Mr BAYLEY – Minister, a cross‑section of the community is desperately calling on you to do what’s needed to be done for to protect Tasmania’s environment. Recently, a group of student societies from UTAS, including the Environment Society, wrote to you and the federal Environment minister expressing concerns about the State of the Environment report and the fate of the Maugean skate. As Minister for the Environment, will you recognise the significant responsibility you have protecting species and will you commit to taking real action to protect the skate by destocking Macquarie Harbour as recommended in the Brook report?
Before anyone questions or points to other bits of the Brook report, let me read into Hansard, for the record, Section 4, Recommended Actions, was very clear about improving the water quality in Macquarie Harbour and that it will clearly be essential for the survival of the Maugean skate. It recommended reducing nutrient pollution, implementing appropriate controls on salmon farming practices to minimise nutrient loading, which includes reducing or reallocating fish stock in densities. Are you prepared to do that minister?
Mr DUIGAN – I am happy to put on the record that the government is and I am clear about our commitment to the Maugean skate. We have demonstrated that commitment with a a recovery action plan that is undertaking a number of substantial actions around the continuing viability of the Maugean skate in Macquarie Harbour.
We’re also very committed to the protecting the livelihoods of west coast communities and the government and I firmly believe that the Maugean skate and the salmon industry can coexist in Macquarie Harbour and that’s why we are continuing to invest into the skate recovery fund, $2.1 million, and continue to work with a number of partners on that piece of work. I note for the record, that there have been a number of positive pieces of information emanating from Macquarie Harbour in recent days and weeks relating to the conditions. Just last week, the EPA released a report showing a trend of improving oxygen levels in the middle and deeper waters of the harbour. They’ve grown to new heights. In excellent news for the harbour, the EPA found the medium dissolved oxygen levels across Macquarie Harbour are at their highest levels in more than a decade. It showed two‑thirds of Macquarie Harbour now has dissolved oxygen levels within the range observed from 1993 to 2010. There is a quote from the EPA director, who we can probably hear from. That is important and pleasing to note. I would also point to a report released yesterday, I think, from IMAS, which show that we’re seeing the number of juvenile skates in the harbour at levels not observed since 2014. I will find the –
Mr BAYLEY – They are still well below where they were, though.
Mr DUIGAN – But I think that does go some way to indicating that the Maugean skate is at a viable population level in Macquarie Harbour.
Mr BAYLEY – We’ve got decades of research that shows the impact of the aquaculture industry on the skate. Your department continues to cherry‑pick bits of science to try to spin a better story. The department says oxygen levels in Macquarie Harbour are the best they’ve been in a decade, but the report from the EPA shows that dissolved oxygen level is at or below the absolute minimum values for the skate’s survival in six out of the eight monitoring sites. It is still well down in critical areas.
Yesterday, you talked up the population levels, as you just did again, spruiking the skate’s population numbers being back to 2014 levels, but that’s a fraction of the story told in the most recent IMAS report. Catch per unit effort was lower overall in 2024 than it was in 2014. It’s not as improving as well or as significantly as you are saying. Skate numbers continue to decline in Swan Basin and Table Head-Liberty Point, their most critical habitat. Why are you so keen to keep telling this positive story? It comes back to policy. Why aren’t you prepared to take the action that all the scientists, Professor Brook, the Commonwealth scientists, everybody, are recommending, which is destocking and getting salmon out of Macquarie Harbour. That’s what’s needed to give the skate the best chance of survival.
Mr DUIGAN – We are telling a positive story because it’s not the catastrophic story that others would seek to promote.
Mr BAYLEY – We are probably one climate change event away, minister.
CHAIR – Order.
Mr DUIGAN – In terms of in terms of oxygenation levels in the harbour, I would ask the EPA director to come to the table because –
Mr BAYLEY – I’m more interested in policy.
CHAIR – Order, please allow the minister to answer.
Mr DUIGAN – I think, given there has been some conflicting opinions expressed, I would be interested to hear from Mr Ford as to what his results are showing.
Mr FORD – I’d start by, I suppose, reminding the committee that over the course of the last seven years, they have reduced the biomass in Macquarie Harbour by half. As a consequence of that, over the last couple of years we have seen oxygen levels recovering because, fundamentally, oxygen demand generated by the salmon industry has reduced. That has reduced by half.
Because we’ve had favourable environmental conditions and lower demands of oxygen, we are seeing recovery across the harbour. It’s a positive sign. Are we there yet? No. But my view is that, with the current biomass and nitrogen levels, the oxygen will continue to improve and that does demonstrate that the skate will survive. That’s certainly been confirmed by the work of IMAS in relation to the presence of juveniles.
Mr BAYLEY – That’s not the view of scientists. The Brook report is recommending continuing to destock and the advice to the Commonwealth minister was recommending destocking. That’s one of the things in front of her at the moment. Is there anything precluding you recommending or enforcing continued destocking of Macquarie Harbour to improve the results?
Mr DUIGAN – In terms of a policy position, the government is very much of the view –
Mr BAYLEY – Blocking the further destocking?
CHAIR – Order.
