Albanese moves to shore up Tasmanian salmon farms

The move takes power away from Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Tasmanian Senator Anne Urquhart visit the Tassal salmon pens in Strahan, Tasmania.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

Anthony Albanese has moved to shore up salmon farming in Tasmania’s Macquarie Harbour by introducing legislation to take power away from the environment minister to consider requests by third parties – such as environmental groups – in some circumstances.

The move is broadly in line with changes proposed by the Coalition, which blasted the bill as a temporary, pre-election move that Labor would roll back if re-elected.

The bill passed the House of Representatives on Tuesday evening with the support of the Coalition.

The Greens and some independents accused Labor of weakening environmental protections and of “rushing these laws through under the cover of the federal budget, without proper scrutiny or consideration”.

The proposed amendment curtails the power of third parties to ask the environment minister to reconsider a “not controlled” status, which exempts a project from further regulation. This amendment would apply to a 2012 approval on salmon farming in Tasmania’s Macquarie Harbour that Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek was reconsidering after she accepted requests in 2023 for a rethink from the left-wing Australia Institute and the Bob Brown Foundation.

There was scientific advice and concerns about lower oxygen levels in the water at Macquarie Harbour partly linked to those salmon farms and the subsequent “catastrophic” impact on the endangered Maugean skate.

Documents revealed under Freedom of Information laws show the Environment Department believed it “likely” the review would apply a “controlled” status to the salmon farms, hence inviting more regulation.

Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek.

The bill passed the House of Representatives on Tuesday evening after Labor and the Coalition voted for the bill while the Greens and most teal independents voted against.

Opposition environment spokesman Jonno Duniam previously indicated the Coalition wanted the bill to pass this sitting week, which could be the last one before an election is called.

But he said voters “simply can’t trust Labor on salmon”.

“The legislation was only agreed with a commitment from the Prime Minister that a re-elected Labor government will proceed with the establishment of a Federal Environment Protection Agency and their so-called ‘Nature Positive’ … environment legislation,” he said. “Without doubt, a re-elected Labor government, captive to the Greens and their own inner-city MPs, will roll back protection of salmon jobs.”

Opposition Deputy Leader Sussan Ley accused Mr Albanese of having “expressed no confidence” in Ms Plibersek and of “introducing specific legislation to curtail and override her powers”.

Greens leader Adam Bandt accused Mr Albanese of “gutting … environment and climate laws … and driving an iconic species to extinction”.

Mr Albanese turned it back on Mr Bandt, saying the Greens were the “political party that stopped climate action the last time” Labor was in government.

Asked again about the amendment, Mr Albanese laid blame for his government’s stalled Nature Positive reform on the Greens and independents. “(The bill) sat over there in the Senate, for month after month after month while crossbenchers tried to connect it up with a whole range of other issues that were not related to the legislation that was there,” he said.

“When the legislation was eventually before the Senate, the crossbenchers, including Fatima Payman, who was elected as a Labor senator but ratted on the Labor Party to sit on the crossbench, made it clear that she would not (vote for it). Be careful what you vote for when you vote independent, because you never know what you will get.

“What you know from us is we will stand up for the environment.

“The Greens political party held up that legislation ...”

The explanatory memorandum to the EPBC amendment introduced on Tuesday said it would “balance the need to reassess the environmental impacts of the action against the need for certainty and stability for industry, workers and communities that rely on the relevant action and would otherwise be greatly impacted should they be required to stop undertaking the action for an uncertain period of time”.