Florfenicol Use in Tasmania

Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – Mr President, I move –

That the Legislative Council:

(1) Notes evidence presented to parliament during the Budget Estimates process confirming more than 800 kilograms of the antibiotic, florfenicol, was used by salmon companies in south east waters in just three weeks following its recent federal approval for use in Tasmania.

(2) Notes that data about the quantity of antibiotics used by salmon corporations is not made public as a matter of course, and the fact that 815 kilograms of florfenicol was used in Tasmanian fish farms in such a short period of time is only known to the public due to parliamentary scrutiny.

(3) Further notes the ongoing use of florfenicol in south east waters has led to public health advice to swimmers and recreational fishers, and the temporary closure of the rock lobster fishery.

(4) Notes an application has been made by Tassal to use florfenicol at Okehampton Bay, in the rich recreational and fishing waters of the Mercury Passage.

(5) Agrees that the use of florfenicol and other increasingly strong antibiotics is a matter of significant public interest and concern.

(6) Understands there is little available science to support such intensive, widespread use of florfenicol and limited to no understanding of its residual properties and impact on marine ecology.

(7) Accepts the evidence that antibiotic resistance is a significant global public health threat and that the misuse and overuse of antibiotics in humans, animals and plants is the major driver of antimicrobial resistance.

(8) Agrees the long-term use of antibiotics by industrial salmon farms is not supported by science or sustainable for marine ecologies.

(9) Calls on the government to establish a publicly accessible portal detailing in real-time where, when, and in what quantities antibiotics are being used in Tasmanian fish farms so the public, recreational and other commercial fishers can make safe, informed decisions.

It was a little over a year ago that people living on southern beaches and around coastal communities in south east Tasmania woke up to discover globules of dead and stinking matter, dead fish, and other marine creatures on their coastal beaches to their utter horror. What unfolded over coming weeks was a deepening marine crisis, and for the industrial salmon industry, as a bacteria known as Piscirickettsia salmonis killed vast numbers of Atlantic salmon in pens. According to the Environment Protection Authority, that mass mortality event, which happened over February to March last year, and then more mortalities in December of last year, killed around 21,000 fish, or about four million Atlantic salmon. It was an horrific environmental event that brought home the reality of industrial finfish farming to coastal communities and to Tasmanians everywhere.

There was a sequence of events that followed. One of the events, which I’ll only mention briefly, was captured by Bob Brown Foundation drones over a Huon Aquaculture facility where live fish were seen being stuffed into tubs full of dead fish. An obvious breach of the Animal Welfare Act 1993. Unfortunately, although we have evidence from our right-to-information inquiries that an Animal Welfare Act 1993 investigation was initiated, it is still apparently underway, more than a year after live fish were filmed being put into barrels full of dead fish. We’ve seen no progress whatsoever on that animal-welfare investigation being undertaken by Biosecurity Tasmania.

The cynic in me could suggest that the alleged perpetrator of this breach of the Animal Welfare Act 1993 is too big for this government to take on. Because the alleged perpetrator is Huon Aquaculture. I hope to be proven wrong and for that investigation and its results to come to light before too long. Because there is no doubt whatsoever that fish have suffered, just as there is no doubt whatsoever that cramming up to 25 kilograms per square metre of fish into pens, as we see in the D’Entrecasteaux leases, leads to dreadful animal cruelty.
Those fish have dreadful lives. But what we do know is that as a result of climate change, warming waters and overstocking of industrial fish farm pens, the increase of disease is higher, and the risk of more mortality from Piscirickettsiosis salmonis continues to be high. Therefore the industry will continue to try to deal with the problem through increasing the use of antibiotics and seeking to use more of an antibiotic which has never been used in the finfish farming industry before, and that is florfenicol.

It is an agricultural chemical, if you like, that has been principally used to control disease in pigs. That is why Huon Aquaculture sought to use florfenicol off-label as it dealt with alarming numbers of fish deaths, the impact on their business, the impact on trade, but critically for everyday Tasmanians the impact on our marine environment.

Ms Forrest – Pigs don’t live in the marine environment, last time I checked.

Ms O’CONNOR – Pigs do not live in the marine environment; that is a very accurate observation, honourable member for Murchison.

I just want to take honourable members through a short timeline of what has happened since that mass-mortality event, noting that in recent weeks the permit that was granted by a Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) to the salmon industry in Tasmania has been suspended. I’ll go into a bit more detail on that, but principally because of the unacceptable risk of the use of florfenicol to our trading export industries.

On 18 February 2025, Salmon Tasmania confirmed with Natural Resources and Environment vet rep Stuart Bowman that florfenicol can be used off-label through use of the APVMA-approved pure active ingredient compounded and prescribed by a vet. We’ve got right-to-information documents that show the back and forth, particularly between Huon Aquaculture and officers in NRE and Biosecurity Tasmania. You could see, and it’s hardly so surprising given the history here, that at that point NRE and Biosecurity Tasmania, but particularly NRE, was almost tripping over itself to help Huon. Particularly to be able to top coat feed, is the way it’s given to the fish, with florfenicol.

A couple of weeks later, there was correspondence between our Chief Veterinary Officer and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry about florfenicol and its antimicrobial importance rating noting the impact of the use of florfenicol on antimicrobial resistance, which is where its potential impact on human health becomes particularly relevant.

On 15 April last year, the Chief Veterinary Officer asked a representative from Salmon Tasmania to research and provide information on the pathway for Australian use of florfenicol for salmon. The Chief Veterinary Officer was advised that florfenicol can be used off label, and that progressing a minor use permit for florfenicol or adding salmon to an existing registered florfenicol product is the preferred longer term approach. Salmon Tasmania was progressing an application for a minor use permit.

I will just pause here for a moment to remind honourable members that, in the first three applications of florfenicol, from 26 November last year and 9 January this year, it was made known that 815 kilograms of florfenicol had been dumped into Tasmanian waters: that is nearly a tonne of antibiotics. We know that the dumping continued after 9 January, so it is likely to be a significantly higher number now, up until the point where the permit was suspended.

On 30 June last year there’s some minutes from the Joint Salmonid Industry Health Group reiterating that off label use is possible. When we talk about off label use: an application was made, ultimately, by an organisation called AbbeyFlor, on behalf of the Tasmanian salmon industry, for the use of florfenicol in marine operations, and at that point, it was only registered under the APVMA for the treatment of respiratory disease in pigs, and any other use would be off label. This is not a loophole; we’re not suggesting that this is some loophole that’s been exploited. It is simply that it was known that it was possible to use it without getting an APVMA permit.

Sometime in July 2025, the program of environmental monitoring of florfenicol in salmon aquaculture marine sites was developed and that work was being led by the Environment Protection Authority. On 4 August last year, there was an agenda paper from the Salmon Industry Working Group where the recommendation was:

that government takes the lead in proactively communicating the importance of florfenicol use for the management of P. Salmonis to the broader community. [tbc]

Again, this is the salmon industry effectively telling the government what to do; we have a long and sorry history of that here, in Tasmania too. Species like the Maugean skate will pay an eternal price for it.

On 28 July last year, Huon Aquaculture wrote to government, to NRE, to indicate that it planned to use florfenicol off label in coming weeks; this was without seeking a federal permit to use it, but to use it through the off label provisions under the prescription of a veterinarian. This certainly ruffled some normally quite smooth feathers in government, because Huon Aquaculture was effectively saying: we are going to do it. There was a phone call on the morning of 4 August between Huon and the Chief Veterinary Officer, an email was sent from Huon informing NRE Tas of the intention to administer an unknown quantity of florfenicol into its Zuidpool North lease, at an unknown date. On 5 August, the following day, Salmon Tasmania’s CEO, John Whittington – how far he’s has fallen since he ran DPIPWE – but also secretary of NRE, Jason Jacobi, and Catherine Murdoch, the CEO of the Environment Protection Authority, had a meeting with industry representatives in which a paper, drafted on 25 July, titled Environmental Monitoring of Florfenicol in Salmon Aquaculture Marine Sites, was discussed.

There’s back and forth again between the Chief Veterinary Officer and Huon about the intention to use florfenicol in August. The following day, the 7th, the Chief Veterinary Officer received a phone call from Huon’s vet who was concerned about more increased mortalities due to P. salmonis, and the vet informed the acting CVO that of the daily mortalities, 60 per cent were attributed to P. salmonis compared to the usual level of 20 per cent. The vet was concerned about the amount of P. salmonis being shed into pens and how the fish would cope with upcoming warmer water temperatures. I will just pause here to note that respected IMAS scientist, Stewart Frusher, in response to the decision to suspend the permit, said:

Essentially, we’re at the stage where waters in south east Tasmania aren’t fit for purpose for the salmon industry.

That is simply a fact of warming waters. On 13 August, Huon requested support of the Chief Veterinary Officer for an emergency use application of florfenicol, and then a consultant to the industry, Nautilus Collaboration, asked the Chief Veterinary Officer for a letter of support for emergency use in Tasmania. On that same day, Biosecurity Tasmania received notification that the florfenicol treatment would be delayed until the end of August so that environmental monitoring conditions could be considered and an emergency permit applied for.

This is just an example. I understand if you’re a salmon industry CEO and you’re looking at this volume of death, that there is panic and you’re trying to take panic mitigating measures in order to save your business; but we’re talking about an antibiotic that had never been used in the marine environment before, and you’ve got Huon Aquaculture pushing government hard to allow it to be used off label. But on 14 August, the day after he was asked, the acting Chief Veterinary Officer provided a letter of support for Huon’s emergency permit application to the APVMA. On that same day, on 14 August, crossbench members were informed of the winter P. salmonis event.

Now, the last people often to know about what’s happening with this industry, where and when and how much antibiotics are being used, is not the crossbench; it’s the Tasmanian people. That is why the punchline, if you like, of this notice of motion is about being able to provide everyday Tasmanians with readily accessible information that tells them where these antibiotics have been released into marine waters, and allows them to make some informed choices, because at the moment they are largely kept in the dark.

There was then a public announcement, after the crossbench had been told, and after all this manoeuvring behind the scenes, and MPs were told that there had been mortalities, that this was a winter event: highly, highly irregular, given that the waters are supposed to be cooler. Salmon Tasmania denied that there’d been a mass mortality event occurring, and then minister Pearce stated that the industry would be compelled to provide information on the disease level across the state. Three days later, a salmon moratorium was announced.

It was pleasing and slightly unusual for us to see correspondence from the secretary of NRE Tasmania containing copies of notices sent to salmon and companies. Compelling information regarding stocking densities and the extent of the disease.

We do know that an application will be made for the use of florfenicol at Okehampton Bay, which is right there on the edge of some of the richest and most diverse recreational and commercial fishing waters in Tasmania.