Mr DUIGAN – of the view that salmon farming and the Maugean skate can continue to coexist quite happily in Macquarie Harbour, as they have done over time, noting that Macquarie Harbour would appear to be the only place where the Maugean skate does persist, if we are taking the science at face value.
Mr BAYLEY – Minister, on fish mortalities, I am keen to understand some data around fish mortalities related to the finfish industry. I point out up front that these are a serious issue in terms of biosecurity hazards and the like. The data I’m explicitly after – and happy to take this on notice if required – is what’s the extent of fish mortalities statewide over the past year, broken down by company and region? Where are they dumped, with the specific sites and the tonnage per site over the last year? Also, what expense is borne by the state to deal with the numbers of salmon mortalities including contractor payments and staffing? What attempts are made to recover these costs from companies involved?
Mr DUIGAN – I think it’s probably one that sits more comfortably in the industry.
Mr BAYLEY – Your colleague, Mr Abetz, threw it to you last night. He was asked last night and he said it was an EPA issue.
Mr DUIGAN – Given the EPA is at the table and noting there is a great deal of detail in the question, I would be happy for the director to take that question if he has some of that detail.
Mr FORD – Over the last summer period, we had 66 elevated mortalities reported to the EPA in accordance with the reporting requirements, which are elevated mortalities greater than 0.25 per cent over three consecutive days. Those notifications were distributed across regions and across companies. I will provide the table on notice rather than read it in here.
Mr BAYLEY – Will this give us the exact number of fish mortalities statewide over the past year?
Mr FORD – No.
Mr BAYLEY – Could you provide that?
Mr FORD – No. The current licence conditions do not require the industry to provide notification of numbers or of weight of mortalities. As the conditions applied last summer, the information for last summer is only on notifications of increased mortalities above the licence condition requirement.
Moving into the next summer, now that the environmental standard has passed the parliamentary process and is now certain, we are in the process of implementing the new environmental licence conditions that do require the companies to notify numbers or weight, depending on the circumstance. We have commenced rolling those licences out in the last couple of weeks. Certainly, by the time we get to the summer season, those licence conditions will be on all the new environmental licences.
Mr BAYLEY – Will that be publicly reported as a matter of course going forward?
Mr FORD – That will be publicly reported. The framework on which we reported in terms of the time frame is yet to be determined, but yes, the information will be both publicly reported and publicly accessible.
Mr BAYLEY – What about the sites?
CHAIR – Mr Garland has the call.
Mr BAYLEY – Just before I ask my question, minister, the EPA director has indicated his willingness to table the evidence of the 66 elevated mortality events. Are you happy for that to happen? He was offering to save the committee time by tabling that.
Mr DUIGAN – Yes.
Mr BAYLEY – Thank you. My second question in that space is to ask where these dead fish are dumped, and to itemise those locations and the tonnage per site. What expense is borne by the state to deal with the numbers of salmon mortalities – that’s contractor payments, staffing, dumping fees – and what attempts are made to recover this from the salmon companies?
Mr DUIGAN – I note that the director has made his way back to the table, so I will ask him to provide detail on the answer to that question.
Mr FORD – I take those questions in reverse order. There are no costs to the government for the disposal of the mortalities –
Mr BAYLEY – They’re all borne by the companies?
Mr FORD – They are managed and dealt with by the companies. Any regulatory operational process is just part of the ongoing regulatory operational process for the salmon environmental regulators. If there are approvals, they’re factored into that process.
In relation to disposals, there are two pathways for disposals of mortalities. Some of the fish make their way through the Tassal rendering facility in Triabunna, and others go through a process called ensilage, which is taking the mortalities, treating them with formic acid, turning them into a liquid and then they’re land spread on a number of properties in a number of municipalities, typically under council approval. The EPA does not regulate those activities.
Spectran is the primary contractor that is doing that work with a number of landholders, principally in the southern midlands area, but also some in Clarence and around the Tasman area.
Mr BAYLEY – So none is dumped in landfill, full stop?
Mr FORD – A small component has been placed in landfills depending on the particular supply of the day, because the rendering facility can only take so much on a daily basis and similarly the land spreading activity can only deal with so much on a weekly basis.
Mr BAYLEY – Can you provide those instances and those locations?
Mr FORD – We don’t have a direct line of sight to that data because the landfills in Tasmania, both at Dulverton and Copping, have approval to take putrescible waste and to take animal carcasses in terms of fish, so the EPA doesn’t have that direct data.
Mr BAYLEY – It is held by the salmon companies? What about other waste that’s produced by the industry – potentially native fish that are caught in the nets when they’re cleaned, or waste from the net‑cleaning operations themselves, including any other sort of hard materials. What happens to them? Are they dumped in landfill or are they processed in some other way as well?
Mr FORD – In relation to any fish that are removed inadvertently as part of their cleaning operations or as part of their treatment of fish process, it is the same disposal pathway for fish irrespective of whether it be salmon or native species. Clearly the industry doesn’t seek to catch native species, but occasionally some mackerel, for example, will end up in the pens.
In relation to material from the pens themselves, these days it’s in water cleaning, which means that the material falls to the sea floor and decomposes along with salmon faecal material.
