The fallback position is that this legislation, which takes away the environment minister’s reconsideration powers, and limits communities accessing the research and advice from third party civil society groups (like the Australia Institute) is that it protects jobs.

If a toxic sludge company was pouring toxic sludge into waterways every single day, but employed 60 people, would you stop trying to close down the toxic sludge company? Because that would be jobs too, right?

There is a narrative in the media that the salmon industry is SO important to Tasmania, because it is one of the only jobs available, which is bupkis. The industry is responsible for less than 1% of jobs in Tasmania. And in Macquarie Harbour itself? It’s 60 jobs. SIXTY. It would be cheaper to help those workers transition into other jobs than continue to prop up a foreign owned industry that pays no tax in Australia and sends its profits off-shore. But everyone is convinced it’s about ‘jobs’.

Hanson-Young says:

That’s one of the crazy things about this is that the impact on the environment and the clean, green image of Tasmanian food and the environment is all at risk because of this. These companies don’t pay any tax. They’re trashing our waterways, pushing animals to extinction and what they’ve got now because of the Labor Party and the Liberal Party’s lack of courage, bowing to the pressures of the corporations, is a law that gives them a carve-out from environmental protection. Who is next? If you can do it for the rotten salmon industry it will be the gas industry or coal industry or big polluters next.