Motion: Salmon Industry Animal Welfare, 9 September 2026

Mr GEORGE (Franklin) - Honourable Speaker, a vote will be required. I move -

That the House -

(1)          Notes that:

(a)          Animals Australia has lodged formal complaints with Biosecurity Tasmania alleging widespread, systemic and ongoing contraventions of sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 1993 arising from Tasmania’s salmon farming industry, involving farmed Atlantic salmon and wildlife;

(b)          the Animal Welfare Act 1993 applies to farmed salmon and affected wildlife, and that no special exemption from Tasmania’s animal welfare laws exists for the salmon farming industry; and

(c)          the allegations include mass mortality events involving millions of salmon, including:

(i)           four million premature deaths during 2025;

(ii)          confinement in warming, low-oxygen and disease-prone waters;

(iii)         failures to treat or humanely euthanise sick, injured and dying salmon, including live salmon placed in mortality bins; and

(iv)         dolphin entanglements and deaths, seal confinement and injuries, and seabird entrapments and deaths.

(2)          Notes with serious concern records show these animal welfare issues have been known to the Tasmanian Government for years, without clear evidence of meaningful enforcement.

(3)          Calls on the Tasmanian Government to ensure Biosecurity Tasmania immediately commences a formal, independent, comprehensive and properly resourced investigation into both complaints.

(4)          Calls for enforcement action, including prosecution, wherever evidence establishes offences.

(5)          Calls on the Minister for Primary Industries and Water to report at the House’s next sitting on 27 October 2026 whether investigations have commenced, their scope and status, and any findings, enforcement action or prosecution decisions.

I rise to motion 160. Last week I was shown a photograph of a salesman spruiking Tasmanian farmed salmon on Facebook and, after a double-take, realised it was our very own Treasurer doing the spruiking. If he plans a post-politics career, it may be coming sooner than he thinks.

He's already proved himself a master of spin in this place and advertising requires the same capabilities, only without facts. What facts? Fact: on March 20 last year, the RSPCA withdrew its endorsement of Huon Aquaculture after it was caught dumping live diseased salmon into bins of dead and decaying fish. Not a squeak from the industry's advertiser in chief as he took his vacuum packs of dyed farm salmon home. Nor from industry mates on the opposition benches, and no shame from the multinational salmon barons themselves for their treatment of a noble fish reduced to supermarket fodder.

Fact: in 2021, the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) withdrew its endorsement of Tassal because of its malign practices. Not a word from the Treasurer, his colleagues, nor indeed from the opposition. Fact: the Animals Australia organisation indictment of all three multinational salmon producers licensed to operate in our waters is detailed based on careful analysis, relies on particulars already in the public domain and beyond any question. Not a voice of concern raised from members of the Liberal-Labor coalition. Yet, the two complaints to Biosecurity include clear evidence of multiple and persistent potential criminal breaches of Tasmania's Animal Welfare Act. Do I hope the government will respond as a responsible government should? Yes, I do. Do I expect it to? No.

So wary is the minister for Primary Industries of upsetting the salmon barons that he refuses to even say the word 'investigation'. It's on that word alone that the minister's office abandoned negotiation that might have led to the government supporting this motion. What other action could well-founded allegations from a serious animal welfare organisation have led to other than an investigation if the salmon industry was not out of control. In any other Australian jurisdiction, an investigation would be launched into such serious allegations, after which, if the evidence stacked up, there would be a prosecution.

I do hope the opposition will at least join me in standing up for the rule of law. Do I expect them to? No, I don't. After all, when last month I proposed a reasonable three-year process to convert polluting flow-through salmon hatcheries into recycling plants, in-line with global best practice, Labor and Liberal stood shoulder-to-shoulder to vote down the motion. Why, one asks? Well, because, as usual, they will do the bidding of the multinational salmon barons. In that debate, the Primary Industries minister gave every appearance of being an apologist or a lobbyist for the industry. 'We all want healthy rivers,' he said. 'We all want clean waterways, we all want strong environmental standards and we all want an aquaculture industry that operates responsibly, transparently and sustainably.' In response, I can only quote my youngest daughter in her teenage years, 'Yeah, whatever'. Conveniently ignored was the undertaking for former Environment minister Mr Jaensch to transition flow-through hatcheries to world standard recycling plants. Whatever. And what about Labor's sheer hypocrisy? It's manifesto bleats about rivers under pressure from industrial pollution and promises to take steps to ensure there is clear, transparent management of our freshwater resources which prioritises health and environment. Yeah, whatever.

