Dr WOODRUFF – Through you, minister, to Ms Murdoch, the EPA director. Does the EPA have the power to issue a stop-work order, or equivalent, to a finfish licence holder that would require them to destock pens in the event of a breach of an environmental licence condition?
Ms MURDOCH – Through you, minister. I will check with your team, but no, we do not regulate stocking of pens, but I will just check, if that’s okay, to make sure I’m absolutely clear on that. Just so we don’t waste time, I will get Darryl Cook to come to the table to explain.
Ms OGILVIE – I might just introduce Darryl Cook, Director of Finfish Compliance, EPA. Welcome.
Mr COOK – Thank you. The EPA has powers to cancel or suspend environmental licences, which are set out in the legislation. We also have what we call the powers of an authorised officer, to issue directions to achieve compliance with the act. Those powers are quite broad, but as a general rule, as the EPA director has stated, stocking densities are not a matter that is regulated by the EPA. That comes under NRE Tasmania.
Dr WOODRUFF – Thank you. If there was a large disease outbreak, it would be the Department of Primary Industries that would be making a decision or not about the stocking; and the cancelling or suspension could come in if there were large mortalities and like we saw last summer – dead salmon were breaking up and floating into the environment. At that point, would you have the power to suspend, cancel or take any action?
Mr COOK – Are you happy for me to continue?
Ms WILSON – Through the minister.
Ms OGILVIE – Thank you, yes.
Mr COOK – Through you, minister. In relation to matters related to disease, we primarily look to – the lead organisation would be Biosecurity Tasmania. Our powers to suspend or cancel a licence would apply to the whole farm – there’s one licence per finfish farm lease – and those could be considered in circumstances of flagrant breaches of the law.
Dr WOODRUFF – Could you give me an example of what that would look like, and has that ever happened?
Mr COOK – There hasn’t been a cancellation or suspension of a license, no.
Dr WOODRUFF – Ever? Okay, so what –
Mr COOK – Environmental licences came into – late 2017, came into EMPCA (Environment Management and Pollution Control Act 1994), the legislation that we operate under, and the first licences were issued in 2018. Since then, no, there’s been no cancellation or suspension of a licence.
Dr WOODRUFF – Through you, minister, to the director of the EPA. Director, the Reflections and Learning – Salmon Mortality Event 2025 document was concerningly inadequate from the community’s point of view and one of the actions was to develop an industry code of practice and it was for Salmon Tasmania to consider the development of a code of practice. In response to questioning from my colleague, Cassy O’Connor, we were informed that the industry may consider an emergency harvest provision in this voluntary industry-written code of practice. Can you be really clear for us now that the use of the word ‘harvest’ there does not mean ‘harvest for human consumption’ in any form? And can you explain what you understand that provision would be and when it would be triggered?
Ms MURDOCH – Through you, minister, as I outlined in the Legislative Council, there is no commitment for that kind of a harvest. That is actually not for to comment on, it’s an industry perspective. There is no commitment in the Reflections and Learning report that a code of practice would actually contain that. There may have been discussions around that, but we have nothing in writing or understanding of what occurred and I really don’t believe I can comment on that because I don’t know what that would be.
Dr WOODRUFF – Okay, I know it’s not a commitment, it’s all voluntary, but my question is what do you think the words ‘harvest’ and ’emergency harvest provision’ could mean? Would it be harvest for human consumption or harvest for some other purpose?
Ms MURDOCH – I’m not going to enter into hypotheticals. I don’t have an opinion on that and it is not valid for me to have an opinion on that; that’s not related to my portfolio.
Dr WOODRUFF – Okay. On antibiotics and the impacts on the environment and also human health concerns, can you please table the EPA’s florfenicol antibiotic residue monitoring schedule and explain how the schedule for florfenicol has been expanded from the previous monitoring schedule for oxytetracycline?
Ms MURDOCH – I welcome the opportunity to answer these questions to get it on the record.
Dr WOODRUFF – You could always have put it out in a press release. The community would have been happy about that.
CHAIR – Dr Woodruff, please.
Ms MURDOCH – I’m very happy to answer the question. How much detail you do want?
