Dr WOODRUFF question to PREMIER, Mr ROCKLIFF
[10.08 a.m.]
I’ll take that, thank you, honourable Speaker, we’ve been saying it for a while ourselves. Premier, in response to questions from Ms Finlay in Estimates last November, we heard the salmon industry had used 700 kilograms of the antibiotic florfenicol in the two weeks since the emergency permit was first granted. After that staggering figure, we’ve tried repeatedly, while the permit was still active, to get updates on how much florfenicol was being used. We’ve asked ministers in parliament, the department at briefings, and through RTI requests. At every turn, we’ve been denied the information because the salmon industry calls it commercial-in-confidence. Tasmanians deserve to know how much antibiotics your government has allowed the industry to dump into public waterways. It’s a basic matter of transparency, so I’m now having to ask you, Premier, to stop your government’s covering for the industry and tell us how much florfenicol has gone into public waterways.
ANSWER
Honourable Speaker, I thank the honourable Leader of the Greens for the question, noting the Freudian slip of the Speaker before, which I think you quite enjoyed, in actual fact.
The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) is the independent national regulator for agricultural and veterinary chemicals. Its decision to suspend the florfenicol permit is a matter for that authority more broadly, of course. Tasmania’s independent Environment Protection Authority (EPA) is tasked as the statutory authority with the responsibility to ensure that the use of antibiotics in finfish farming does not cause environmental harm. I’ve said that antibiotic approvals are the purview of the APVMA and while animal health oversight sits with Biosecurity Tasmania and public health oversight sits with the Department of Health, the EPA has implemented one of the most comprehensive antibiotic residue monitoring programs undertaken in Australian aquaculture and monitoring schedules are science-based, publicly available and subject to independent review.
Dr WOODRUFF – Standing Order 45, relevance, honourable Speaker. I’m not asking for a sermon about the history of florfenicol, simply the amount that has been used in the public waterways so far.
The SPEAKER – Honourable Premier.
Mr ROCKLIFF – I thank the honourable member for the point of order. Since November 2025, the EPA has provided public notification of antibiotic treatment events as soon as testing results have been completed and peer reviewed. I am also advised that initial reporting on and EPA analysis indicates florfenicol has much higher uptake by salmon and a significantly shorter environmental half-life compared with previously used antibiotic, so it is an effective antibiotic in that sense.
In terms of the detail of your question, I don’t have that with me at hand and I’ll seek what information may be of interest to the honourable member.
Supplementary Question
Dr WOODRUFF – Thank you, Premier. Supplementary question on the basis of that. The specific information we are interested in is an update on what we were given in Estimates last year, the total figure of florfenicol that has been used by the aggregate salmon companies since that first report of 700 kilograms. To date, what has been used? Can you put that on notice and give it to parliament today, please?
Mr ROCKLIFF – I’ll endeavour to seek that information for the honourable member, and if that information comes to hand then I will inform the House.
ADJOURNMENT
Answer to Question taken on notice – Salmon Industry – Florfenicol Use
[6.38 p.m.]
Mr ABETZ (Franklin – Leader of the House) – Honourable Speaker, in response to the Leader of the Greens’ question to the Premier this morning, I can advise as follows: the EPA has advised it does not have current aggregate actual florfenicol usage. It further advises this data will be provided in final monitoring reports that are being published progressively on the EPA website as received.