The hypocrisy is endless. It sickens me and it sickens my constituents and many Tasmanians who express their genuine desire to end the destructive nature of this industry. These are not people who want to see jobs lost; they're thoughtful Tasmanians who want to see those jobs transition to a sustainable, responsible industry. Is it any wonder at all that both parties are facing an existential threat from the Independent movement on one side and One Nation on the other?

This motion addresses a matter that should concern every member of this House  regardless of political affiliation, ideology or electorate. It's not simply a debate about salmon farming; it's a debate about whether the laws of Tasmania apply equally to powerful multinational corporations and to ordinary Tasmanians. It's a debate about whether it's fine to punish someone who abuses their family pet, cat, dog or any domesticated animal and not a billion-dollar industry with the right connections to government and bureaucracy.

It's a debate about whether our rivers, estuaries, marine ecosystems and wildlife exist primarily to serve multinational corporations or whether they are public assets held in trust for the people of Tasmania. And it's a debate about the repeated failure of both the Liberal government and the Labor opposition to stand up for Tasmania when confronted by the pervasive political influence of the salmon industry.

I seek to table two documents specifying the Animals Australia complaint to Biosecurity Tasmania. Both documents have been circulated to honourable members.

Leave granted; papers tabled.

Mr GEORGE - These documents are not media releases, they're not activists' slogans, they are detailed legal complaints alleging widespread breaches of the Animal Welfare Act 1993 involving farmed salmon, seals, dolphins, seabirds and other wildlife. They call for formal investigations into multinationals Huon Aquaculture, Tassal and Petuna and into whether criminal offences may have occurred.

The complaints make allegations that we know to be true because they're already on the public record that millions of farmed salmon have been subjected to avoidable suffering through disease, suffocating from lack of oxygen, mass mortalities in the millions, handling practices, failures of care and warming waters. That there are recurring and persistent injuries and deaths visited on seals, dolphins, seabirds and other wildlife unfortunate enough to get caught up in salmon industry practices and infrastructure is beyond argument.

Most strikingly, Animals Australia points out that despite the scale of these events, there has been no corresponding enforcement from regulators under Tasmania's animal welfare legislation. Has Huon Aquaculture been prosecuted for dumping live salmon into bins of diseased and dead salmon? Nope. Or has there been a prosecution for regulatory breaches that led to dead and decaying salmon flesh washing up on the beach of Verona Sands and elsewhere? Nope. I emphasise that 'nope' because, during estimates, the EPA promised there would be prosecutions, but nothing has happened. So, it is reasonable to ask who the hell is regulating this industry. What's the point of a government claiming to impose the tightest regulations - a dubious claim - when no one's actually doing the regulating? Is the industry trusted to self regulate with all the inherent dangers that that brings when dealing with multinationals whose record has made their global name mud. Or is this a case of a cashed-up, powerful, well-connected industry bullying bureaucrats and ministers into silence?

I call on the honourable minister for the Environment to provide in his contribution, should he be here, details about what investigations and action has been taken against the multinational responsible for rotting salmon flesh washing up on beaches some 20 months ago and I call on the honourable minister for Primary Industries to provide details of any investigation and prosecution of the multinational-owned Huon Aquaculture after it was caught out on video dumping live salmon into bins where they suffocated amongst a mass of dead salmon.

Atlantic salmon are noble animals, the kings of fish, and they're reduced to bin litter, and the multinationals show no shame. Yet, surely, honourable ministers would be ashamed if they or their agencies failed to uphold the laws that every Tasmanian must obey, just because the salmon barons are powerful and cashed up and manage to bully anyone who stands in their way. Because, if these allegations are correct, and we do know they are, as I've already said, they're one the public record, then we're dealing not simply with animal welfare or environmental protection or industry regulation; we're dealing with a failure of the state to enforce its own laws.

