The Tasmanian government has been forced to rewrite the terms of reference for its salmon industry inquiry after crossbench MPs accused it of trying to weaken the investigation.
The backdown came after independent MP Peter George and Greens leader Rosalie Woodruff threatened to withdraw their support unless the inquiry was able to make formal recommendations.
The government’s original terms only allowed for findings and observations – a move that angered crossbench MPs, who hold the balance of power in state parliament.
“This was always a non-negotiable condition of the inquiry from the crossbench without which an inquiry would have no useful purpose and would be a waste of taxpayers’ money,” George said.
He accused the government of releasing the draft terms while negotiations were still underway, describing the move as an “ambush” in a letter to Premier Jeremy Rockliff.
“Your decision to ambush the crossbench by releasing the so-called ‘final’ draft terms of reference for the salmon inquiry – without warning, consultation or even the courtesy of completing ongoing discussions with your departmental officials – demonstrates a profound lack of respect and good faith,” he wrote.
Woodruff said she had taken the matter directly to the premier after being blindsided by the release.
“We had been promised further consultation, but instead the terms were published with only last-minute notice,” she said.
“And they didn’t address the most important concerns of the crossbench.”
Primary Industries Minister Gavin Pearce today announced that the revised terms would allow for recommendations, in addition to findings and observations and include community consultation.
He said the “alteration” came “following feedback from interested stakeholders”.
But the salmon industry has criticised the government’s handling of the process.
Salmon Tasmania chief executive John Whittington said the organisation was “shocked” that the terms had been changed just days after they were publicly released.
“We have never supported the need for the study and this retrospective change to the terms of reference reinforces our deep concerns about its purposes and credibility,” he said.