Dr WOODRUFF – Everything you’ve got would be great.
Ms MURDOCH – Perfect. I’m just finding all the right information because I am exceptionally proud of the work my team have done in this space.
In regard to florfenicol monitoring, my exceptional team, led by Dr Raymond Bannister, have developed what we believe is the most intensive program here. Just for some context, the first sample treatment event has over 700 samples being taken as part of that. The first step in the schedule, and I’m sure you will be happy to hear this, is an extensive baseline monitoring program. That baseline monitoring program had to be completed before any florfenicol treatment was applied.
Dr WOODRUFF – When was it completed?
Ms MURDOCH – It was completed before therapeutic was applied to any lease site. In regard to that monitoring and because I know this is really important information, the baseline monitoring has to include – and this is for any treatment, so this is in the schedule – water sampling at internal, external and reference sites. The reference sites for the first treatment were between 533 kilometres and up to 1.5 kilometres away from those treatment sites. It also has to include sediment therapeutic residue sampling, again at internal and external sites and those reference sites of those differences at those sites as well; and in fauna sampling in internal sites, external sites and those reference sites as well. Importantly, and I know there’s been a lot of talk about this, it also includes sediment microbial sampling, again at all of those sites. I would also like to say in regard to microbial sampling, we have engaged IMAS to do additional control sites, to do research into antibiotic microbials, so we have also added that. That’s the baseline.
In regard to what is required then, we also have a mid‑treatment sample of those things as well. This is 700 samples for just one treatment and all will progress this.
Dr WOODRUFF – Sorry, what do you mean for one treatment?
CHAIR – Sorry, Dr Woodruff.
Dr WOODRUFF – I just wanted clarification.
Ms MURDOCH – I’m happy to, through you, minister.
Ms OGILVIE – If I may, I know you’ve got timing issues but because it’s the EPA, which is independent, I’m very happy for a flow of conversation. I don’t want to interrupt.
Dr WOODRUFF – I’m not asking another question, I just wanted to clarify.
CHAIR – I realise that but we’re way over time – and that’s me being generous. Does the committee want to allow this answer to continue?
Ms FINLAY – With your indulgence, Chair, I think everybody at the table would be happy for this line of questioning to continue.
CHAIR – That’s fine.
Ms MURDOCH – I’m also happy to outline exactly what’s happening. Per treatment as per the environmental standards, before any therapeutant event takes place, I, as the director need to be notified of what that treatment is. That first treatment, as per what is on our website, is the Tassal treatment at Meads and Stringers, and so this monitoring that I’m outlining now applies to that treatment. This same monitoring is going on for the Huon site as well. If there are any other treatments happening, this treatment – this monitoring schedule will also apply.
Dr WOODRUFF – The question was, how is it expanded from oxytetracycline monitoring?
CHAIR – Dr Woodruff, no, we’re moving on.
Dr WOODRUFF – On the comment by Ms Finlay about it being comprehensive and well-informed, it certainly seems to be a lot of information that you’re collecting. My question is, previously for oxytetracycline the EPA was monitoring and found, in one sample of wild fish seven kilometres away from the treatment site. There was above approved levels of that antibiotic in the fish. That information was only available through RTI. So it is only comprehensive and well-informed if the public knows what the outcome of this monitoring is.
How will you communicate with the public the results of the monitoring and who’s doing it? Is it going to be EPA staff? Is it going to be companies? Is it going to be contractors? Is it going to be IMAS? What are the checks that you’re putting in place? How do people know and who’s doing it?
Ms MURDOCH– In regard to the premise put forward that the – was not – it had to be through RTI processes, on the oxytetracycline report, that report is on our website with a statement from Dr Veitch outlining that with those results there is no risk to human health. That is actually on our website. I just would just like to outline that.
It’s part of our process to – and, as we have put out in every media statement and – is on our website in regard to florfenicol, all monitoring reports will be publicly available. That is our standard practise and they will be absolutely publicly available.
Dr WOODRUFF – So all of the 700 sites of monitoring that you’re collecting for this study or the baseline information, the water, the sediments, the wild fish, all of that information will be available and put up on the website? How long will it take for that information to be up on the website?