So, what happened?

Thankfully, and it’s only a temporary reprieve, of course, the Department of Forestry and Fisheries and APVMA wrote to the salmon industry and effectively said, ‘You’ve provided insufficient evidence to support your emergency permit’.

Then we had something quite unique happen; we had NRE Tasmania, Biosecurity Tasmania and the Environment Protection Authority start to muscle up on behalf of the marine environment. That is partly because the monitoring and testing program that had been undertaken identified the antibiotic florfenicol in species including rock lobster, abalone, whelk and urchins up to 10 kilometres away from where the florfenicol had been used in the pens.

There’s clearly an impact on other commercial fisheries, but also obviously an impact on wild fisheries and the marine environment. Remembering that when the florfenicol was used, from memory, public health advised recreational fishers that if they were concerned, they should not eat fish caught within 3 kilometre of a site where florfenicol had been used. Therefore, public health is saying, ‘Look, you might be a bit concerned, we would simply advise you not to catch and eat fish within a 3-kilometre radius of the pens,’ but the science, the monitoring found that antibiotic and of course it did had moved through the water column and was found in other marine species.

Obviously that has a very significant and chilling effect on commercial fisheries, including abalone and rock lobster. It was interesting to see what choices were made about which fisheries you act to protect, because once the florfenicol decision was made and that antibiotic was being top-coated onto feed, there had to be a closure of the rock lobster fishery. Recreational fishers weren’t able to catch fish where they had before. It had an impact on other commercial fisheries that was tangibly financially negative.

Ms Webb – Talk about picking winners.

Ms O’CONNOR – Talk about picking winners. Big salmon wins again. Thank you for your interjection, member for Nelson.

These bedrock industries that we’ve had here in Tasmania for the longest time. We can have debates about how sustainable or not they’ve been in the past and today, but the rock lobster fishery, the abalone fishery, they are bedrock export industries for this island, all over the island.

But a decision was made because the pressure was coming on so hard, particularly from Huon, to use an antibiotic that had never been used in the marine environment before, that was registered to be used for pigs. That pressure was obviously impossible for the Tasmanian government at that time to ignore.

Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you, Mr President. Before the break I was taking members through some of the history of the use of florfenicol in the marine environment. I guess the question it raises is why does it matter? Why does it matter that the salmon industry for many years, before applying for florfenicol to pens, has been using large doses of oxytetracyclines on finfish in pens as well. Well, it matters because of something called antibiotic microbial resistance. Obviously, I am not a scientist, but I do talk to them from time to time. In the Journal of Public Health in December 2015, an editorial was produced which said:

The World Health Organization called antimicrobial resistance ‘an increasingly serious threat to global public health that requires action across all government sectors and society.’ [okay]

The editorial says:

There is growing evidence that antibiotic resistance in humans is promoted by the widespread use of nontherapeutic antibiotics in animals …

The practice of medicine and the state of public health would be catastrophically affected if antibiotics were not generally effective … [okay]

Ms Forrest – It would take us back to the dark ages, that’s what it would do.

Ms O’CONNOR – It certainly would. Small infections that could kill you, basically because of the misuse of antibiotics and the creation of bacteria that are resistant to any antibiotic treatment.

The Food & Water Watch institute in Washington D.C. has a paper out, a 26 April Issue Brief, that says:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that over 2 million Americans contract an antibiotic resistant infection each year, leading to at least 23,000 deaths.

This was in a paper that was produced 10 years ago. The Issue Brief continues:

But fewer people realize that the aquaculture industry also has an antibiotics problem. Just like raising livestock and poultry, many large-scale fish farming operations rely on the misuse and overuse of antibiotics to compensate for crowded, stressful conditions.

The Issue Brief asks:

So what happens when antibiotics are used in aquaculture? Treating the fish with medicated feed creates conditions in which antibiotic-resistant bacteria can spread within the fish. This treatment also creates the possibility of drug residues in seafood.

But the fish do not eat all of the medicated feed, and most of the antibiotics pass through the digestive system and are released into the environment in animal waste. Antibiotics that remain in the water place selective pressure on bacteria living in it, leading to the development and spread of antibiotic resistance near aquaculture facilities. Prophylactic use of antibiotics in shrimp and salmon aquaculture has led to higher rates of resistance in bacteria in the surrounding waters. Additionally, antibiotics in the water affect other marine life nearby.

Evidence suggests that these antibiotic-resistant bacteria can, in turn, pass on their antibiotic resistance genes to other bacteria, including human and animal pathogens, through horizontal gene transfer. An increasing number of studies have documented elevated levels of bacterial antibiotic resistance in and around aquaculture sites. For example, before 1990 in the United Kingdom, the disease-causing bacteria Aeromonas salmonicida were sensitive to amoxicillin. But after the antibiotic was introduced to fish farms, amoxicillin-resistant strains began to appear. Evidence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria also has been reported in the Mediterranean Sea, where a study found a high percentage of resistant strains, indicating a widespread antibiotic resistance in the bacterial populations surrounding fish farms.

There is a comparison between salmon farms in Norway and Chile. I’d love to see a comparison between our application of antibiotics here and a country like Norway. Chilean salmon producers use about 840 times more antibiotics per tonne of fish than Norwegian salmon producers, which are focused on vaccines and destocking, so lowering the density of the pens to mitigate the risk of disease spread.

The heavy use of antibiotics in Chilean salmon facilities has lead to an increase of antibiotic-resistant bacteria there … Antibiotic-resistance genes that emerged in aquatic bacteria have been found in human and animal pathogens nearby. For example, some antibiotic-resistant urinary tract infections in Chilean people have been linked to antibiotic misuse in salmon aquaculture and this is a referenced statement. Research suggests that aquaculture workers may be at risk as well.

Just bear with me for a moment while I find a very good piece of work undertaken by Dr Frank Niklason and Dr Lisa Gershwin. This was in relation to concerns about antibiotic residues in wild lobsters and abalone.

This hasn’t been published by the Mercury. It was sent into the Mercury as an opinion piece and unfortunately the Mercury decided not to publish it, even though this is a matter of very significant public interest.

What is antibiotic resistance and why should we care?

They ask.

Eating salmon with antibiotic traces doesn’t affect most people immediately, so some may wonder what’s the problem.

Our concern is the antibiotic induced changes to the bacteria that live naturally in our bodies and the knock-on effects if we get an infection requiring treatment. Exposure to micro doses of antibiotics promotes evolution of resistance and reduced effectiveness.

Use of antibiotics in food production induces changes to bacterial populations which are difficult to eradicate and cause people real harm.

When antibiotics are applied to kill off bacteria, a few of the hardiest inevitably survive. Those that survive become the breeders for the next generation and with each application of antibiotics.
This is not speculative and it doesn’t happen sometimes, this is the rule, not the exception.

Antibiotic resistance happens here in Tasmania. People undergoing chemotherapy and joint replacements often require antibiotics.

Infections like pneumonia are lethal without effective antibiotics.

In the pre-antibiotic era

This is what the honourable member for Murchison was referring to earlier by interjection.

Parents expected to lose children to infections. Today, antibiotic resistance threatens to render these crucial drugs ineffective.

They ask:

Why are antibiotics in waterways so worrisome? Well, when a land animal is given antibiotic in its feed, it eats most of it. When the animal defecates, the antibiotics stay mostly contained within the faeces. Antibiotics used in fish farms and hatcheries have a different fate. When antibiotics are top-coated onto fish feed, most does not make it into the fish and when ingested they pass into the water. Antibiotics persist in sediments for months. Antibiotics released from sediments may be consumed by wild fish, potentially affecting them and us.

That is a huge issue looming here in Tasmania with the further application for a permit for florfenicol.

In early March this year, after asking the salmon companies for a bit more information on the effect of their florfenicol application, APVMA, the national regulatory body, suspended the permit that had been granted, which was due to run until 31 August this year. They stated that this was because the application of florfenicol in marine waters in Tasmania are in the current gap of knowledge about the impact here, in Tasmanian-specific circumstances, was an unacceptable risk. That unacceptable risk, as I said earlier, through the regulator’s mind was to the our trade industries, our seafood trade industries.

But there is also an argument, given that monitoring found florfenicol in other species, wild fish up to 10 kilometres away. There is also an argument – and a pretty strong one, I’d have thought – that there is a significant ecological risk from the ongoing heavy use of antibiotics, whether they be oxytetracycline or florfenicol. Now you can be absolutely sure that the dosing of other antibiotics into fish pens is continuing despite the fact that the federal regulator has pulled the permit for florfenicol.

What we know is that the industry, whose spokesperson John Whittington, said that, ‘The use of florfenicol is a really safe and effective antibiotic’, with no evidence to back that up at all. Other than the fact that it’s being used in excess in Chile. But we know that the salmon industry, which believes it is a really safe and effective antibiotic, plans to apply for a permanent permit for the use of florfenicol. It wouldn’t just be a minor use permit or an emergency permit, which was what was being discussed last year. It would be working with the APVMA in order to have a permanent right to dose fish pens with florfenicol.

The issue with that is that we don’t know the impact. We don’t know whether it will be effective in dealing with Piscirickettsia salmonis. We don’t know what impact that it will have on the marine ecology. We don’t know what impact that will have on other species in the marine environment, including rock lobsters and abalone. We do know that that antibiotic has been found in them. We don’t know what impact, for example, that would have on our exports, given how important those bedrock marine industries are to Tasmania. Finally, we don’t know, but we suspect that the impact on the Tasmanian clean and green brand would be tarnished once again.

What do the people of Tasmania need? Well, just for a change, maximum transparency would be terrific. Making sure that our regulatory bodies and government agencies continue to show the same sort of concern around this issue as they did when they wrote to the APVMA about the florfenicol permit. This is after having supported the industry initially and having identified this substance up to 10 kilometres away from the pens. NRE Tasmania, Biosecurity Tasmania and the Environment Protection Authority wrote to the federal regulator in a damning letter, signed off by Jason Jacoby, and said:

In relation to health data, the previous application stated that quote ‘florfenicol safety is well established’. The applicant does not substantiate this statement, only referring to the minor use permit that expired in 2013. In relation to metabolism and kinetic data, the previous application stated that ‘application of data from other food producing species sufficed’.

I gather they were looking at the pig data, Mr President, to say it was a safe and effective product to use in our marine environment.

In relation to environmental assessment, the previous application stated that such data were not included because quote ‘existing data on florfenicol covers environmental risks for the proposed use’. The applicant provides no reference to such data that are directly relevant to the Tasmanian environment. In relation to antibiotic resistance, the previous application stated that such a consideration was not applicable to the application. [tbc]

This is the application for a permit, Mr President, made following last year’s mass mortality event. After Huon had initially said to the NRE that they were going to start using it within a fortnight regardless.

