Are we witnessing a major setback for Australia’s nature protection laws?

In parliament this week, a bill was introduced, which if passed, would limit the government’s power to reconsider certain environment approvals even though an activity is harming the environment. The laws are being introduced to allow salmon farming to continue in Tasmania’s Macquarie Harbour, despite evidence that this will put the endangered Maugean skate at risk of extinction.

Environment Institute Future Making Fellow Phillipa C.Mcormack, has taken to The Conversation in her recently published article to describe the implications of this action and lack of future proofing for our biodiversity.

What happened?
This bill carries out on the back of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s recently proposed commitment, to introduce new laws that allow salmon farming to continue in Tasmania’s Macquarie Harbour, which is currently being floated for reconsideration. Phillipa calls for the essential need to reform Australia’s current nature laws, based on the Second Independent Review of the EPBC Act.

In the final report released in October of 2020 it expresses clearly “The EPBC Act is ineffective. It does not enable the Commonwealth to effectively protect environmental matters that are important for the nation. It is not fit to address current or future environmental challenges”. The EPBC Act has evidently found a lack of collaborations between jurisdictions and the Commonwealth, with outcomes not being delivered to protect our biodiversity. With that said, as a country we must move forward and take time to examine the evidence in front of us to help preserve and restore the environment.

In the case of the Macquarie Habor
Salmon farming has significantly increased since it’s start over 50 years ago. In 2012, the request to expand the faming in the harbour was passed, despite the impacts on threatened species in the Tasmanian Wilderness Heritage Area. Why was this passed? Because it was not considered a “controlled action”.  According to the Act, a controlled action refers to any activity that may affect a matter of national environmental significance, such as a threatened species. If a project or development is classified as a controlled action, it must receive approval from the environment minister.

In late 2023, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek was asked several times to review Bourke’s 2012 decision. Then Environment Minister Tony Bourke decision was passed, however bound by ensuring there was no major impact to the Maugean skate. With new evidence, it provides anyone the power to request a reconsideration, which might revoke any pre-existing decision and create a new one. The Macquarie Habor case relied on scientific studies completed after 2012, to back up the reconsideration requests. Two important studies raised major concerns about changing water conditions affecting the vulnerable skate. One highlighted this issue directly, while another, released last month, showed a strong link between more intense salmon farming and a higher risk of extinction for the skate.

This introduced bill from Labor would diminish the minister’s power to reconsider earlier decisions. A government spokesperson has tried to ensure that “This bill is very specific - it’s a minor change, with extremely strict criteria - focused on giving Tasmanian workers certainty while government investments protect the Maugean Skate,” which we can all see, is far from the truth. Sarah Hanson-Young has spoken out and criticised Labor for trying to pass the laws without proper debate, hiding it during the announcement of the federal budget saying “It is not OK for governments to try and hide this kind of devastating attack,” she said.

This bill if passed, describes what one might view as an attack on Australia’s heart and soul, our beloved environment. It would allow an activity to go ahead in a specific way, a “particular manner” yet without full approval. A “particular manner” means complying with a state or territory management plan, in this example, salmon farmers must follow the Tasmanian government’s plan for Macquarie Harbour, and the activity must already be happening and must have continued that way for a minimum of five years.

Our environment has been overlooked for too long now and the amendment will not even come close to achieve the reforms needed by the EPBC Act. They are being demoralised, after so many years to get this far, with scientific research to back up years and years of damage, we seem to have slipped and regress into old habits simply because there is an election ahead. This rushed effort won’t get far, and it seems doubtful a resolution is in sight for Macquarie Harbour.

Dr Phillipa McCormack Researcher Profile
The Conversation article by Dr Phillipa McCormack
Second Independent Review of the EPBC Act