Frances Bender came under intense questioning on the second day of hearings in the Federal Court by Tassal’s lawyer Shaun McElwaine.

Tassal had joined proceedings last year to dispute Huon’s argument the federal and state governments had failed to properly manage, under law, environmental conditions within the harbour through the expansion approvals process and subsequent regulatory oversight.  

Mr McElwaine said Huon had consistently argued the proposed biomass determinations between itself, Tassal and Petuna were discriminatory. He said the company had estimated it would cost it up to $8 million and favour market competitor Tassal.

Mr McElwaine argued Huon had been content with the government’s handling of the expansion program though the company’s involvement in a review; a requirement of the minister’s approval.

But Ms Bender said she believed the review had been paused after an Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies report revealed low dissolved oxygen levels in the harbour.

Mr McElwaine seized on a document from January 2017 where the company outlined in detail to the Environmental Protection Authority the allocation of biomass limits per zone were disproportionate and disadvantaged the company economically as it favoured its competitors.

Ms Bender refuted Mr McIlwane’s suggestion that after the company could not convince the EPA to reconfigure the biomass allocations to the companies, Huon attempted to investigate how to overturn the minister’s decision to expand farming operations in Macquarie Harbour.

She said it was offensive to suggest the case was prompted by an economic fight with Tassal, rather than concern over the harbour’s environmental health.

“We were consistently ignored about our concerns of the total biomass limit,” Ms Bender said.