Then there was an application to the federal regulator. The combined agencies are commenting on that application, and the lack of robustness, or reference to anything credible or scientific. The brief to APVMA goes on to say:

The rationales for these statements in the previous application were limited. There is public and scientific interest in florfenicol use in aquaculture, including consideration of matters such as human health, antibiotic resistance, environment and ecology. Regardless of whether or not florfenicol causes harm in these domains, there is a concern that neither the current nor the previous application –

The current application we’re talking about here is the application to apply for florfenicol at Okehampton Bay and that was current as at November last year.

– provides considered and robust evidence, relevant to Tasmanian circumstances, to address these matters. Where relevant evidence is unavailable, as may sometimes be the case, this too should be acknowledged and guide conditions that may be applied. [tbc]

They note that:

Laboratory results have started to come in, the residue monitoring program remains far from complete.

It says:

For the first large scale usage of Florfenicol to treat salmon in Tasmania, the EPA has specified an extensive residue monitoring program, including sampling of water, sediments and wild fish at internal, external and reference sites before, during and after Florfenicol treatment to collect data to support environmental and human health risk assessments in the Tasmanian context. [tbc]

Mr President, I suspect that as a result of that brief that was sent to the federal regulator by Tasmanian authorities in response to the notion of using florfenicol in Okehampton Bay that the federal regulator – which had already asked the salmon industry for more information felt even more able to confidently suspend the permit.

So, back to the original question about what the Tasmanian people need. The Tasmanian people need this government to stop collapsing to the salmon industry every time they make a request, to stop facilitating some of their worst excesses. They need the Tasmanian government to start being open and transparent about this industry. It has never been so and it is people who live in coastal communities, people who care about the marine environment, organisations like NOFF, Bob Brown Foundation, little community groups everywhere who are being treated with disdain and being kept in the dark.

There’s a threshold issue here. Those coastal waters do not belong to the salmon industry and they do not belong to the Tasmanian Government. Arguably they belong to the Palawa people of Tasmania, but there’s certainly shared public waterways and that brings with it a special responsibility and obligation on people who profit from those shared coastal waterways and governments that regulate, in one way or another, the activities of those industries.

If there was more transparency about the way this industry is operating, more transparency about what it’s putting in the water, that would be a good thing for sure, but the Tasmanian Government should also be saying to the industry here, you need to modernise, you need to explore vaccines, wider use of vaccines. You need to lower the density within your pens. Perhaps you should go over and have a look at finfish farming in Norway, where they have very low use of antibiotics, much less stocking density in their pens and the widespread use of vaccines to prevent illness among the salmon they farm.

This is another example of this industry calling the shots. Calling the shots in public waterways, threatening to release novel antibiotics into the waterways with government agencies basically saying we’re going to do it in two weeks. But also an industry that knows that anytime it asks for something from this government, it pretty much will be sure to get it. The only thing I think that led to that permit being suspended was the fact that the EPA, particularly, was undertaking comprehensive monitoring – as it should – outside the pens, to an extent of 10 kilometres where they found contamination of other fish species. I hope we can agree that the long term use of antibiotics by industrial salmon farms is not supported by science and is not sustainable for marine ecologies. There may be an argument for some applications of antibiotics in some circumstances, but what’s happened here is that a practice which should have been a rare circumstance has become routine, and it enables laziness on the part of industry.

In the D’Entrecasteaux Channel, the stocking density, as I said earlier, is 25 kilograms a cubic metre; that’s a lot of fish in a cubic metre. Outside the D’Entrecasteaux Channel, it’s 15 kilograms a cubic metre. This government should be saying to industry: destock. It should also be saying to the industry: you’re going have to look at other places to conduct your operations, because these waters are obviously warming, and there is obviously a higher disease risk to your highly stressed fish.

We think the Tasmanian government needs to speak up soon about the results of its investigation under the Animal Welfare Act into Huon Aquaculture for disposing of live fish into bins full of dead fish; but at a bare minimum, while all of this is taking place, the government should establish a publicly accessible portal detailing in real time where, when and in what quantities antibiotics are being used in Tasmanian fish farms, so the public, recreational and other commercial fishers can make safe, informed decisions.

I believe a lot of people in Hobart, the community I’m very proud to represent, would be a bit mortified to know that there’s been a large dispersal of antibiotics into the hatcheries up the Derwent; and so, not only are we drinking water that’s had a lot of fish poo in it – good on TasWater for their amazing treatment tech – but we’re also drinking water that has had oxytetracyclines put into it by the salmon industry. Most people in and around this city wouldn’t know that. They’re kept in the dark, and it’s deliberate.

So we’re calling on the government to be more transparent, be more open about this, recognise that this is a matter of very significant public interest, it’s a matter that impacts on human health and marine and aquatic ecologies. The Tasmanian government is the regulator, the people of Tasmania are the major stakeholder, and they are entitled to have better information presented to them by government through its agencies, but also by the salmon industry which needs to understand it’s losing its social licence. There’s huge, huge concern about the use of antibiotics to treat diseases in salmon; huge concern, and rightly so because there’s so much that we don’t fully understand.

I’m very glad to have brought this issue to Council members’ attention; it won’t be the last time that we talk about it. I encourage members to keep an eye on the industry and the activities of the federal regulator, as I’m absolutely certain that there is frantic work going on behind the scenes right now to enable the industry to use florfenicol on a permanent basis, and that is not necessarily something that we should all support. I commend the motion.

Ms FORREST (Murchison) – Thanks, Mr President. I’d like to support the motion from the member for Hobart, and I will traverse over some of the information she’s already provided because I think I’m going to keep it in context and relevant, but it is also to raise my concern about the scale and the lack of transparency around antibiotic use in Tasmania’s salmon agriculture industry. Just to be really clear: I’m not opposed to salmon farming. Aquaculture is a legitimate and potentially valuable industry for Tasmania, and I accept that a well-managed sustainable salmon or aquaculture sector can have a future here; but the word sustainable carries real meaning in this context, particularly right now, as the evidence would suggest that we are moving further and further away from that standard.

I believe a sustainable industry relies on improving animal health outcomes through: better site selection; lower stocking densities; and fish farm management practices designed to reduce the need for interventions like antibiotics in the first place. These are critical considerations. The question this motion puts squarely before us is whether the current trajectory of intensive stocking, mass antibiotic use, and opaque reporting is consistent with those principles; and, on the evidence, it’s not.

Arguments that this sector is one of the most highly regulated and scrutinised industries in the state – and you will probably hear this from the Leader when she gets up to reply on behalf of the government – hold little weight or credibility if we cannot see what is going on, and information relevant to the health and wellbeing of our native fisheries and human health is not revealed proactively, or on an evidence based footing at all times. The evidence that emerged through budget Estimates was deeply troubling, and the member for Hobart has referred to some of these figures. It is now apparent that more than 815 – or 915, did you say, member for Hobart?

Ms O’Connor – 815 as at 9 January this year.

Ms FORREST – There’s been more since, almost certainly. There was more than 815 kilograms of florfenicol, a broad-spectrum antibiotic that received emergency federal approval for use in Tasmania fairly recently, that was used by salmon companies in south east Tasmanian waters in the space of just three weeks. That’s a lot of antibiotics, as the member for Hobart rightly alluded to, to be put into the waterways in a short period of time.

To be clear about what broad spectrum antibiotics are: they’re not specific. They’re broad to kill most things that don’t look nice. As people – humans would know when you go to your doctor, if they can identify the actual bacteria, assume it is a bacteria and not a virus that’s making you unwell, they will try and specifically prescribe an antibiotic for that bacteria. If they don’t know what it is, or they haven’t got time to figure out exactly what it is because the nature of the illness is such that requires immediate treatment, they will use a broad spectrum antibiotic.

What that does is kill not just the target bacteria, but all your good bacteria in your gut, or lots of it, maybe not all of it, and any other bacteria that may not be making you sick. That’s what they do, and let’s be clear about that. They’re not targeted, narrow spectrum drugs that target a specific bacterium; they attack and kill a broad range of bacteria, some of them which are very good for you. Not all bacteria are bad.

I know the member for Hobart went through this, but I intend to go through it again, and I think we should place on the record the precise circumstances of the approval that was granted. In November 2025, the Australian Pesticides and Veteran Medicine Authority, the APVMA, granted an emergency permit for the use of florfenicol in salmon in Tasmania. As the member Hobart said, this was the first time florfenicol had been authorised for aquaculture in Australia. Now, I remember I was at that briefing – it was quite the debacle, I must say, but in any event, it was pretty clear that the industry and the government, as they should be, were very concerned that we were seeing incidents of the bacteria Piscirickettsia salmonis, which I will just say as P. salmonis now, so we don’t have to trip over it every time we say it, was actually occurring in an endemic situation in our waterways, but there was genuine concern about another mass mortality.

This was before the summer really started, when rising temperatures in our water, which happens over summer because it’s summer, increase the risk substantially. There was suggestion that it was going to be an early summer, water temperatures would rise more quickly and so there was this desperate rush – and I call it a desperate rush – to approve, as the member for Hobart said, a novel antibiotic that hadn’t been used in Tasmania for the aquaculture industry ever – in Australia, not just in Tasmania.

The permit was granted. Well, we didn’t know whether there was an outbreak or not. That was unclear at the briefing. It was just shemozzle as to what was actually going on.

It became apparent if there wasn’t an outbreak, there was definitely concern that there was a Piscirickettsia salmonis outbreak or likely outbreak any day soon. But there was also concern that it perhaps had already killed up to 150 metric tonnes of salmon earlier in 2025.

Clearly it was already a problem. We were looking down the barrel in early summer, the temperatures rising in summer and the perfect situation or perfect storm for another mass, casualty event.

Of course we don’t want to see that. From an animal welfare point of view, we don’t want to see that. From a public awareness and seeing dead fish wash up on your beach perspective, we don’t want to see that. The industry also doesn’t actually want to see that because that’s their profit disappearing.

So, the permit was granted. But members should understand what the permit actually authorised. It was not simply a licence to address an immediate crisis. If indeed there was an immediate crisis, that was never actually clear. It enabled the potential deployment of between 5600 and 11,200 kilograms of florfenicol through to August 2026.

To go to the member for Hobart’s point, we don’t know how much of that, up to 11,200 kilograms of the florfenicol has been tipped into our waters, and that’s the problem. It is one of the problems.

In other words, the 815 kilograms revealed at Estimates up until and also the information since received up until January was not the ceiling. It wasn’t the total amount that could be put in. It was actually just the beginning.

