Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, and also on behalf of Senators Colbeck, Askew and Chandler, move:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 18 December 2024:

The Minister for the Environment and Water's refusal to make a decision on the future of the salmon industry in Macquarie Harbour and end the uncertainty for the Tasmanian families whose livelihoods depend on it, with particular reference to:

(a) the recent improving oxygenation levels and significantly improved prospects of the Maugean skate;

(b) the need for bipartisan support of the salmon industry;

(c) the catastrophic effect a negative decision would have on the community of Strahan;

(d) the disastrous effect of continued delays of this Government making a decision; and

(e) any other related matters.

I move the motion standing in the names of the senators just mentioned, some very fine Tasmanians who actually care about the salmon industry and want the best outcome for the people that work in that industry, the families they support and the communities they're a part of. That's why we're moving this motion today—because it's high time, past time, as a matter of fact, that a decision was made by this Labor government on this industry and its future in Tasmania. The motion, for those listening along at home, is about establishing an inquiry into the salmon industry and the decision-making process of this minister, Minister Plibersek, the Labor environment minister, who, at the behest of the Australia Institute, the Bob Brown Foundation and, of course, Labor's taxpayer funded Environmental Defenders Office, has sought to review permits that have been in place since the year 2012, permits that were issued by then environment minister Tony Burke in the last Labor government. So, at the behest of those groups, the industry now has Damocles's sword hanging above it with no certainty in sight.

The motion asks us to take note of the fact that it has now been quite some time for the minister to make a decision—we're up to about a year now—and the minister's refusal to make a decision is creating great uncertainty. So we want to investigate: the recent improving oxygenation levels and significantly improved prospects for the maugean skate; the need for a bipartisan approach to the future of the salmon industry, which I think is important—reasonable parties of government should be on the same page here; and the catastrophic effect a negative decision would have on the community of Strahan. While it does say 'Strahan'—we'll come back to this in a later clause of this motion—the decision to, in effect, shut down the salmon industry, which is an option this minister has before her, one she refuses to exercise in either direction, could be far-reaching. It could have ramifications for thousands of Tasmanian salmon workers, approximately 5,000, their families and the communities they live in. And, of course, we want to investigate the disastrous effect of continued delays of this government making a decision.

All we want is certainty. That's why we're having this conversation. It is incredible that we are, after a year of talking, community visits and political leaders going and pledging support for this industry. We've had the Prime Minister fly to Tasmania saying he has got the salmon workers' backs. The opposition leader did the same thing, and he committed in policy terms to actually make a decision to support the industry and indeed then go and change the laws to ensure that this never happens again. As my friend and colleague Senator Colbeck points out, the Leader of the Opposition indeed drove to Strahan. He went and looked the workers in the eyes. He saw their workplace to understand firsthand exactly what was being experienced here and why making a decision urgently, in favour of the industry, when you look at the facts and you look at the science, was so critically important. The minister hasn't gone to Strahan, nor has the Prime Minister. They've been to major population centres, like Hobart, but they haven't gone to speak to the workers impacted by this decision.

So here we are a year on—several conversations, meetings, media events and platitudes from Labor ministers about the future of this industry, but no movement and no certainty. Even the Tasmanian Labor opposition want this government to act. That includes the state member for Lyons, Ms Rebecca White, former Labor leader. She has lost three state elections now, but she has been tapped on the shoulder to replace incumbent Labor member for Lyons in this parliament, Mr Brian Mitchell. They knew they weren't going to win the seat, so they thought, 'Well, we'd better fly someone in and gift her that seat.' She has said in the Tasmanian parliament that this government, this Labor government, of which my colleagues opposite are a part, should make the right decision and support the salmon industry. As recently as a month or so ago, she said the minister should make the right decision and support the industry. I will be very interested to see whether Ms White continues that narrative as the federal candidate for Lyons or whether she will adopt the new-found view that seems to emanate through the federal Labor caucus, which is: 'We'd just better wait and see. Let's have a little bit more of a look at things. What's another year? Let's kick the can down the road to the other side of a federal election.' That's what's happened here. You can be guaranteed that for this minister, who is worried about the Greens nipping at her heels electorally in her electorate of Sydney, making a difficult decision of this nature will come at a cost to her in her seat. If she supports the salmon industry—which, I can see, some on the other side would like her to do—she'll lose votes in her electorate, so she doesn't want to make a decision. She wants to protect her job, and the price of saving her seat is the jobs of Tasmanian salmon workers—families who are making plans and who are planning what they should do for their kids with the lack of certainty around future employment: 'Should we stay in Strahan or should we move on?' These are the conversations happening now, as they head into their second Christmas with this Labor uncertainty—a minister who refuses to make a decision in favour of the industry based on science and fact. This is something that should be in Labor's DNA—standing up for workers in industries like the salmon industry—but that is not what is happening here.

