Latest news with #IndustrialCommission
ABC News
7 days ago
- Business
- ABC News
Pay increase for Tasmanian politicians determined by industrial commission
Tasmanian politicians will receive a $30,000 increase in their base salary following a long-awaited determination by Tasmania's Industrial Commission. The 22.36 per cent increase takes the base pay from $140,185 — where it had been frozen since 2018 — to $171,527, with the pay rise to take effect from July 1. It also includes increases in motor vehicle and electorate allowances. The determination still leaves Tasmanian MPs with the lowest base pay of any politicians in the nation, but only slightly behind New South Wales ($172,576), Western Australia ($173,393) and the Northern Territory ($175,000). Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff's pay will increase to almost $369,000, a rise of almost $68,000, while ministers will receive a base salary of $291,597. In its report, the industrial commission acknowledged the increases "may seem large". "However, they are based on the Wage Price Index or the Consumer Price Index, which track inflation and real movements in salary," the commission said in its determination. "The recommended increase for members of parliament is comparable, though slightly more than, increases in the public sector wages agreements for a similar period. The determination does not recommend back pay be given to politicians who were in state parliament between 2018 and present. The pay rise will automatically take place from July 1, unless it is disallowed by both houses of parliament. Mr Rockliff said the report from the industrial commission was seven years coming. "The recommended increase is out of step with community expectations and we will not be accepting it," he said. The commission's report found politicians in Tasmania's lower house would sit in parliament for 45 days this year, up from a national average of 43.25, while upper house MPs would also sit for 45 days, down from a national average of 49 sitting days.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
North Dakota judges decline to dismiss lawsuits against Ames-based Summit carbon pipeline
Two North Dakota judges have ruled that lawsuits filed by landowners against carbon dioxide pipeline company Summit Carbon Solutions can proceed over objections about court procedures. Several landowners are suing Ames-based Summit, which is attempting to build a network of pipelines across five states. The pipelines would take carbon dioxide emissions captured at ethanol plants to sites in western North Dakota for permanent underground storage. Attorneys for Summit had filed motions to dismiss the lawsuits, arguing that not all parties involved were properly notified and that the cases were not filed in the proper court. South Central Judicial District Court Judge Pam Nesvig issued her ruling Friday, May 9, rejecting Summit's arguments in one case in which landowners are suing Summit and the North Dakota Public Service Commission. South Central Judicial District Court Judge Jackson Lofgren filed a similar ruling Tuesday, May 13, in another case in which landowners are suing Summit entities and the North Dakota Industrial Commission. The Public Service Commission in November granted Summit a permit for its pipeline route, about 333 miles through southeast and south-central North Dakota. The pipeline is slated to carry carbon dioxide emissions from 57 ethanol plants in Iowa, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota and North Dakota, where the Industrial Commission in December granted permits for underground permanent storage of the liquefied greenhouse gas in Oliver, Mercer and Morton counties. South Central Judicial District Court Judge David Reich has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss in another case where Burleigh County is suing the North Dakota Public Service Commission and Summit Carbon Solutions. Among the issues raised in the PSC cases is that the agency did not give enough consideration to the safety of residents along the pipeline route. The lawsuit also challenges the PSC's ruling that state zoning rules trump county zoning ordinances on pipelines. The PSC ruled last year that a 2019 state law gives the state the upper hand on pipeline setbacks — such as how far away the pipeline must be from a residence — after Summit said Emmons and Burleigh had passed unreasonable setback ordinances. In the Industrial Commission case, landowners contend the state Department of Mineral Resources withheld information about Summit's models that would predict where the carbon dioxide would move when the gas is pumped underground. The Industrial Commission oversees the Department of Mineral Resources, which recommended approving the storage permits. About 92% of landowners have voluntarily agreed to participate in the storage facility. In yet another case, the North Dakota Supreme Court heard arguments last month in a challenge to a state law related to underground storage of CO2. The Northwest Landowners Association and other landowners contend a state law that can force landowners to take part in an underground CO2 storage project through a process called amalgamation is unconstitutional. Summit is taking part in the defense of that law along with the state of North Dakota and the Industrial Commission. An attorney for Minnkota Power, who joined the Industrial Commission in arguments before the Supreme Court, said a small percentage of property owners should not be able to deny a majority the right to develop their property. Summit so far has been denied a permit in South Dakota, as well as use of eminent domain to acquire pipeline right-of-way from landowners who aren't willing to voluntarily sell access. It has obtained permits in Iowa, but the Legislature there on Tuesday sent to Gov. Kim Reynolds a bill that, if signed, would place limits on the use of eminent domain for pipelines. Summit has received approval for part of its Minnesota route and Nebraska has no state permitting requirements for carbon pipelines. Supporters of the Summit project say it would help sustain the ethanol industry by lowering the carbon intensity score of the ethanol plants, opening up potential sales in low-carbon fuel markets like California. The project would take advantage of federal tax credits promoting carbon sequestration to combat greenhouse gas emissions. This article was originally published by North Dakota Monitor, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. North Dakota Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Amy Dalrymple for questions: info@ This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: North Dakota rulings allow lawsuits against Summit pipeline to proceed