There is a further dimension to this that warrants the serious attention of all members. Documents obtained through right to information and to name those up if you want to go looking for them, RTI013-2025 26 and RTI 007 2025 26, available on the NRE Tasmania disclosure log reveal that Tasmanian salmon industry representatives had been advised as early as February 2025 that’s over a year ago and months before the formal emergency application that florfenicol could potentially be used under veterinary prescription without full APVMA approval. As the member for Hobart said, off licence, when it can be used for pigs under a veterinary prescription and prepared by vet.

A government official confirmed in writing to Salmon Tasmania that their understanding was correct that florfenicol could be used off label under a veterinary prescription. No environmental assessment was required. No public consultation was required. No federal oversight. The emergency framing that followed months later deserved scrutiny in that context. There was all this work going on behind the scenes to lead to a different outcome. They wanted to have it permanently listed effectively.

That moves me on then to the industry’s long-term ambition in this space, which was confirmed in Senate Committee hearings recently. I want to draw attention to the evidence given at the federal Senate level because it goes to the heart of what this permit was really all about. Just six weeks ago the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on 10 February 2026, and just weeks before the so-called emergency permit was suspended by the APVMA, the APVMA chief executive Scott Hansen gave evidence that I believe is relevant. This is on Hansard on page 125; the following exchange took place.

Mr Hansen was asked whether florfenicol was designed to replace oxytetracycline as the product the salmon industry would use. For members’ benefit, oxytetracycline is a different family of antibiotics – still broad and still with its own challenges. It would become apparent, particularly at the briefing we had with the minister when we first started raising awareness of it, that it was no longer effective for Piscirickettsia salmonis. That’s why they were seeking another option.

Mr Hansen, in his evidence to the Senate committee, confirmed:

Yes.

He went on further, and in his words in the Hansard:

My understanding is that florfenicol is what the salmon industry is wanting. In the first instance, an application for an emergency permit was put in to try to deal with the immediate issue, but we’ve been told that their long-term ambition is registration of the product and they are collecting data as part of these permits to be able to support that application. [tbc]

To be clear about what he was saying there, he was saying that the emergency permit, the one used to justify the mass deployment of a never before used antibiotic in our waters, was, by the APVMAs own CEO’s account, partly a data collection exercise in pursuit of permanent registration. The permit was a bit of a Trojan horse, you might say, to suggest that this emergency was the doorway to permanent registration, because full registration was always the desired destination.

Mr Hansen also confirmed that the formal applicant for the permit was not the salmon industry companies themselves, but Abbey Laboratories Pty Ltd, as the member for Hobart alluded to. A structural remove between the industry and the regulatory record that is worth noting. Mr Hansen adds something else. He flagged that full registration would require significantly more information, including about antimicrobial resistance. He made the following observations about why permits, rather than registration, are an appropriate mechanism, ‘Once a product is registered, the process for removing that registration is quite cumbersome’. This was the aim of the industry, according to the evidence I was able to look through in various transcripts. If you can get it registered, then it’s much, much harder for that registration to be removed unless you don’t have access to the antibiotic, to florfenicol. In other words, the APVMAs own CEO was signalling at Senate Estimates on the record that permanent registration of florfenicol would make it substantially harder for regulators to act quickly if problems emerged. The APVMA did act quickly when they decided to act. As we’ve seen, problems did emerge and the regulator did need to act quickly. And they did.

If we’re in a full registration situation, they wouldn’t have been able to act that quickly. It’s really important to understand this and what the end game really is here. In the same hearing, Mr Hansen also confirmed something directly relevant to the transparency failures that this motion identifies. He was asked whether the APVMA had any active monitoring role. He was explicit in this, he said:

The APVMA has not been doing the testing. All monitoring sits with the Tasmanian EPA under the permit conditions. The federal body that issued the permit has, in effect, stood back and observed. [tbc]

Thank goodness for the EPA doing their work. And they did. It’s my understanding – when we were at the briefing, the EPA were asked a range of questions about this, was that they would monitor the surrounding waters within five kilometres to see if there was any rogue if you like – antibiotics in the waters within five kilometres of the pens. They obviously went further and they went to 10 kilometres, which is good and important. It’s particularly important when you realise, they found residues of florfenicol there. That was enough for the APVMA to act based on the work our own environmental regulator, the Environment Protection Authority, provided.

To return to the amount of florfenicol use in Tasmanian waters, these are not insignificant numbers: 815 kilograms of an antibiotic in three weeks in shared waters, waters that are used by recreational swimmers, recreational fishers and commercial fishers whose livelihoods depend on the health of the marine environment. The reality, that should concern every Tasmanian, is that we only know this because of parliamentary scrutiny. It hasn’t been volunteered –

Ms O’Connor – Exactly.

Ms FORREST – and it was not published. People didn’t even have the option of making the choice of whether they went into and used those waters. It was extracted through committee processes, the very accountability mechanism that this Council exists to exercise.

Ms O’Connor – And right to information.

Ms FORREST – Yes there was right to information too. Much of it was redacted. I’m sure the member for Hobart would have seen that.

Ms O’Connor – Yes.

Ms Forrest – That alone should give us pause about what else we need to know particularly under the redactions. What else do we need to know about this?

There was no proactive release of this information. We do not know how many mortalities have occurred in any of the farms where these occur below the mass mortality reporting thresholds. I’d like to know – just out of interest – how many dead fish have been removed in the last 12 months from Macquarie Harbour where it hasn’t been used?

Ms O’Connor – How do we know?

Ms FORREST – We don’t. Unless it reaches a mass mortality level we don’t know. But I understand from my local intelligence, that there is a lot; it’s just not in one go above the reporting level. Because this occurs outside the ready view of Tasmanians – this is the industry itself – it should be proactively reported, deaths and mortalities, as well as antibiotic use.

I know that when I’ve spoken about the mining sector in this place before, you might think what’s the relevance? There is relevance because we know how dangerous a construction site is. Construction sites are the most dangerous places for workers to work. Mines aren’t. They’re one of the safest places, but when a death occurs on a mine site, it’s on the front page of the papers for months. That’s not because those people are more important than a worker that dies on a construction site, or are seriously harmed on a construction site.

My theory for this – and it’s only a theory – is that because it’s underground out of the way in the dark and no one else can see it except those people who are there, it’s easier to hide it. People can’t see it, so they imagine it must be far worse. But in this case, you can’t see it and it actually is much worse because we’re just not seeing the information that would enable us to make informed decisions and choices.

The consequences around the use of florfenicol are not just theoretical. Public health advice had already been issued to swimmers and recreational fishers around the ongoing use of florfenicol in the south west waters. I remember the briefing, there was a reluctance to say whether it was safe or not for humans to consume and how much they could consume of a native fish that had been caught in the vicinity, for children or older people, or people with poor liver function or whatever. The reality is, we just don’t really know.

The rock lobster fishery, a fishery of enormous economic and cultural significance, was temporarily closed as a direct result. That’s a pretty serious outcome and these are not minor inconveniences. For rock lobster fishers, a closure is a loss of income, lost seasons compounding uncertainty about the future of their operations in waters they have fished for generations. That’s for the recreational fishers alone, not talking about the commercial rock lobster fishers. Also, for recreational users, it’s a loss of confidence in the safety of the waters they rightly regard as the public good.

I think we all appreciate the high value of the rock lobster exports into the Asian market, particularly from here, a market that has zero tolerance for antibiotic residues. This is not an abstract environmental concern. They just say zero, that’s it. Any sign of it, that’s it. You could lose your market. We can’t afford to lose this market. We need to look after the fishery, absolutely. It’s a really critically important market for this state.

It is a direct and immediate trade risk for a commercially significant Tasmanian industry. We should be informed about what’s going on. That sector should be informed about what’s going on.

The scale of environmental spread, when eventually tested, proved far wider than the initial assurances suggested. Testing by the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies found florfenicol present in Standaway Bay, 10.6 kilometres from the nearest treated salmon pen. Of 840 samples taken from wild fisheries, including rock lobster, abalone, sea urchins, mussel and periwinkles, 165 tested positive. A further 209 were still waiting analysis since results were made public.

The antibiotic was detected in multiple species, at differences that no one predicted, and that the original 3 kilometre public health advisory plainly did not anticipate. We should be very concerned about this.

We did see the federal government intervene on this. The members should be clear about what the intervention confirmed. On 20 February 2026, the APVMA notified the permit holder, it proposed to suspend the permit based on new information about florfenicol detections in non-target species. The permit holder was given until 2 March 2026 to provide evidence that would address the regulator’s concerns. As I understand it, that evidence was not forthcoming to the APVMA’s satisfaction, and thus the suspension of the permit took effect on the 4 March 2026. This was on the grounds of, and I quote from the APVMA directly,

Unacceptable risk of residue exposure to non-target species.

Florfenicol can no longer be used under the provisions of that permit at this current time.

To clarify the question I had when this motion came before us: is the Okehampton Bay application by Tassal to use florfenicol in the rich recreational fishing borders of the Mercury Passage currently moot? Is that the case? The permit under which it would have proceeded has been suspended, so one assumes it is. Yet the application itself tells us something important, even as consequences in south east where waters are mounting. The industry was moving to expand florfenicol use to an entirely new region.

The Mercury Passage was genuinely at risk. It was only the federal government’s intervention, not just action by our own state government, that has stayed this outcome for now. I note too, that the days before the suspension took effect, as I understand from information I’ve seen, Tassal commenced florfenicol treatment in five of its leases on a single day. This was described as unprecedented. The rush to administer the antibiotics – how much has been put in we do not know – before the ban took effect is not the conduct of an industry confident in the science supporting its use.

The suspension vindicates the concerns this motion raises. The APVMA’s own senate estimates evidence, given just weeks before the suspension, showed the regulator was already flagging the need for substantially more data on antimicrobial resistance before any permanent approval could be considered. The suspension confirmed those concerns were well founded.

I know the member for Hobart spoke about the implications of antibiotic resistance. I remember 20 years ago, working as a nurse, the genuine concerns that our intensivists in intensive care units and in those areas where you get critically ill patients, where being in hospital is the worst place you can be for picking up infections. There was a real concern about antibiotic resistance, and that continues. We’re forever chasing more powerful antibiotics which keep getting more toxic, with more side effects. This has happened over many years, through the misuse of antibiotics in human health. Not as common anymore, but patients used to go to the GP expecting to leave with something they need, and if not given a script for antibiotics when they have a cold, they think they’re not being treated properly. Thankfully our GPs are much more robust in saying ‘It’s not something we can treat with antibiotics’. However, there was a period in time when almost anyone who turned up with any sort of upper respiratory issue, that may be an infection, antibiotics were dispensed. That has progressed the antimicrobial resistance.