There are very different views of what should be happening on the West Coast, in Macquarie Harbour. I know for a fact that, when they make their contribution, the Australian Greens and colleagues from Tasmania from that party will say that the industry is the worst thing ever, that it's going to end life on the West Coast and that we should shut it down. That's the call they've been making. But credit to them: I know where they stand, and I know exactly what they think should happen with the salmon industry. And I'd like to think, given we've said that if we are elected at the next election we will approve the operation of salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour and change the laws to ensure that decisions and events like this never happen again, people know where we stand: we stand with the industry. But the one group of people in this place I'm not sure about is the Australian Labor Party. Are they with the salmon workers or do they want things to drag on forever and a day, creating more uncertainty in that community? The Tasmanian Labor contingent and the state opposition in the Tasmanian parliament know where they stand. The Liberal government in Tasmania know where they stand. The Tasmanian Greens know where they stand. We all know where we stand, except for the decision-makers here in Canberra. The Australian Labor government, the Albanese government, friend of the worker, wants a future made in Australia but is causing untold harm by not making a decision.

I know there are some, as I said before, that would like to see a good outcome—some who have been described by others as 'salmon champions'. But the test of a real champion is one that delivers the outcome needed. The opposition can't force the government to make a decision. The Greens can't force the government to make a decision. Only those within the Labor caucus can force the government to make a decision. There is nothing stopping this minister. We had officials from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water tell us just two weeks ago at Senate estimates that the extension of time for the Threatened Species Scientific Committee to look at the listing of the maugean skate had nothing to do with the decision-making process the minister was going through in reviewing the permits for salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour—not one thing to do with it. The science is in, and the department have all of it. They were finalising their report for the minister. It's there for her to make a decision on. This does not have to wait until after the election. There is no reason that those salmon workers, those men and women, honest Tasmanians, should have to wait for this minister to take in further information; it is there for a decision to be made.

That's why an inquiry is good, to understand why this minister persists in delaying. What is it that is holding up a decision that would provide certainty for those individuals, their families, their communities, this industry and the Tasmanian economy that would be harmed by this? You have to wonder: why is it being delayed? As we know, it's not the Threatened Species Scientific Committee and it's not the lack of desire from good Tasmanians of all political persuasions that want an outcome; it is purely about the politics. That's the thing; it is all about the politics. The government want to not have to explain to one side of the debate or the other why they've made a decision. They want to appease the Greens and they want to appease Greens voters, who they will hopefully get the preferences of to help them secure seats, but they don't want to annoy the workers. They would like to say: 'We've got your back and you'll have a job under us.' I'm afraid those words are hollow, and the workers down there on the West Coast are starting to know that and are starting to see that this is about protecting parliamentarians' jobs at the expense of the industry's jobs. There is a lot of madness out there.

I was reflecting on some of those vocal opponents of the industry and some of the things they've been saying, which is what's driven the minister to delay her decision—this fear of green groups and what they do. There's a document circulating in Tasmania called the Dennes Point Declaration, and it was signed by a group of anti-salmon-farming activists—some well known, some less well known. There are two versions of it, and I can't understand why! The first version, which was produced in October 2020 as they began their crusade against this science based, job-creating sustainable industry, called for a moratorium over any new industrial fish farms in Tasmania's coastal, estuary and river waters. It also called for an immediate government led transition out of coastal leases and into land based farms and true deep-ocean aquaculture.

