issues became increasingly apparent, it was decided to wind back the stocking rates and set nitrogen limits. But reduced dissolved oxygen levels had been having an impact on the Maugean skate — exacerbated by extreme weather events in 2019 that caused two mass die-off events. In 2021, it was estimated that skate numbers had reduced by 47 per cent, and that the species could be one bad weather event away from potential extinction. This brought intense scrutiny and attention onto salmon farming practices in the harbour, driven by environmental groups like the Bob Brown Foundation (BBF). The federal Labor government promised no new extinctions — and environmental groups were driven to hold the government to this promise. Three groups — the BBF, Environmental Defenders Office and the Australia Institute — lodged requests with the government to reconsider the 2012 expansion approval. It resulted in the release of more information about the plight of the skate, including federal conservation advice that recommended further destocking of the salmon farms — which did not occur. The reconsideration had been ongoing since November 2023, but created uncertainty for the aquaculture industry on Tasmania's west coast — and, thereby, political pressure on Labor. In one of its last acts in parliament before the most recent federal election, Labor passed an amendment to environmental laws to effectively stop these kinds of reconsideration requests. The law states that if industries have been operating for five years since receiving federal environmental approval, and are regulated by the state, then they cannot be reconsidered. It applies to any industry — not just salmon farming. The laws appear to have solved Labor's political problem, in a big way. The party received a 15 per cent swing in Braddon — the largest of any seat at the federal election — under its staunchly pro-salmon candidate, Anne Urquhart. It was easily enough to win the seat back from the Liberals. In his letter to stakeholders, Mr Watt confirmed that the March law change was the basis for being able to reaffirm the 2012 salmon farming decision. He said he had, therefore, followed the law. "Every decision we make when it comes to environmental approvals is in compliance with the law," Mr Watt said. "It's no secret that the government amended the legislation prior to the last election to outline a path to deal with reconsiderations, and we've now applied the law. Industry body Salmon Tasmania said the decision provided "economic stability" for the west coast region, and pointed to research that suggested Maugean skate numbers had stabilised after a decade of decline. An oxygenation trial — partly funded by the federal government — is continuing. It involves pumping dissolved oxygen into the harbour's depths, which the industry and government both believe can be a sustainable option. The federal government is also helping to fund an insurance population of Maugean skate. The decision came one week before a BBF legal challenge to the law change was due to be heard in the Federal Court. The BBF is now considering its legal options, but believes the timing of the decision is intended to prevent departmental information from entering the public domain. BBF campaigner Alistair Allan said the process had resulted in weakened environmental laws for all endangered species. "We will be challenging this law, because we have to make sure that corporations are not the ones that get to decide what happens to Australia's environment," he said. "Australia's laws are already atrociously weak. "We have an animal here that was on the list, it was a priority species to be protected, and straight away it was condemned by the Albanese government." There are 11 salmon licences in Macquarie Harbour that have been able to continue throughout the reconsideration process. Fish biomass in the harbour is currently well below the peak from 2015, while the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has introduced new regulatory functions, such as nitrogen limits. The law change effectively leaves regulation to the state-based EPA for the foreseeable future. But it's unlikely to be the last Australians hear of the endangered Maugean skate, with studies continuing to point to a need for even further studies and data. These would fully examine whether salmon farming can truly coexist with the skate, if oxygenation is a genuine long-term solution and if there is a stocking level or management options for fish farms that can ensure the skate avoids extinction — should severe weather events hit again.