We should focus on the science. The motion correctly notes that there is limited available science to support intensive, widespread use of florfenicol, and limited understanding of its residual properties and impacts on marine ecology. This is not a fringe issue. It’s not a Greens issue, with all due respect to our Greens member. It’s a matter that affects all of us. It reflects the state of the evidence: the APVMA suspension of the permit on the grounds of unacceptable risks to non-target species; their regulatory finding that confirms exactly this. It’s about our whole marine environment, not just the aquaculture industry, but it’s the aquaculture industry which is adding to this challenge with the use of antibiotics.

What we do know about antimicrobial resistance is serious and well established, as I mentioned. Antibiotic resistance is one of the most significant global public health threats of our time, and I can’t say that strongly enough; because if we lose the capacity to treat patients effectively with effective antibiotics, people will die who wouldn’t have otherwise. Children will die from infections because we can’t find an antibiotic that actually responds to that bacteria they’ve got. That’s how it used to be, back in the day, when people had big families because they expected to lose children. Our life expectancy was much less because we often died of infections that we now think are just something we can deal with.

The World Health Organisation, the Australian Government and the scientific community are in consensus: the misuse and overuse of antibiotics in humans and animals is the primary driver of antimicrobial resistance. The development of resistance to last resort antibiotics is not a distant risk. Last resort antibiotics are the really high-powered ones that have very significant side effects. You have to be in an intensive care unit often and have them IV, being fully monitored, because they’re not very pleasant. It’s now occurring and the consequences for human health will be profound and irreversible.

The long term use of antibiotics as a routine management tool in industrial fish farms is not consistent with the science on antimicrobial resistance, or the principles of sustainable marine husbandry. A genuinely sustainable salmon industry or aquaculture industry does not rely on mass antibiotic use to compensate for stocking densities or farm conditions that make disease outbreaks likely in the first place.

When you think back to the days of the plague, they didn’t know what was spreading the plague to start with. They weren’t aware of the need to isolate, separate themselves from people with it, and they’d just throw their dead bodies out in the street, so the person would come along and collect them on the cart: ‘Bring out your dead.’ We know that crowded conditions with infectious diseases makes them more likely to thrive. It’s pretty simple.

The way we’re operating here is not sustainability, it’s a dependence on growth that grows more dangerous over time. I go back to my point in the beginning: I believe this can be a sustainable industry if only we act in a different way. I want to be clear about the alternatives I’m advocating for, because I support the motion. I do not think the choice is simply between the industry as it is and no industry at all, though some people prefer no industry at all. I accept that, but that’s not my view.

A sustainable salmon industry in Tasmania is achievable, in my view. It requires stocking densities that reflect the carrying capacity of the receiving environment, and that will differ from place to place and differ from time to time: time of the year, the trajectory of climate change, all of those things; but it does require serious investment in site selection and breeding programs that produce fish that have greater disease resistance and reduce the need for antibiotic intervention.

The question of vaccination: yes, the little fish, little fries are vaccinated when they’re little before they go out into the big water. I understand it from the briefing we had when this matter first really started to emerge, that vaccination only lasts about six months and the fish are in the water for up to two years in the big water. So that’s work that needs to be done. Vaccination is a far better mechanism, as a preventative mechanism for all manner of disease, than just treating with more and more and more antibiotics of greater and greater strength or broader spectrum.

Sustainable industry requires farm placement decisions that do not compromise shared use fisheries and recreational waterways, and it requires a regulatory framework with genuine teeth, and one that sets enforceable standards, rather than simply reporting outcomes after the fact. We have seen some good work by the EPA because they monitored beyond the target area and I congratulate them for that, but we need to see much more proactive release of information so that it would help all of us, but also the EPA, one would imagine.

What I’m suggesting here are not radical propositions. They are, in my view, baseline conditions for an industry that can co exist with Tasmania’s other marine industries, its public health obligations and its environmental values over the long term. The current trajectory of growing volumes of antibiotic use, limited science around the impacts, opaque reporting, and impacts on public health and shared fisheries is not that. That’s not where we are.

So this motion is a call for a publicly accessible portal providing real time information on where, when and in what quantities antibiotics are being used on fish in Tasmanian fish farms. In my view, that’s the minimum that Tasmanians who share these waterways are entitled to expect. The fact that 815 kilograms of florfenicol could be deployed in three weeks without the public knowing is not a regulatory oversight; it’s a structural failure of transparency.

I note that even when this permit was suspended, the situation did not meaningfully improve. Attempts to obtain updated figures on total florfenicol use through parliamentary questions, departmental briefings and RTI requests throughout the permit period often came up against barriers of commercial in confidence and other matters. This is not something that should come down to commercial interests when the health and safety of our environment, our people, and our other industries are at risk.

The government’s answer, ultimately, was that the EPA does not hold current aggregate usage figures. Why not? The data would only be made available through final monitoring reports published progressively on the EPA website. Well, it’s a bit late then, and that’s not good enough. Recreational fishers, swimmers, commercial fishers and coastal communities deserve to be able to make informed decisions in real time, to enable them to make their own decisions about their own personal activities in those waterways, not to find out months later through parliamentary hearings or some other mechanism – or not at all, perhaps – because the industry claims commercial confidentiality over the information with direct public health implications. That’s not good enough.

I do support this element of the motion. The technology exists for a portal that can have time of use reporting and I call on the government to act. The technology to deliver such information exists and the public interest case for this is overwhelming. What is lacking, it seems, is the political will to require it of the industry that frankly has operated too long without adequate accountability.

In concluding and supporting this motion, I do not do it as an attack on the salmon industry, but as a statement of what responsible, evidence based regulation looks like, as well as a responsible, evidence based industry looks like, and how far short of the standard we are currently falling. This industry is a significant employer in regional Tasmania and can, and in my view should, operate in a transparent, sustainable and environmentally safe way.

Tasmania’s marine environment is a public asset. Its health is a precondition for tourism, recreation, commercial fishing and the long term viability of aquaculture itself; otherwise they will shoot themselves in the foot. We cannot afford to manage it on a basis of incomplete information, inadequate science and a transparency framework that does not enable the timely extraction of basic and important facts. So, I call on the government, along with the member for Hobart’s call, to respond to the evidence before us with urgency, to require greater transparency, to impose precautionary limits on antibiotic use pending proper scientific review, and to work with the industry towards a genuinely sustainable model that does not depend on mass antibiotic deployment to function. If that’s how we operated our health system, we would be going backwards.

In my view, the salmon industry can be done well. Whether it is being done well right now is a question the evidence does not allow us to answer with any confidence. In fact, I think the evidence is to the contrary. The federal regulator has now confirmed that what this motion argues –

Ms FORREST (Murchison) – Thank you, Mr President. I had almost completed my contribution. I just wanted to finish off what I was saying about some of the challenges as I see it.

The federal regulator has now confirmed what this motion argues. The risk is real science was insufficient and the consequences for marine environment were not contained. The APVMA’s CEO told the senate committee that the emergency permit was being used to build a case for permanent registration and the permanent registration will make it harder, not easier, for regulators to act if things go wrong.

The evidence from the federal regulator should be at a starting point for a serious conversation about where the industry goes from here.

Our natural assets and natural environment should be transparently managed through an evidence-based approach. Community trust and trust in government and the industry rely on such an approach.

A lack of public trust means industry in whatever sector will not have a social licence.

This can be done, and it must be done, and it must be done better. I support the motion and expect the government to act.

Ms RATTRAY (McIntyre – Leader for the Government in the Legislative Council) Thank you, Mr President. The use of antibiotics in any industry should not be treated lightly.

Florfenicol is a veterinary medicine and its approval for emergency use was and is a matter for the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the APVMA. I’ll use that again rather than that long one, which is the independent national regulator. In Tasmania, the EPA’s role is different and equally important.

The EPA’s task is to ensure monitoring for antibiotic residues in the environment and to ensure the use of antibiotics in finfish farming does not cause environmental harm.

Public health advice sits with the Department of Health and the Director of Public Health. Those separate functions matter because good regulation depends on clear lines of responsibility and independent decision-making.

The first point in the motion is in relation to quantity of florfenicol. The EPA has made it clear it does not currently hold a single aggregate figure for actual use.

What it initially receives are proposed maximum quantities for planned treatment and monitoring purposes, not verified actual use. Verified quantities are confirmed later through the final Therapeutant Residue Monitoring Report, and those reports are progressively published on the EPA website. In other words, the motion invites the Council to treat an early number elicited through conversational questioning at Estimates, as if it were the definitive regulatory truth, which it is not. A raw kilogram figure stripped of contents, tells very little about environmental effect.

What matters is the dosage regime, the veterinary basis for treatment, the manner for administration and the environmental half-life, the uptake by fish, the residue profile in the water, sediments in wild fish, and whether any of that indicates a risk to the environment or to human health. That is how regulators assess these questions.

The second point in the motion appears to suggest that parliamentary scrutiny is the only reason the public is aware of antibiotic treatments. Again, this is not reflective of the actual situation.

Since November 2025, the EPA has provided public notification of antibiotic treatment events, published detailed monitoring schedules, and progressively released final reports once monitoring is complete and checked. Government platforms have carried treatment information, public health advice and maps, and more than 43,000 recreational fishers were directly contacted with relevant information. That is a high degree of public disclosure, coupled with the discipline of publishing verified information rather than speculation.

Indeed, the public facing fishing advice currently states that effective from 4 March 2026, the APVMA suspended the permit for florfenicol, that recreational fishing is not closed due to florfenicol, and that guidance exists for fishers who would prefer to avoid traces of antibiotics in their catch. That advice also points people to maps showing recently treated marine farms and the recommended 3 kilometre buffer zone. This is transparency in practical form.

The third point of the motion seeks to draw a straight line between the florfenicol use, public health warnings and the temporary closure of part of the rock lobster fishery. That conflation is misleading. The Director of Public Health’s advice has consistently been that there is no evidence of harm to human health for consuming traces of florfenicol. There are no public health restrictions on recreational fishing within 3 kilometres of a treated lease.

The public health advice is precautionary only. It allows people who wish to avoid possible trace exposure to choose not to eat wild fish caught within 3 kilometres of a treated lease during treatment and for 21 days afterwards. That is choice based precautionary guidance and is not a declaration of demonstrated public health danger. The temporary closure, in part, of the commercial rock lobster fishery was described by government as a precautionary market access measure, not a public health finding. Precaution is not proof of harm and market protection is not the same thing as human health risk.

The fourth point refers to Okehampton Bay and Mercury Passage, plainly, to extend concern from one regulatory context into another –

Ms O’Connor – Well, hang on. Two permits were applied for, one was Okehampton Bay.

Ms RATTRAY – I didn’t interfere or interject, so I’ll finish. But again, the APVMA is the decision maker on permit applications. The Tasmanian government is not the national statutory authority for that purpose.