Around this time, the former government announced funding—and it's been continued by the current government—for the Blue Economy CRC to investigate, as the Dennes Point Declaration describes it, true deep-ocean aquaculture. Soon after that announcement, our good friends from the Neighbours of Fish Farming and the Tasmanian Alliance for Marine Protection—so pleasantly named, so insidious in their motives—changed their Dennes PointDeclaration. I want you to spot the difference. They asked for this:

1. A moratorium on any new industrial fish farms in Tasmania's coastal, estuary and river waters.

2. An immediate government led transition out of the sea and into landbased farms.

What's missing? It's the move off into Commonwealth waters, into true offshore, deep-ocean aquaculture, which was something that we were trialling and seeking to do. But, because a good, science based approach to decision-making to try to resolve an issue meant that there was one fewer argument, they had to delete it from their declaration. It's proof positive that, no matter what you do, there are some in our community who, based on emotion, on politics and on the need for division and relevance, will never be happy. I tell you what: if we came up with further moves and things to appease this group, they would delete them from this declaration as well. It is just about an end to salmon farming.

I implore the government and salmon champions of all colours to stand up for this industry, to support an inquiry to understand why on earth we're still waiting for a decision. It's not about the science; it's all in. Workers deserve certainty before Christmas. We've got a sitting day left, and we could have this decision made before we go home from Canberra. While we're getting paid every fortnight as parliamentarians, these workers are worried about their jobs and about the future of this industry. We in the coalition stand with them. There is no reason for a delay. There is every reason to have an inquiry if the government isn't going to give us a decision before we go home.

So let's put people's words to the test here. The vote on this motion will clearly demonstrate where people stand on this, whether they're pro-industry or whether they want to prolong the uncertainty, team up with the Greens and shut down this industry.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The irony of this motion is not lost on us. Those on the other side are claiming bipartisanship is needed, but this political stunt is anything but that. Those opposite know that Labor is the party protecting the mighty Tasmanian salmon industry. We're doing so by working with the industry and with communities. We are investing tens of millions of dollars in evidence based measures to secure a future for the industry and for Macquarie Harbour.

As recently as a fortnight ago, the Prime Minister visited Braddon to announce $28.6 million in sustainability measures. This funding is intended to secure a future for the industry in Macquarie Harbour. That's right; it's $28.6 million, in case you didn't hear it the first time. That will put the industry on a firm footing for the future. It will support the natural habitat of Macquarie Harbour and the preservation of the endangered maugean skate. This funding builds on the government's announcement in September 2023 of $2.15 million for skate conservation and a trial of harbour oxygenation. Labor's new funding commitment allows this important work to continue and expand.

We are the party investing in the sustainability of the industry, and that will deliver its future. Those opposite aren't. This motion has happened without consultation with the industry, who know nothing about it. It's a blindside—so much for your community connections. It's happened without consultation with us—so much for the call for bipartisanship. Those opposite are embarrassingly rogue on this one.

The Prime Minister could not have been clearer about Labor's position when he visited Braddon. He said: 'What we are doing here is making sure that every step is made to ensure the industry can continue. The salmon industry is the backbone of many regional Tasmanian communities, and we are backing that and delivering stability for workers and their families into the future. I'll be visiting Strahan over the coming months at the invitation of the mayor, Shane Pitt, and talking about ensuring that those jobs and that industry can continue.' He went on to say:

We want jobs and we want sustainability. It's not either-or. It's a matter of how we achieve both.

And the Prime Minister said, in that same statement, 'I am committed to that.'

Labor knows that salmon is a really important industry for Tasmania, and Labor is a great supporter of this industry. But that's not what the opposition wants people to believe, because they want to engage in a divisive political fight. I can tell you who your divisive behaviour will hurt: the industry, the workers, their families and the communities who rely on good, well-paid regional jobs. We are also the party that takes seriously the legal obligations with respect to the environment—obligations which were set up under a former Liberal government. The grandstanding and politicisation of this issue by those opposite is a betrayal of the workers and their families and communities. What those opposite know but are not telling the workers, the council or the community in calling for the minister to bypass the legislation is that it would plunge the industry into an illegal quagmire.