Let's just take one of the many allegations we know to be factual. Animals Australia points to government data recording at least 4 million premature salmon deaths during 2025 and more than 20,000 tonnes of fish lost before slaughter. Think about what that means. Behind those statistics are millions of living animals - noble animals, as I said - millions of them. Animals Australia argues those fish are protected animals under Tasmanian law, and that does demand an investigation.

We'll take the wildlife complaint: departmental records showing the deaths during 2025 of 51 birds, 8 seals and 5 dolphins associated with salmon farming operations, as well as the use of thousands of underwater explosives, so-called seal crackers and projectile bean bags. The complaint recounts years of incidents involving seals, birds and dolphins. It alleges recurring dolphin entanglements, repeated seal injuries and deaths, prolonged confinement of marine animals and repeated bird mortality events.

What's beyond dispute is this: the allegations are serious. The evidence is extensive. The public deserves answers. There is no approved industry code of practice behind which the salmon multinationals can hide, and there are no regulatory exemptions from the Tasmanian Animal Welfare Act available to the salmon industry. That is absolutely clear.

Experience tells us what happens when concerns are raised, though. The government stalls; Labor hedges, the industry reassures, the regulators review. Everything disappears literally beneath the surface of the water. Nothing to see here. Rinse, repeat, year after year.

As with my motion at the last sittings, when I argued that Tasmania's rivers should no longer serve as an industrial waste channel for multinational salmon corporations, I hoped, against the odds, I might prick a conscience or two, and perhaps I did. That motion was practical and moderate. It reflected technology already recognised by government itself as better environmental practice. Yet what happened?

It was voted down, not by the government alone, not by Labor alone. It was defeated by both of them. A familiar alliance, Australia's first Liberal-Labor coalition. When it comes to protecting multinational corporations, parliamentary combat suddenly gives way to parliamentary consensus amongst that coalition. One side says the industry can do no wrong, The other says reform might be needed, but not today. Together they reliably deliver the same outcome. The industry wins, Tasmania loses, our rivers lose, our wildlife loses, our communities lose and, increasingly, it appears, the fish themselves lose.

Only a week ago, I rose in this place about the declining condition of Macquarie Harbour. I reminded members that oxygen levels of the harbour continue to deteriorate in a waterway that is partly World Heritage listed and only home of the Maugean Skate, a species that has survived for some 60 million years. This is not a separate issue. It's not separate from freshwater hatcheries. It's not separate from fish mortalities or animal welfare. It's all part of the same story. Whether we are discussing wastewater entering rivers, declining oxygen in Macquarie Harbour, fish deaths in marine pens, or dolphins entangled in nets and subjected to underwater explosive deterrence, we're witnessing the cumulative impact of an industry repeatedly allowed to expand while governments don't bother to effectively regulate.

Scarcely weeks after Labor and Liberal united to defeat practical reforms of freshwater hatcheries   reforms that would have created jobs, for all love   this parliament is confronted by detailed legal complaints alleging systemic failures affecting farmed salmon, dolphins, seals, seabirds and other wildlife. These complaints do matter. They pull together every thread of the argument Tasmanians have been making for years. They connect river pollution, they connect marine ecosystem decline, fish mortality, animal welfare, and they connect concerns that the regulatory system has become unwilling, or unable, to hold powerful operators properly to account. When multinational corporations make enormous profits from Tasmania's public waterways and public environmental resources, they should be required to meet the highest environmental and welfare standards, not the lowest standards that regulators will tolerate.

Tasmanians are entitled to ask a simple question: why is it that ordinary Tasmanians are expected to comply strictly with environmental laws, planning laws and animal welfare laws, while the salmon industry simply triggers political caution and regulatory hesitation? Why do we constantly hear what cannot be done rather than what must be done? Why are investigations delayed? Why are recommendations deferred? Why are warnings ignored? Why, year after year, are those raising concerns depicted as the problem, while those causing the concerns continue to enjoy political protection? That approach is impossible to sustain. The public can see what is happening, the public can see diseased fish. People can see fish mortality events, wildlife deaths, declining confidence in regulators, and now they can read detailed complaints from one of Australia's largest animal welfare organisations, alleging that Tasmania's animal welfare laws are not being properly enforced. I commend this motion, in hope, to the House.