On the fifth point, the government accepts that the use of florfenicol is a matter of public interest. The EPA has implemented what it describes as one of the most comprehensive antibiotic residue monitoring programs undertaken in Australian aquaculture, with monitoring schedules developed through scientific literature review, consultation with public health, baseline sampling before treatment, and a before after control impact design to distinguish treatment effects from background variation.

That leads directly to the sixth point of the motion, which claims there is little available science to support the use of florfenicol and little understanding of its residual properties and environmental impact. The EPA and the Department of Health have provided briefings outlining that the monitoring and research effort is internationally significant, based on actual infield monitoring rather than modelled outputs. With 3188 analytical results across four leases at that point in time, EPA officers described it as the biggest study undertaken on this question. The detail bears that out. As at early March, 1302 water analytical results had been reviewed. Only 12.5 per cent of results obtained outside treated leases were above the laboratory reporting limit and to clarify this reporting limit is the level at which the laboratory has confidence in the accuracy and precision of the result. It was a very low level, and no analytical result above the reporting limited, occurred beyond seven days after treatment. Concentrations decreased with distance from lease boundaries and with depth in the water column.

Sediment data showed 1274 results, with only 15 above the reporting limit, or 1.2 per cent of all results, only three detections were outside lease boundaries. In wild fish, less than 2 per cent of samples analysed to date, were above the reporting limit. The results above that limit were within one kilometre of treated leases.

The final monitoring report for Meads Creek and Stringers Cove reinforces that picture. It records all sediment samples, both baseline and post-treatment, were below reporting limits. Water detection above the reporting limit were confined to mid-treatment and day one post-treatment, with no detections above the reporting limit by day 7 post-treatment. Out of 100 pulled wild fish samples, only two were above reporting limits, both on day one post-treatment, with all later post-treatment samples below the reporting limit.

There is substantial and a growing body of Tasmanian scientific evidence. Peer review is underway, species sensitivity distribution curves are being developed, consistent with national frameworks, and the EPA’s environmental risk assessment is being finalised.

The seventh point concerns antimicrobial resistance. This is a serious issue globally. The government material before us acknowledges the complexity of antimicrobial resistance, noting that florfenicol is not used to treat human infections in Australia, and records that public health authorities do not currently regard the observed environmental findings as evidence of immediate harm to human health. At the same time, further research with IMAS and EPA is being undertaken on antimicrobial resistance questions. That is an appropriate approach, Mr President.

The eighth point in the motion asserts long term use of antibiotics by industrial salmon farms is not supported by science or sustainable for marine ecologies. Again, that is framed as an absolute proposition when the evidence and the regulatory context are much more nuanced. No one sensibly argues that antibiotics should become a substitute for good husbandry, vaccination, biosecurity or improved farming practise. Equally, no one can seriously maintain that in livestock systems where, terrestrial or aquatic, there will never be circumstances in which veterinary treatment is necessary to prevent suffering.

The material before us states that antibiotics are used as a last resort for bacterial disease control and fish welfare. Work continues on vaccines, breeding and other measures. This is not an argument for routine dependence. It is an argument for keeping lawful therapeutic options available, under strict control where clinically justified.

Finally, the ninth point calls for a real time public portal showing where, when, and in what quantities, antibiotics are used. Much of the location and timing information already exists, through treatment notices, maps, EPA schedules, public advice and direct communications to fishers. The more contentious part is a demand for real time quantities, but the EPA has already explained why that is not a simple or necessarily responsible proposition. The initial figures proposed are maximum amounts for treatment planning and monitoring purposes, not verified actual use. Actual verified quantities only emerge through final reporting. Publishing unverified figures as if they were final would not improve public confidence.

This motion asks the Chamber to make a series of sweeping findings in circumstances where the independent regulators have done what they are meant to do: monitor, investigate, publish, review, refine, and advise. The EPA has exercised independent statutory functions; the Department of Health has provided precautionary public advice without overstating risk; and the APVMA has acted in its own jurisdiction, including suspending the permit from 4 March 2026. That is not a picture of neglect. It is a picture of an adaptive regulatory system responding to the new information as it emerges.

I have a couple of clarification points that I’d like to make, as well. To clarify statements made by honourable members regarding stocking rates or stocking density, I’m advised that the NRE and EPA Reflections and Learnings 2025 Mortality Event Report, which was released in October 2025, states:

To increase the understanding of the relationship between stocking densities and the management of the P. salmonis disease outbreaks, NRE Tas examined the available practice research.

The review of literature indicates while stocking density has long been considered a risk factor for infectious disease outbreaks in aquaculture, no single density threshold reliably prevents P. salmonis.

Furthermore, I’m advised that it has been standard practice in Tasmania to farm well below the prescribed stocking density limits. Reporting from one company during the 2025 mortality event indicates that pens in the vicinity of the primary event location were carrying stocking densities below 9.3kg/m3. That’s one piece of clarification.

In regard to the statements concerning government inaction on development of vaccines, I would like to provide this to honourable members. Everyone, including government, industry, and the community, wants to ensure last summer’s devastating salmon mortality event is not repeated. That is why the Tasmanian salmonid industry, with support from government and the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, have invested heavily in research to develop a vaccine against this disease.

The Centre for Aquatic Animal Health and Vaccines (CAAHV) is undertaking research and development of vaccines with a view to mitigating the risk associated with this bacterium. This program of work includes research on both current and new P. salmonis vaccines. I’m also advised that scientists are assessing the longevity of protection against P. salmonis in fish vaccinated with Tegovac Plus EC. This is the vaccine that has been broadly deployed across salmon farms in Tasmania.

This longevity trial, in addition to on farm observations, is key to understanding how the vaccine performs over a production relevant time scale. The trial will also incorporate a pilot study to assess an oral booster vaccine for P. salmonis. In parallel, scientists have also commenced an initial study in the development of a second generation P. salmonis vaccine. These activities are critical and ongoing. For those reasons, the government cannot support a motion that understates the work of the regulators and risks undermining public confidence in institutions that are acting with independence and scientific discipline.

[4.50 p.m.]
Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to rise to make a brief contribution to this debate. I thank the honourable member for Hobart for raising what I believe is an important matter and, as the member for Murchison pointed out, not a Greens matter but a whole of community matter that’s of considerable interest to many Tasmanians.

The member for Hobart has provided a comprehensive, strong and detailed analysis of concern surrounding the recent use of the antibiotic florfenicol by the salmon industry in Tasmania. I also appreciated the detail that the member for Murchison went to in her contribution here today as well, covering many of these matters quite comprehensively. I don’t intend to do that in my contribution, but there are some things that I wanted to touch on that I think it’s worth noting in relation to this matter.

Clearly, there’s an engaged and ongoing public interest in the ramifications of usage of antibiotics such as florfenicol in industrial fish farms and in our marine and fresh waterways. It affects not only our natural environment but it also potentially affects people. Importantly, it also affects the levels of trust the community has in public authorities. I find it quite astonishing to suggest that calls for greater transparency are somehow a way of undermining public trust, when in fact they are quite the opposite. They are seeking to build and solidify public trust in our public authorities. It’s the lack of transparency that’s the problem here, and that’s one of the things this motion points to as needing to be addressed.

Trust is eroded not just by concerns over the degree to which this antibiotic may or may not be detected in our waters, but also the lack of transparency around government information sharing and decision making. For example, I’m sure we all here recall the degree of public frustration voiced at the end of last year when people were trying to ascertain where swimmers and recreational fishers should or should not safely access certain coasts and waters, following mass salmon mortality incidences and also following the use of antibiotics.

We saw the temporary closure of unrelated fisheries such as the rock lobster industry, as the motion before us notes in part 3, which is incredibly concerning that we’re having to basically pit industries off against each other, in a way. We’re having to take actions, apparently to serve the interests of one industry, which is distinctly at odds with the interests of another important industry for this state. I know the member for Hobart and member for Murchison spoke about that in some detail, and I endorse the comments that they made.

Further, it’s a concerning matter of fact, well established on the public record now, that as detailed in clause 2 of the motion before us, a large amount, 815 kilograms of florfenicol was used over three weeks in fish farms last year, only to come to light due to parliamentary questioning and examinations. Public disquiet over the impact of industrial scale use of antibiotics in the fish farms, as well as the broader impact of those fish farms, is growing. Public disquiet is growing. We need to take action to help address that.

This is evident in the CSIRO report released last week which presented data collated in April 2025 examining 900 Tasmanian residents’ connection to and concern for the local marine environment. The report, undertaken by behavioural scientists Dr Corinne Condie and marine scientist Dr Scott Condie [both checked], found that:

Salmon aquaculture stands out as the only local industry posing both a significant threat and a major concern among respondents.

Further, the study found that the salmon industry experienced:

a significant and sustained shift from the strong community support experienced from 1986 to 2015, when the industry held an enviable social licence to operate.

According to the report, more than 90 per cent of respondents said Tasmania’s waterways were central to their way of life and 70 per cent were ‘worried or angry’ about its health. There are two significant matters distinct from its content when considering this CSIRO report: one is that the survey occurred in April last year, prior the most recent and egregious salmon mortality incidents. Yet even then, 90 per cent of the respondents were worried or angry about the health of our waterways; the other is the composition of those 900 residents that were surveyed. These were not necessarily those who have been campaigning for years against the impact of salmon farms, although I contend their input would be as valuable as anybody else’s. But instead, those surveyed by the CSIRO researchers consisted of aquaculture workers, marine scientists, government employees, commercial fishers, marine tourism operators, environmental and Aboriginal advocacy groups, and recreational water users. A pretty broad section of our community.

Hence, it’s a straightforward proposition to concur with paragraph five of the motion that the use of florfenicol and other increasingly strong antibiotics is a matter of significant public interest and concern. Saying that is absolutely uncontroversial. There’s literally no reason the government couldn’t, for example, agree with that part of this motion. It’s absolutely uncontroversial to say it’s a matter of public interest and concern, of course it is. The point does not go on to say ‘and therefore it should all be stopped’. It doesn’t say that. It just notes the public interest and concern.

A significant and growing area of community concern is the potential long term impacts of intensive and widespread use of antibiotics such as florfenicol in our marine environment, especially the potential for antibiotic resistance and any resulting antimicrobial resistance across the impacted ecosystems. These concerns are very real and are not going to go away with a few reassuring pats on the head. This is one of the main areas of concern which are regularly raised with me when it comes to finfish farming.