Labor stand on the side of jobs, and we also stand on the side of sustainability. These two things are not contradictory; they go together. I stand on the side of workers, their families and communities on the west coast and on the north-west, and I'll keep working with those who want to secure a better future for the industry—not the wreckers opposite.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government committed $7½ million to an oxygenation trial. It was a pilot project—a barge they call the Wombat, which is owned by Tassal and leased to the joint venture at a profit. So Tassal is profiting from this taxpayer funded trial. Senator Urquhart, you should really listen to what I've got to say because it's going to involve—

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, please don't cast aspersions on why senators are leaving the chamber. Please continue.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor's committed $7½ million to this trial that's initially looking at whether pumping oxygen into Macquarie Harbour, which is the last known home of the maugean skate, a critically endangered species, of which, it is estimated, there are between 40 and 100 adults left in the wild—they've committed this money to, firstly, see if putting oxygen into the harbour does harm.

I asked the FRDC, who was the federal body who funded this, for a copy of the joint venture details of the project. They weren't able to provide that to me, but they did provide the timeline for the expenditure and the milestones for Macquarie Harbour and what they were trying to achieve. Here's the rub. Here's the really important part. The project is a scientific study, a pilot project, to test whether oxygen being pumped into Macquarie Harbour will do harm or whether it will help, and it doesn't finish until 31 October next year. The $7½ million, the timetable and the milestones culminate in a final report written by scientists, funded by the taxpayer.

But here you have the Australian Labor Party swinging into Tasmania and offering $28 million to some of the most profitable companies that operate in Australia—multinationals, foreign owned, that pay no tax. They gave them $28 million to continue the oxygenation project and to expand it. And they haven't got their final report; it's 12 months away. Why is the Labor Party committing taxpayer funds to a scientific project that's a year away from reporting? That's the question, and I know the answer to that. It's because they want to get Senator Urquhart elected in Braddon. Two hours after the Prime Minister committed $28 million, they launched Senator Urquhart's run for the lower house in Braddon. She quite openly said today that this money for the salmon industry is why you need to vote for Labor. It couldn't be a clearer example of institutional corruption, cronyism and state capture, where a government is running this program for the salmon industry, giving them taxpayer funds and trying to get a candidate elected. It really is disgusting.

To hear Senator Urquhart in here today, saying the things she was saying about Labor being the biggest champion for the salmon industry—what about the maugean skate, a creature about to go critically extinct, according to all the best science? Guess what we're going to do? We're going to turn Macquarie Harbour, the last known home of the skate on the edge of a World Heritage area, into a giant aerated fish tank. We are breeding skates and I've been to see the breeding program. It has been successful because they are giving the skates nutrients and a diet they don't get in the wild. We've got no idea if we can reintroduce them in the wild—how could you if their last known home is polluted? That bit hasn't been solved yet, so we're talking about the extinction of a species here. It's all about politics—this is extinction politics.

To Senator Duniam—through you, Chair—the Greens would have been very happy to have supported a Senate inquiry looking at this issue but, as you were told, we couldn't support these terms of reference. It is clearly a political stunt where you guys are trying to see who has the biggest muscles in supporting the salmon industry. Maybe I'm missing something after the years in politics, but I don't get the politics of this for either side. There's not a large industry on the west coast of Tasmania. Most Tasmanians don't support the salmon industry. There are a lot of voters in Braddon that support, for example, people like Craig Garland, who don't support the salmon industry. Right around the state, Tasmanians are worried—there's about to be a massive rally of all sorts of people from all walks of life. By the way, if anyone wants to attend, at Clifton Beach at 10 o'clock on Sunday morning there's a massive rally against salmon farming at the mouth of the Derwent. What is the politics of this? Why are you giving $28 billion of taxpayer money to the salmon industry? They don't need it. They're the ones polluting Macquarie Harbour, pushing a species to extinction. Why don't they pay for their bloody mess? Why does the Australian taxpayer have to do this? Sorry, I forgot—so you can get a candidate elected in Braddon. That's it. This is one of the worst cases. You can call it pork-barrelling, you can call it corruption—I don't care what you call it but it is wrong. It is morally repugnant that you could so brazenly launch money for a project that's 12 months away from even reporting whether it works. What about the science?

