Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Hanson-Young argued the bill was a rushed carve-out for the salmon industry that weakened environmental laws and ignored scientific warnings. Hanson-Young claimed the legislation prevented the Minister from pausing harmful activities even when new evidence showed environmental damage. Hanson-Young stated the bill betrayed Labor's promises to strengthen environmental protections and protect native species from extinction.

Urquhart emphasised her commitment to protecting jobs and communities in Tasmania, particularly in Strahan and Macquarie Harbour. Urquhart highlighted government investments of $37 million in environmental measures, including oxygenation and captive breeding programs for the maugean skate. Urquhart stated that scientific evidence showed the skate population was stabilising and that the legislation addressed a broken law threatening workers' livelihoods.

Colbeck noted that the government's bill was similar to his own private member's bill but included retrospective provisions he did not support. Colbeck disputed claims of widespread environmental damage, stating that images of fish carcasses were fabricated or AI-generated. Colbeck argued the minister should have rejected the reconsideration request earlier and expressed concern about the longevity of the fix given potential future environmental regulations.

Pocock opposed the bill, arguing it stripped power from the environment minister and undermined national environmental laws. Pocock warned that the legislation could set a precedent for other industries to avoid scrutiny, potentially harming species like the maugean skate. Pocock cited independent legal advice suggesting the bill might not achieve its intended outcomes and criticised the lack of proper scrutiny and consultation.

Whish-Wilson argued the bill signed a death warrant for the maugean skate, citing scientific advice that the species was critically endangered. Whish-Wilson questioned whether 20 jobs were worth driving a species to extinction and criticised the government for prioritising foreign-owned companies over environmental protection. Whish-Wilson stated that the salmon industry's practices were causing rapid decline in skate numbers and that the legislation ignored unanimous scientific evidence.

Polley defended the bill as a specific amendment providing certainty for Tasmanian workers while protecting the maugean skate through government investment. Polley rejected claims of misinformation regarding environmental damage and highlighted the economic importance of the salmon industry to regional communities. Polley stated the government balanced economic prosperity with environmental sustainability and stood by its decision to support the industry.

Davey argued the bill was necessary to provide certainty to the Tasmanian salmon industry after fifteen months of uncertainty caused by the government. Davey claimed the legislation was a political fix driven by internal Labor divisions rather than genuine environmental concern. Davey criticised the Minister for Environment for listening to activist groups over industry and called for amendments to prevent future reconsideration requests.

Brockman acknowledged the bill addressed issues raised by Tasmanian Liberals but described it as flawed and driven by political expediency. Brockman alleged secret deals between Labor and the Greens regarding the proposed Environment Protection Agency. Brockman focused heavily on the government's delay of the North West Shelf gas project decision until after the election, arguing this threatened Western Australia's energy security and jobs.

Payman opposed the bill, stating it shut down the reconsideration process for salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour and threatened the critically endangered Maugean skate. Payman argued the legislation removed public oversight and the Minister's power to intervene when facts change. Payman characterised the move as political opportunism that undermined evidence-based decision-making and environmental protections.

Cash supported the bill as a means to end chaos for the Tasmanian salmon industry but used the debate to criticise the government's handling of the North West Shelf gas hub extension. Cash argued the delay of the decision until after the election put thousands of jobs and energy supplies at risk. Cash foreshadowed moving amendments to strengthen the bill's provisions against open-ended reviews and to note the risk to Western Australian jobs.

Steele-John argued the bill undermined environmental laws during a biodiversity and climate crisis. Steele-John cited statistics on habitat clearing and species loss to demonstrate the inadequacy of current protections. Steele-John criticised the rushed passage of the legislation without proper scrutiny and warned that prioritising industry over ecosystems would have severe societal consequences.

McKim described the day as sad for environmental protection and foreshadowed moving a second reading amendment in the name of Senator Hanson-Young. McKim indicated strong opposition to the bill's impact on environmental safeguards. The transcript ended before McKim could elaborate further on the specific details of his amendment or arguments.