Recently, I’ve had my attention drawn to a research article published in the March edition of the Journal of Fish Diseases. The article in question is called ‘Sub Inhibitory Concentrations of Florfenicol Modulate the Expression of Biofilm Formation and Antibiotic Resistance Associated Genes in Biofilm Embedded Piscirickettsia salmonis’. That’s a big long title there. This research has considerable bearing for the Tasmanian situation in light of the departmental statements that the response to the recent outbreaks of P. salmonis was not to try to eradicate the disease, but to instead provide sufficient antibiotics to help the immune system of the affected fish cope with the disease. In other words, to provide a sub inhibitory or sub lethal dose.

This very recent and published research appears to be raising the prospect that sub inhibitory doses of florfenicol have been found to enhance biofilms and antibiotic resistance. I am not a marine scientist, right here, I’m stating that very plainly. However, I’ve had this research distilled for me by someone who is and basically it has found the bacterium forms biofilms on surfaces where it can persist for a long time, basically hiding on those surfaces and mutating.

Further, sub lethal doses of antibiotics kill off the weak bacterial cells and leave the resistant bacterial cells as the breeders for the next generation. It’s been explained to me that this then can result in these biofilm colonies of antibiotic-resistant bacteria forming, ready to seed another infestation as soon as more fish are added.

In such a sub-inhibitory or sub-lethal dose scenario, the disease, in fact, never eradicates, it just keeps getting worse, according to this particular research. A deeply concerning prospect, which would be consistent with the points that are made in this motion’s paragraphs 6, 7 and 8.

I’m not peer reviewing that research; I don’t have the expertise to do so, but what it points to is that that this is a matter of discussion, it’s a matter of research, it’s a matter of debate and it’s one that is entirely uncontroversial to say it’s of public interest and continues to need to be discussed.

I would also say – just to pick up on that contribution from the government – point 8 of this motion which says:

Agrees the long term use of antibiotics by industrial salmon farms is not supported by science or sustainable for marine ecologies

Is again entirely unremarkable.

Ms O’Connor – Statement of fact.

Ms WEBB – The government has deliberately misconstrued that in responding to it in their contribution and are pretending that point 8 says, ‘We should never use antibiotics in the marine environment,’ which is of course not at all what point 8 says. There is nothing controversial or contestable about saying the long term use of antibiotics that are going on and on and on in the marine environment by industrial salmon farms is not supported by science or sustainable from marine ecologies. No one would say that it is. It’s only when you misconstrue the point with a strawman argument that you get to oppose it.

Which brings me to the last paragraph calling for the establishment of a publicly accessible portal, detailing in real-time where, when and in what quantities antibiotics are being used in Tasmanian fish farms so the public, recreational and other commercial fishers can make safe, informed decisions. This comes back to public interest and trust. This, of course, is a responsible and sensible course of action to suggest. It is in the public interest, and it is about building trust. It’s about empowering communities to feel that they can make informed decisions. Real-time reporting is an investment in public trust and confidence, as well as fostering a sense of real-time responsibility when assessing the need to take any form of remedial action. I realise that the definition of real-time is something we’ve visited in this chamber on a range of issues and can be interpreted differently. In this context, I would consider it appropriate, feasible, and manageable for the antibiotic-use data to be published via the proposed portal at the same time it’s received by the relevant authorities such as the EPA.

The government seems to suggest that sometimes the thing reported initially is not what ends up actually being put into the water. Well, that can certainly be demonstrated and provided as information on the portal. You could literally have the portal say, ‘Initial notification, X amount,’ and then have final amount used, ‘X amount’. It’s not very complicated to provide information to people if you’re prepared to be honest and transparent about it. You can explain the data that you’re presenting and people will understand how best to interpret it. Transparency is defensible; secrecy isn’t defensible.

I do not think that in this Chamber we necessarily have a responsibility to work through the practical logistics of exactly how the proposed portal would work or not work. Instead, the purpose of the debate is to make it clear that this Chamber, if it supports this motion, indicates it wants a portal to exist, and wants this real-time data provision to be an output of this new piece of public information infrastructure.

I note that although the member for Hobart tabled this motion in December last year, the need for such a piece of timely public information infrastructure, as the proposed portal, was highlighted again with recent revelations reported in February this year of a different antibiotic in use in the Huon Aquaculture Meadowbank hatchery.

This use of the antibiotic Oxytetracycline (OTC) in the Meadowbank hatchery in January this year, only came to light due to a journalist’s inquiries. Despite the company in question voluntarily disclosing its antibiotic use to the EPA. Good on Huon Aquaculture for making that voluntary disclosure to the EPA. It wasn’t required as a matter of its licence; it did so off its own bat. It was the EPA who then kept it entirely secret. The public was not informed, and who knows if the public would ever have been informed if it hadn’t come to light through those other means.

I said at that time that the revelations that came to light of the failure to inform the public of the serious community concerns over secrecy surrounding the use of florfenicol last year, is it’s shocking failure to learn lessons in this industry necessary to build public trust and maintain confidence. Again, the failure in that case was on the part of the regulator, the EPA, and the government in terms of policy and what would be required of industry. It wasn’t a failure of the industry who voluntarily disclosed it.

Tasmanians have a right to expect rigorous regulation and timely reporting of all antibiotic use and environmental conditions of fish farm hatcheries located near freshwater rivers; particularly those which feed into our public water supplies, as well as in our marine based fish farms. The basic fact of the matter is we will not rebuild public trust and confidence, we will not turn around that extent of upset and anger over the deteriorating health of our waterways, without moving to a mandatory reporting of antibiotic use and across both marine and freshwater fish fisheries along with real-time disclosure of monitoring processes. Whether it’s called a portal or a dashboard or whatever is the current government-speak for such a facility outlined by this motion, this needs to be put in place as soon as possible. It also needs to be funded, resourced and maintained in order to fully deliver on the intent of this motion and the community calls for such a reliable public information tool.

One last comment before I end my contribution. I believe the establishment of the proposed portal can be acted upon immediately as it does not cut across, or impede in any way, the current independent study into Tasmania’s salmon industry. Nor is it reliant on the outcomes of that inquiry to be progressed. There is no good or logical reason for the proposed portal, as outlined in the motion before us, to not be supported or implemented. I support this motion.

[5.05 p.m.]
Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) – Thank you, Mr President. I wasn’t going to speak on this motion, but there’s been so much discussion, and I’ve been a little confused both ways as to whether I’d support it or not. I’ve never actually learnt so much in such a short time, from both listening and reading and plus AI.

Mr Vincent – I haven’t heard the word florfenicol so many times.

Ms ARMITAGE – I’m not going to say the first word. I’m going to P. salmonis, as opposed to trying to get around that word.

I would like to start by saying I actually have no problem either with farmed salmon and I do support the salmon industry.

I understand the issues as to do with florfenicol being a broad-spectrum antibiotic used extensively in veterinary medicine, particularly in aquaculture, swine and poultry.

One of the issues I often say when you’re using a lot of antibiotics is the fact we hear from doctors, and having worked in the medical industry for a while, I have a lot of friends that are doctors that used to say one of the real issues is the more you use antibiotics, obviously the bigger problem you actually have when you come to bacteria. The more that’s out there, the harder it is to treat different bacteria and the more resistant they become. That is an issue that I certainly agree with.

As it was saying the key worldwide problems with florfenicol and resistance, increased florfenicol use has led to the proliferation of bacteria that can resist this antibiotic. That’s an issue we have with lots of antibiotics.

It’s been mentioned earlier when people go to doctors, the more they actually give it out, the harder it is to actually get better, often when you take antibiotics. I suppose the same can be said for painkillers. Many people take far too many painkillers and when they take them, they no longer work. Our bodies become resistant.

Looking at item 9, a couple of issues that I have a bit of a problem with, and I sort of struggle with is No. 6 – Understand there’s little available science to support such intensive widespread use of florfenicol and limited to no understanding of its residual properties and impact on marine ecology.

Not entirely sure I can actually support that because my understanding is that science is changing all the time and obviously it’s being looked at. Seven accept the evidence. Well, do I accept the evidence? These are the problems that I have that if I support, then I have to say that I accept the evidence. Do I? I’m not really sure when I look at it and I’ve been Googling and looking at AI, and at a variety of different issues to do with florfenicol. It’s difficult to say that word, let alone the P. salmonis.

I guess one of the things I note with this is that obviously effective from 4 March, the APVMA suspended the permit for the use of florfenicol and that it can’t be used under the provisions of the permit, currently.

I also noted the regulator notice the antibiotic treatment administration of florfenicol, where it says in the event that fish and marine farms should require florfenicol treatment, companies must advise the Environmental Protection Authority, the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania and Biosecurity Tasmania before the treatment is applied. The EPA is responsible for ensuring monitoring of antibiotic residues in the environment is undertaken and to ensure that the use of antibiotics in finfish farming does not cause the environmental harm.

NRE Tasmania is responsible for administering the biosecurity programme, Tasmanian Salmonoid Industry. It’s also responsible for administering the Tasmanian Primary Produce Safety Act 2011 and the Primary Produce Safety Seafood Regulations 2023, which apply food safety standards and controls to the primary production and processing of seafood.

I was pleased to hear the explanation by the Leader, and I thought it did clear some points up. It certainly made me feel a little more comfortable with what was being undertaken by the EPA and NRE with regards to florfenicol and the compliance audit schedule.

I certainly appreciate the member for Hobart bringing this forward though, because as I said, I’ve learnt more in this last couple of hours that I actually knew about florfenicol and certainly there’s some information out there.

There are some of these items that I do support. Some of the numbers, you know, 1, 2, 3, certainly there’s certain ones there that I support. I note the application’s been made by Tassal to use florfenicol at Okehampton Bay, in what’s considered the rich recreational and fishing waters of the Mercury Passage.

I also noted in November 2025, obviously, there was a residue found in shellfish. There’s a lot of information and certainly a lot of discussion and it’s really great we’ve actually had the discussion here today.

As I said, I was struggling as to whether I would support or wouldn’t support, but having listened to all the contributions and the contribution from the Leader, plus reading the wealth of information that I have found on the internet with regard to it – including AI, which was quite informative – I know that you can’t always believe AI.

Ms O’Connor – You can’t. They make stuff up.

Ms ARMITAGE – They certainly do, but in this case, they actually support you, member for Hobart, so probably you might not say they made it up this time.

Ms O’Connor – Well, they don’t always make stuff up.

Ms ARMITAGE – I would be very careful with using it. It does go along with some of the other information that’s been provided. As I said, I only have a short contribution. I appreciate that this has been brought up by the member for Hobart, because it puts more of a clear eye on it. I’m sure people would now have much more of a look at the situation and transparency. I do have concerns about the use of too much antibiotic in the community, per se, without just florfenicol. On this occasion, I’m not going to say whether I support it or not. I will listen to the member for Hobart closing and I note the motion.