What about the other thing we haven't talked about today? I really do feel sorry for Minister Plibersek on many levels. She's got a court case before her right now and a proposition from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee to upgrade the skate from 'endangered' to 'critically endangered'. From all the data that they have provided—and these are some of the best experts in the world, and they say there are 40-120 adults left in the wild, and salmon is a 'catastrophic risk', to use their language, to the future of the skate. Minister Plibersek is over here hoping to make an independent decision on upgrading the skate to 'critically endangered' or whether what has happened in Macquarie Harbour is a controlled action under federal law and needs to be re-assessed, while Mr Albanese and Senator Urquhart have completely ridden over the top of Minister Plibersek and her department by saying, 'Here's $28 million; this is a live election issue.' How can she possibly make a decision based on science that might say, 'You can't farm salmon in Macquarie Harbour anymore because this species will go extinct'? How can she do that when you've just committed $28 million? Honestly, it is appalling. To see everyone laughing about it in here makes my blood boil. We are talking about the extinction of a species. How many jobs is the extinction of a species worth to you senators? How much money is it worth? I don't have an answer to that question, and it is turning out to be the great moral question of our time. But according to the Labor Party it's $28 million and the seat of Braddon—seriously! I know there are good people in the Labor Party that care about nature and the environment, and it's possible there are some in the chamber right now. You really need to look at this and scrutinise this expenditure by the Prime Minister a few weeks ago. We certainly will be. It is next level.

Senator Duniam, if you want to get a Senate inquiry up into this decision, come and talk to us. Keep your terms of reference neutral, let's go down to Tasmania, let's spend time with the salmon industry, let's spend time with the environment groups, let's go to Macquarie Harbour, let's look at this properly and let's do our job as a Senate and look at this filthy $28 million election commitment by the Albanese government to prop up foreign owned multinationals that don't pay any tax. How on earth can the Liberal Party support a government giving money to these foreign owned multinationals that are pushing a species to the brink of extinction, that are undermining the scientists and the science that's already been put out and that are spending their money—no doubt donating to political parties. Who knows where it ends? I would love to scrutinise that and do my job as a senator with the full powers of the Senate. I ask you, Senator Duniam—through you, Acting Deputy President O'Neill—bring back a new terms of reference and keep it neutral.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're kind of out of time!

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take that interjection. We've still got next year. I hope we asked you to do this yesterday, but I would dearly love to have an inquiry into this. To finish off, there is something fishy going on here and it stinks.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

COLBECK () (): What stinks is the rubbish we just heard and the misrepresentation of the industry by the Greens political party. The suggestion this isn't a political issue in Tasmania when it's the Greens that are driving it as a political issue—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are we driving the extinction, are we?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

is a demonstration of how shallow this whole argument is. When you've got a representative from the anti-salmon sector who is prepared to turn up—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Stand up to the extinction of a species!

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Colbeck, please resume your seat. Senator Whish-Wilson, given the tumult in the chamber today, you would be well advised to stick within the standing orders and cease interjecting.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When you've got a representative from the salmon industry who is prepared to turn up to a commemoration for the kids who lost their lives at Hillcrest and put an anti-salmon banner behind the Premier, you show how low these anti-salmon campaigners are prepared to go. It is an absolute disgrace.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Colbeck, I direct you to make your remarks through the chair.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm directing my remarks to the chamber. It shows how low these anti-salmon campaigners are prepared to go in their campaigns. It was a deliberate act, a disgraceful act, yet this individual continues to head up the anti-salmon campaign from the Greens in Tasmania and lead the campaign. Someone with any real genuine nature would resign from that position. But this is what we deal with.

I find the suggestion that people in this chamber would love to have an inquiry into this particular matter equally shallow. A few weeks ago, I introduced into this parliament a piece of legislation that would deal with the circumstances that brought about the current events we're dealing with in Tasmania in respect of the way the EPBC Act operates. The bill was referred to an inquiry. And what did Labor and the Greens do? Labor and the Greens teamed up to decide there would not be any public hearings on that piece of legislation, and then Labor and the Greens again teamed up to ensure that that inquiry would not occur before this sitting fortnight so the legislation could not be debated during this sitting fortnight.