Ms MURDOCH – I still haven’t answered your other question in regard to who’s doing that, which I’m happy to answer. As we’ve said, this is a huge intensive effort to get all of these samples. We will get that as that information comes in. As we’ve said, we need to look at a whole treatment on itself – Because we’ve got to look at all of those parameters because these monitoring programs have been based on absolute science – that importance of seeing on first day, seven days, when it disappears what it looks like in the environment.
Each of the samples do take different times. The water samples are easier to process. Some of the samples, such as the fish samples, take at least three days to prepare. So it’s going through Analytical Services Tasmania (AST), those 700 samples. We will work as expediently as possible to get results to the community. I can’t give you a definite date as to – this is our first time of this – as to when I will have the full set of results.
As soon as we get those full set of results and understand what they look like, we will share them with other regulators and get information up as possible. We need this information as quickly as possible ourselves so that it can inform our future monitoring programs and understand if we need to add anything, I would hope not with that extensive program or if there’s anything of more relevance to change in that program. I can’t give you a definite answer as to when the first report will be available, but everyone is working as expediently as they can because we do understand the importance of this information. It needs to be factually correct because we do understand the importance of this information.
Dr WOODRUFF – Who’s doing the monitoring?
Ms MURDOCH – It is a mixture. As I said, IMAS is doing some monitoring for us. The companies do employ qualified contractors in this state, who have to adhere to standards to keep what they’re doing appropriate. They have engaged suitably qualified contractors to do that work. There is obviously QA, AST is doing the analysis of that work, as I understand at this point in time. To be honest, I’m sure there are a lot of boats out there right now collecting all of these samples, to get them in within the time, so we can actually get information as quickly as possible that we can review.
Dr WOODRUFF – Through the minister to the director of the EPA and talking about monitoring, is the EPA intending on testing and monitoring impacts from florfenicol on other aquaculture and fisheries industries, including oyster and other shellfish farming industries?
Ms MURDOCH – As explained I think in the Primary Industries portfolio earlier this week, industry will be doing those things. The extensive information we’re collecting can be utilised to inform those so we need to make sure we’re adding value. What our information will be used for is to do the environmental risk assessment, which my team is already in front of and getting ready for all the avenues where we can apply that to do an appropriate environmental risk assessment. We have worked it up with Public Health because that information will enable them to inform their public health advice as well.
Dr WOODRUFF – I would like to go back to the question I asked about emergency harvesting. I heard your answer and I understand you don’t want to speculate on a part of a voluntary code of practice for the industry that may not be progressed, but I think you’ve got a responsibility to clear the air on this, because your director of finfish regulation did bring this up to the Legislative Council last night. The concept of an emergency harvest has caused quite a bit of concern in the community and I think it’s really in your interest to confirm that this emergency harvest concept does not mean harvest for human consumption. Perhaps Mr Cook, who made that reference, could clarify what’s going on?
Ms OGILVIE – The question is to the EPA but can I just understand what you’re asking? It was a comment made last night you’re seeking clarification on?
Dr WOODRUFF – It was a comment that was made by the Director of the EPA’s staff member last night.
Ms MURDOCH – It was Tuesday night, I think. Just to be really clear, the EPA has no information. I have not been informed by industry in any way that an emergency harvest protocol is even being looked at by industry. That is not our role. I understand that that was raised in there. I obviously did not clarify that enough in that hearing, so I wish to clarify now: I am not aware that industry is developing an emergency harvest protocol as part of that code of practice. I have no evidence to indicate that and there has been no discussions with me in regard to that.
Dr WOODRUFF – So what were Mr Cook’s comments in relation to, then? What did he mean by ’emergency harvest’ when he said that?
CHAIR – Dr Woodruff, please.
Dr WOODRUFF – I think it’s important to get the director’s clarification, because it was used and now you’re saying it wasn’t used.
CHAIR – Dr Woodruff. You asked a question, it was answered.
Ms OGILVIE – She has clarified. It’s been answered.
Dr WOODRUFF – People really need to know the answer to this. I think everyone on this side of the table would agree –
CHAIR – Dr Woodruff, please. Mr Garland.