[5.12 p.m.]
Mr HARRISS (Huon) – Thank you, Mr President. I rise to speak on the member for Hobart’s motion relating to florfenicol use in Tasmania. Tasmania’s salmon industry is one of our largest primary industries, supporting around 5,000 jobs, and the vast majority of those around 90 per cent – are in regional communities. It’s therefore important that any discussions regarding its operations is grounded in fact and reflects a strong regulatory framework that already applies.

Florfenicol is not new or an experimental product. It has been used internationally for more than 30 years and is approved in countries such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Norway. It is also approved in Australia for use in beef and pork industries. Its use in aquaculture was authorised under an emergency permit issued by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, following a thorough assessment.

The industry has pointed out that florfenicol use in aquaculture is strictly controlled:

• Veterinary prescription required – only veterinarians can prescribe florfenicol after diagnosing bacterial infection.
• Government approval – compliance with APVMA permit conditions.
• Mandatory withholding periods
• Regular monitoring – residue testing ensures compliance with safety standards.
• Public reporting to both the EPA and Biosecurity Tasmania
• Compliance verification – similar compliance programs already exist for other veterinary medicines used in aquaculture.

The Tasmanian Environment Protection Authority has developed a robust monitoring program specifically for florfenicol use. Monitoring components:

• Sediment testing: 50 per cent of treated pens tested at time intervals specified by the EPA, both florfenicol and all metabolites are tested
• Wild fish testing: Fish sampled from inside leased areas at 500 metres and 1,000 metres from farms and at reference sites; testing occurs during treatment and at multiple points afterwards, including at withholding period endpoints
• Visual monitoring: Underwater surveys during and after treatment to assess any changes to sea floor condition.
• Water column testing: Regular testing of water at various distances from farms – 35 metres, 100 metres, 500 metres – to track dispersion and dilution

What does all this mean? When the industry decided the new antibiotic might be helpful, it couldn’t simply buy it off the shelf and start using it. First, it needed approval from the interlocking EPA, Biosecurity Tasmania and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine Authority.

After considering the merits of the application, the APVMA in November 2025 granted an emergency permit for use of antibiotic florfenicol in the South Eastern Marine Salmonid Biosecurity Zone of Tasmania under strict conditions. On 20 February this year the authority advised that, at its request, the Tasmanian Department of Natural Resources and the Environment provide new information reporting that very low level detections of florfenicol amine in some non target wild fisheries species had been found at various distances from the salmon leases.

After reviewing the data, the APVMA said it had advised the permit holder that it proposed to suspend the permit. The industry was notified that it had 10 days until 2 March to provide evidence that it was not breaching the conditions of the emergency permit. On 5 March, the authority advised that the industry had not provided new data or any evidence of measures which would address its concerns, and therefore the emergency permit had been suspended on the previous day, 4 March. It said the decision had been taken on the basis of unacceptable risk of residue exposure to non target species.

As we know, there are genuine concerns in other parts of the fishing industry and in the community about antibiotic exposure in wild fisheries. Those concerns need to be respected, and they were. The Director of Public Health has also said there is no evidence of harm to human health from consuming traces of florfenicol. It’s appropriate, as I said, that the concerns raised by other sectors of the fishing industry and the broader community are acknowledged. It’s also important to recognise that the regulatory system responded promptly and as intended when the new information came to light. Tasmania’s salmon industry understands the importance of operating to high environmental standards and continues to work within a strong and independently overseen regulatory framework. Ongoing improvement based on evidence and monitoring should remain the goal; therefore, I don’t support the motion.

[5.17 p.m.]
Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – Thank you, Mr President. Did Mr Whittington write your speech, Mr Harriss?

Mr Harriss – No. I –

Ms O’CONNOR – I mean seriously, with the greatest of respect.

Mr PRESIDENT – Order, order. We can’t question other members across the Chamber.

Ms O’CONNOR – Okay. Well, with the greatest of respect, Mr President, what we heard from the member for Huon – and I have no doubt he’s passionate about the jobs in his community – could have been written by John Whittington from Salmon Tasmania. It takes at face value everything that’s been said by the industry and indeed by government on this issue, and moving on from that specific speech, it is not sensible to take this industry and the government at face value on this issue because there’s a long and sorry history of state capture and regulatory failure around salmon farming in Tasmania.

You only have to look at what’s happening in Macquarie Harbour, where a decision has been made by both the federal and the state governments that the fate of the Maugean skate is expendable, a critically endangered species. Then there was all of that sorry history in relation to Macquarie Harbour when there was no data being made available about oxygenation, solids in the water, there’s a massive coverup of the impact on the world heritage area which abuts those salmon leases. Time and time again in this state, highly regrettably, the salmon industry calls the shots. The salmon industry buys $4000 dinner tickets to go and schmooze with the Premier of Tasmania so that they get exactly the regulations that they want, and they are weak regulations at that.

I found the government’s response to this motion to be weak and highly defensive. As a number of honourable members in their contributions have pointed out, there’s not a lot to argue with in terms of the facts that are stated in the notice of motion. There isn’t, for example, any science on the impacts of the long-term use of antibiotics, including florfenicol, on marine life and human health, we just haven’t had the time to do it. If you want to have a look at what’s happening over in Chile, where they have very high florfenicol use, there is clear evidence of aquatic dead zones around those pens, and it makes sense, doesn’t it, because as the honourable member for Murchison pointed out, the nature of antibiotics, particularly broad spectrum ones, is that they’re effectively hostile to life. That’s what they were designed to do, to kill bacteria, to kill life, and yet as we know, some of those bacteria survive and then they go on to be resistant to that particular antibiotic, and they can pass on that resistance in their genes.

Now, an extraordinary contribution from the government: information that was extracted from government about the amount of florfenicol that had been used between November of last year and January of this year, we are now told is not reliable. The number that we had, the most recent number that we had, is of 815 kilograms of florfenicol being dumped into southeast waters in that period. Now we’re told it’s not verified actual usage; it’s simply an early indicator. That begs the question: is it more than 815 kilograms? Is it less than 815 kilograms? How much of the 11,000 kilograms that the APVMA permitted to be used through this permit has gone into Tasmania’s marine environment?

The problem that we have here is that the government, on behalf of the industry, is expecting us to take them on trust when they won’t tell us the number. Apparently, according to the government, the Environment Protection Authority doesn’t know how much florfenicol has been used until they receive their final reports. I don’t know if I’ve misinterpreted the honourable Leader’s response, but we’ve had, to my understanding, one final report published out of 21 so far. Where is this data that the Leader for government kept referring to? It’s nowhere on the public record that I can readily identify.

We were told about the biggest study ever undertaken on the question of florfenicol. We haven’t seen it, don’t know where it is and none of us know what it says, so we’re in a situation where florfenicol’s use was suspended weeks ago but the EPA still, as of now, doesn’t apparently know how much was used: extraordinary. Who does know? Where is that information? Why isn’t it readily accessible? The government is saying, in the Leader’s response, that the EPA doesn’t currently know how much for florfenicol was used for treatments that stopped more than a month ago: a month ago, 5 March. Extraordinary. We are being told to take this on trust, given a little pat on the head and told all will be revealed in the fullness of time. Well, it never has been to date, so why should we expect it to be in the future?

I will get back to the basics of this notice of motion. We can all have a different view on industrial finfish farming. Members in this place will know what the Greens’ view is, but this motion wasn’t about the industry itself. It isn’t asking us to form a position on the nature of the industry. It’s pointing out some unarguable facts, and I was very careful about the wording in the motion so that each point was unarguable.

It’s the final line, which is simply a call for transparency. It’s about having respect for the people of Tasmania by providing them with information that is relevant to their lives. Whether they’re recreational fishers or they swim on the southern beaches, or they’re worried about the impact of antimicrobial resistance on human health.

This is information that should be accessible to the people of Tasmania, and I call on the government if you’ve got some verified information about the amount of florfenicol that was used while the permit was in operation – bring it to the Council.

If you are going to dump on this notice of motion and say it’s not verified information, even though it’s information we got from the government, well then bring back the facts.

We are being asked to just believe everything is fine. ‘We don’t have to be more transparent,’ says the government on behalf of the industry it always backs in no matter what, even when it means shutting down the rock lobster fishery. This industry gets what it wants out of this government and indeed the quisling Labor Party every single time. All this motion wanted was to give the people of Tasmania some of the tools through information that allow them to make informed choices.

We are talking here about the widespread and intensive use, for a period of time in Tasmania, of an antibiotic which has not been used in Tasmanian waters before. Which has been found in other species where they were tested 10 kilometres from where the florfenicol was applied to feed.

I don’t know if testing happened 15 or 20 kilometres away. You can’t find that information. I’d say it wasn’t.

I do thank all honourable members who made a contribution on this notice of motion. I mildly apologise to the honourable member for Huon for having a crack at him about running such an industry-boosting contribution. I really appreciated the information that was laid on the record by the honourable member for Murchison, particularly as I don’t have a medical brain particularly, so I did learn a lot.

I acknowledge and appreciate the honourable member for Nelson’s long-standing interest in this area and commitment to seeing more transparency, more robust regulations and less state capture by this industry of this government, and I really appreciated the fact that the honourable member for Launceston was interested enough in the conversation to go and find out more. We should all be doing that on this matter which effects our people, the people that we represent.

Part of what I sought to do today through this notice of motion was also to bring this subject forward to the Council because it’s very serious. As the honourable member for Murchison made plain, what we’re talking about here in future potentially is not a minor use or an emergency use permit, it’s the registration of florfenicol through the APVMA for use in Tasmania.

Ms Forrest – As a registered product.

Ms O’CONNOR – As a registered product for widespread intensive use, no doubt, when it suits them in Tasmanian waters. The APVMA was really clear on this issue. The risk, at this stage according to the experts who are the federal regulators, the risk at this stage of allowing that permit to continue was unacceptable.

I refer honourable members, I’m happy to give you a copy of the right-to-information documents that we have, but I also refer honourable members to the correspondence between NRE Tasmania, Biosecurity Tasmania and the EPA, to the federal regulator – which raised a number of concerns about the lack of substance in Salmon Tasmania’s push to get this permit through their consultant that they’d engaged.

I hope honourable members will support this because it doesn’t cast aspersions on the industry, although my contribution has. It just states the facts. It asks that there be more readily available, real-time information, provided to the people who we represent and whose health and wellbeing we have a sacred duty, in this place, to advocate for and uphold however we can.

Mr PRESIDENT (Mr Farrell) – The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The Council divided –

AYES 4

Ms Forrest (Teller)

Ms Webb

Mr Gaffney

Ms O’Connor

NOES 9

Ms Armitage
Mr Edmunds
Mr Harriss (Teller)
Mr Hiscutt
Ms Lovell
Ms Palmer
Ms Rattray
Ms Thomas
Mr Vincent

Motion negatived.