When we talk about who really cares about industry and how the EPBC Act operates, let's look at what people have actually done rather than what they have said. At every attempt to have a genuine conversation about this, Labor and the Greens have teamed up to say no. It's not unusual; it's what happens on a regular basis. Let's take the opportunity to look at the circumstances that brought these events about—the uncertainty that communities in my home state are feeling, an uncertainty that has not been resolved by this government despite the opportunities to do so—and see what people are really doing. Their actions show that. The $28 million that was dropped by the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago was designed to do one thing: shore up his job and try and get jobs for a couple of Labor mates in Tasmania. That's what the $28 million was designed to do. But, as the mayor of West Coast said, it doesn't give salmon workers in his community in Strahan what they really want, and that is certainty.

Let's go right back to the beginning on this matter. Three environmental groups, one of them the Environmental Defenders Office—who, as we've heard today, can't be taken seriously with respect to their representations—wrote to the Minister for the Environment and Water seeking a reconsideration of a decision made by a Labor minister over a decade ago. Rather than saying, 'No, we're not going to reconsider that decision; everybody move on,' the environment minister, to protect her seat in Sydney and Labor seats in Melbourne, Brisbane and other places where they're under challenge from the Greens, decided to pander to organisations like the Environmental Defenders Office, who a court judgement has found have no credibility in the evidence that they provide. They pander to those organisations and create this uncertainty for the industry.

All that the salmon workers in Tasmania want is certainty in relation to whether their industry will have a long-term future. That's all they're asking for. The $28 million is fine, and it buys three years of oxygenation of Macquarie Harbour over and above what's already being done through the trial program, but it does not provide certainty to this industry. At every attempt to gain an examination of this matter, what has happened? Labor and the Greens have teamed up to say no, and here we are again today with exactly the same circumstance. It's all very well to throw on a fluorescent coat saying, 'I'm a salmon champion,' but, if you can't deliver the one thing that the salmon industry wants, call yourself what you like.

All of the things that we're talking about here today have happened during the term of this government and this parliament. It doesn't matter whether you're sitting in the upper house or the lower house; if the environment minister won't take any notice of you in the upper house, why would they take any notice of you if you're sitting in the lower house? It's the same people but a different chamber. Why are we expecting to get a different result? They'll spend $28 million of taxpayers' money but, any time there's an opportunity for a proper investigation of it by this chamber, they say no.

I say to the workers in the salmon industry: have a close look. I know they do. I was down in Strahan a couple of weeks ago talking to them about the skate, and they do care about the skate. They want Macquarie Harbour to be a good environment for their industry to work in, and they know that, with the good practices they observe, it can be. Despite over 100 years of mining, inflows and other impacts that are occurring in the harbour, they know they've got good environmental practices. They know they can have a sustainable industry, but they won't be given this certainty and they won't be given the opportunity to have a say to this parliament because Labor and the Greens keep on saying 'no'.

We will continue to persist with this matter, and it will be a matter that, frankly, the Tasmanian people will make a judgement on. Why do we know that? Because they tell us so, and it's actually quite reasonable that they do. It's their jobs that are at risk. It's their jobs that have been put at risk by the environment minister, who made the decision to review something that a Labor environment minister decided over a decade ago. They did not need to make that decision in the first place. They could have said 'no', but they didn't. We'll get all sorts of arguments from the other side of the chamber about what the process needed to be, but the reality is that the minister for the environment could have said 'no' to the application to review these decisions and should have. We all could have moved on.

The industry itself has stumped up significant funds to support the maugean skate. Nobody wants to see that particular species go into extinction, despite the rhetoric we hear from some people. What the industry does know is that you need clean water to have high-quality and healthy fish. They want and they need a clean and healthy environment. That's a really important part of what they do and what they need to ensure an ongoing industry. Let's forget the rhetoric. Let's forget the dog whistling that we hear from some people in this debate about the foreign companies and international business, who play an important role in our economy; it's all designed to try and denigrate the businesses that are involved. We know the Greens just don't like industrial practices or businesses. We know they just oppose all those sorts of things: 'Big is bad.' We know that's the case. But I would have thought more of the Labor government.

What this motion seeks is the opportunity for the industry to have its say to this place. The tragedy is that on a number of occasions this place has been given the opportunity to do just that. But what has happened on each of those occasions? Labor and the Greens have teamed up to say 'no'. The Labor Party say they support the industry. We know the Greens don't; we get that. But what confounds people in my community is why the Labor Party is saying 'no'. My private member's bill is not designed to be a wedge document or anything of that nature. It's a simple piece of legislation to put in place a framework to ensure circumstances like this don't happen again. There can be reviews of the EPBC Act and decisions under it, but there's a process to do that that involves the states and territories. It's a simple piece of legislation. But what do the Labor Party and the Greens do? They punt it down the road. They don't want it debated in this place. The salmon industry are watching it all really closely because they also have other environmental approvals. They're concerned that the same culprits who had a crack at them the first time will come after them again. They want to have some assurance, as do miners and other players, to be frank, that an environmental approval given by a government has some level of surety.

I would have thought that that was a reasonable thing for them to have. I would have thought that that would be something they could have. But that's not what the Labor Party and the Greens want. They don't want public hearings into that piece of legislation. They don't want it debated in this place and they've bumped it off down the road. It'll be interesting to see what their view on it is because that will be another indicator to the people of Tasmania and the salmon industry of what they think about that industry and the decision-making process that they might go through.

Labor can spend as much taxpayers' money as they like, but my community saw through that in a heartbeat. The community on the West Coast saw through that in a heartbeat. They said, 'The money is great, but what we want is certainty for our industry, our jobs, our community and our workforce.' That's what they would like to see. And Labor has given them one thing: another year of uncertainty. Last Christmas we had this conversation, and all industry wanted for Christmas was certainty. They want the same thing this year: certain for their industry. But guess what? We're going to be having this conversation again next year and waiting to find out whether or not certainty will be provided. We think it should be. We think that the industry should be given a chance to have their say. That's why this motion is on the table before us today. That's why we believe it should be supported. That's why we're prepared to stand up and debate the matter and put some facts on the table, rather than the conspiracy theories about the industry that we hear from the Greens in particular.

We genuinely want this industry to have a strong future. It's a significant industry for our state. It's worth over a billion dollars a year. It employs a lot of people and produces a high-quality product. We think it's fair that they not only have certainty but also have the opportunity to have their say to this parliament and express their views. That's why this motion should be supported.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If anything were to endanger the jobs and job security of workers and the investments in the Tasmanian salmon industry, it would be parliamentary stunts like the one Senators Duniam and Colbeck and the Liberal Party are engaging in. There are processes here. There are processes here that industry relies upon and that, indeed, the interests of the environment rely upon. Stunts in the parliament undermine that process, and that is one of the reasons that the Labor Party, the government, will be opposing this proposition in this place—not because our commitment to the salmon industry and the environment is anything but unequivocal.

I want to try and attempt in this place to open up the minds of senators in the opposition to a set of concepts that Tasmanians reflexively understand. Tasmanians deserve an industry and good jobs in the salmon industry, and they deserve a clean marine environment at the same time. Both of those things are the objective of the Albanese government and indeed, from what I understand of it, of the salmon industry itself. It is the crudest political trick—it's played by every sort of backwards political character—to try and pit industry and jobs against the environment. Whose interests does that sort of crass, bottom-feeding—I don't know where the maugean skate feeds; I don't know whether it's a bottom feeder—political approach suit? It suits the interests of the Liberal Party, and it suits the interests of the Greens political party. But it's in no way in the interests of salmon workers or the environment.

Motions in this place achieve precisely zero. Indeed, if debates and committee hearings are conducted in the way that Senator Duniam, Mr Dutton and all these other Liberal Party characters, silvertails, want to conduct them, they undermine the industry. If you were serious about the interests of the salmon industry in Tasmania and the interests of the environment, you would back Senator Anne Urquhart for Braddon. You would back Senator Anne Urquhart for Braddon.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I like her, but that's a stretch.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's what you would do. I understand the Liberals have got their political interests and the Greens political party has got its political interests—a sort of meme-led maugean-skate recovery strategy; a social media led environmental strategy—but, actually, if you really care about the people who work in this industry and a clean marine environment, you would back what the government is doing here. I offer this evidence for that proposition. First of all are the character, the background and the history of Senator Urquhart herself, Anne Urquhart, who began working at Edgell, or Birds Eye or whatever they were called then, in 1980 and has been backing Tasmanians workers her whole life, all the way through.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you speaking in slow motion?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that was McGrath earlier!

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres, can you just take your seat for a moment?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is like so many issues in this parliament—worthy of debate, but every senator deserves respect. Perhaps fewer 'you' statements, Senator Ayres, might take the temperature down. I am happy for you to prosecute in the colourful way that you're doing, but I will ask senators on this side to resist, and I do want to acknowledge and thank Senator Whish-Wilson for retaining composure as was requested. I'll give the call to you, Senator Ayres.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think, to be fair to Senator Whish-Wilson, he stopped paying attention to me a few minutes ago—I think, in truth. I'm really appealing over here, because I know I've lost Senator Whish-Wilson down there, and that's okay. But you just have to look at the character of the people who are running this argument for the government. Tasmanians can count on Anne Urquhart because she has got a history of backing workers and backing industry. It's a government that, just some weeks ago—it's not a small commitment that the government, the Albanese government, has made here in Northern Tasmania—made a $28 million commitment to the future of the industry. It sits against a backdrop of the government not wandering around with banners or slogans but working carefully and consistently with the environment movement, with workers, with their unions, with the firms, foreign owned or not—it makes no difference to this government—and with the industry, to secure the right outcome.

We support a decent aquaculture industry, including the salmon industry, and we know that they are striving to do that, to operate responsibly. The fishing industry more broadly, commercial fishers, the lobster industry and the aquaculture industry are fundamental to Tasmania's economy, to good jobs and to those communities big and small across Northern Tasmania. We say 'future made in Australia'. We also say 'salmon grown in Tasmania'. We say to Australians, 'Buy Tasmanian salmon. Buy it in the supermarket in the lead-up to Christmas. Use Tasmanian smoked salmon. Back that industry, because the Albanese government will back it too.' Tasmanian smoked salmon is some of the finest smoked salmon. You can buy the offshore variety if you want, but I say to you as the Assistant Minister for a Future Made in Australia, 'Back in salmon grown in Tasmania. Buy Australian smoked salmon. Buy it from Tasmania. Make sure it's on the Christmas table. It's a high-quality product.'

All of us need to work together to deliver that outcome. The salmon industry itself recognises this, and it's been actively engaged in work to understand and minimise the environmental impacts of aquaculture, with the government. This is the way that you do things—not by demonising an industry, as the Greens political party would.

I've heard Senator Whish-Wilson. I understand his passion for this issue. But you don't achieve outcomes for the environment or for workers by pitting them against each other, and that is what Senator Whish-Wilson, as well intentioned as he is, has done. He's pitted the industry against the environment. He's pitted the interests of working-class Tasmanians—Tasmanians who want good jobs—against the environment. The truth is that Tasmanians deserve both.

The Prime Minister was in Tasmania recently, and I heard the smear about this. I say this: we are serious. There was a $28 million commitment from this government in new measures to boost water quality and to improve the marine environment in Macquarie Harbour. That's practical support for jobs—not words, not social media posts, not vitriol, not hostility—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's corporate welfare!

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you call it corporate welfare, Senator Whish-Wilson. It is a serious commitment—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres, can I remind you not to direct your comments to other senators but to the chair.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm trying not to respond to the interjections—so that Tasmanians get practical support for jobs, practical support for industry and practical support for the marine environment so Tasmanians continue to enjoy pristine waters. It is in the interests of the long-term fishing industry to have clean waters and a clean environment. Those measures will build on the existing environmental and species conservation interventions in Macquarie Harbour by both government and industry.

Tasmanians deserve good jobs, and they deserve a good environment. They won't get either with the Liberal and National parties' political stunts and posturing. No doubt what they'll get are billboards—advertising money that tells workers that they should be afraid—but they'll get zero result from political parties that have never backed workers and industry in any serious way and have pushed Australian manufacturing offshore. Nor will they get a local champion for the fishing industry and for the environment that delivers to Tasmanians what they deserve. Of that funding, $21 million will be committed to improving and scaling up oxygenation work in Macquarie Harbour.

This is a stunt. We know it's a stunt because the environment laws that the Liberal and National parties complain about that now require Minister Plibersek to make a decision, in her capacity as minister for the environment, on salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour are not a creation of the Labor Party in government. They're not a creation of the Greens political party either. They are a creation of—

Debate interrupted.