Legislative Council, Tuesday 12 September 2023

The motion states the Legislative Council notes the economic analysis provided by the Deloitte Access Economics report dated 2020 regarding the Tasmanian salmon industry and acknowledges that the Tasmanian salmon industry is a vital social and economic contributor to the Tasmanian community, and to quote from the report that is subject to this motion:

Salmon Tasmania has partnered with Deloitte for the first combined comprehensive and independent analysis of the industry's economic and social contribution to the Tasmanian community.

1. The Tasmanian salmon industry:

• is the largest primary industry in Tasmania.
• is Tasmania's largest agriculture/aquaculture exporter.
• is Tasmania's most valuable seafood production sector.

2. Tasmania's salmon industry is Australia's most valuable seafood sector, worth $1.36 billion.

3. The industry predominately supports local economies and jobs in regional Tasmania. 87 per cent of all economic activity supported by the industry occurs in the regions. 89% of the direct salmon jobs are in regional areas.

4. In 2022, the industry contributed $770 million to the Tasmanian economy and supported 5,103 full time equivalent jobs around the state. Salmon industry jobs pay 56% more than the average Tasmanian job.
5. The industry is Tasmania's largest agricultural/aquaculture exporter in Tasmania and accounted for 86% of Tasmania's total seafood production by value in 2020 21.

6. The industry is approximately double the size of the fruit and vegetable (horticulture) sector in Tasmania and 38% larger than the red meat processing industry. The salmon industry represents one-fifth of the entire Tasmanian agriculture, forestry and fishing industry.

7. The economic contribution of the salmon industry includes the value of its exports and the flow-on benefits across Tasmania from the jobs and families it supports, to the provision of nutritious food. This economic contribution does not consider the auxiliary jobs figures supported by the industry - for example people working in service industries, local health and education facilities needed to support salmon workers and their families.

In the limited time we had to prepare for this motion and seeking to make a considered contribution, I tried to access some of the relevant source documents referred to in this report and it was not easy to find, particularly the Deloitte Access Economics report itself. It probably sat behind a pay wall where I was looking for it.

Ms Webb - It was never publicly released.

Ms FORREST - I thank the member for McIntyre's office though. She did manage to source a copy and sent it through yesterday. I have not had time to read all of that in its entirety. It is not huge, but it is bigger than the time I had available, particularly when I have to drive down and spend five hours on the road. Some of the source documents went to dead links. It was a bit hard to follow them through and then you ended up circling back to this report all the time, which was a little unhelpful in preparing, but there we are.

We were provided with a copy of The Tasmanian salmon industry: a vital social and economic contributor report - that is the report the member for McIntyre is noting in this motion - and we were also provided with a link to that through her office, which was helpful to take us straight to that.

I am always cautious about taking at face value glossy brochures or reports with more pitches than detail to validate claims made. I want to understand the rigour or otherwise behind this report. This report concluded - I will call it 'Salmon Tasmania's report' for brevity because it is quite a long title - Salmon Tasmania reported that The Tasmanian salmon industry: a vital social and economic contributor makes several over-estimations - sorry, I have missed the page.

When I was doing my research, I also found a detailed analysis of this report that was done by the Tasmanian Independent Science Council, which was done by respected economist, Dr Graeme Wells. I wish to quote from that report to give context to my following comments. This is from that report, which is available as well, which members would have, I am sure, probably seen. It is called Fact Check of Salmon Tasmania's Report: The Tasmanian Salmon Industry: a vital social and economic contributor. The report states:

The Tasmanian Salmon Industry: a vital social economic contributor (… "the Salmon Tasmania report"), published by Salmon Tasmania provides "the first combined, comprehensive and independent analysis of the industry's economic and social contribution to the Tasmanian community". However, [this] … report makes a number of overestimations and misrepresentations of economic and social benefits provided by the Tasmanian salmon industry. The Tasmanian Independent Science Council has conducted a fact check of Salmon Tasmania's report, drawing on evidence from the Deloitte and the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS) reports that provided the basis for Salmon Tasmania's economic and social benefit calculations.

The report concluded that:

Salmon Tasmania's report The Tasmanian Salmon Industry: a vital and social economic contributor makes several overestimations and misrepresentations of the benefits the industry brings to the Tasmanian economy and wider community. This fact check has found that the report's claims to wages and the relative importance of the industry are overstated. Other claims, such as investment in research and development, are difficult to verify.

Increased output from the salmon producers has not led to a consummate increase in employment, a trend that is likely to continue as automation of the industry continues to advance. Importantly, the Salmon Tasmania report is based on an economic impact assessment, rather than a cost benefit analysis, …

The member for McIntyre referred to that in her closing remarks.

Ms Rattray - I did acknowledge that.

Ms FORREST - I did say that.

… which means that it does not account for the social or environmental impacts of the industry. It does not take into consideration the environmental costs, loss of amenity, subsidies paid by governments, or the appropriate return to local communities for the use of public waters, as required by a full cost benefit analysis.

That was their conclusion. I want to go through some of the points in the report and comment on them.

The Independent Science Council Report made four key findings, which I will refer to and expand on the conclusions reached in the independent analysis. The key findings are:

One, Salmon Tasmania's claim that the salmon industry represents one-fifth of the entire agriculture, forestry and fishing industry is grossly exaggerated. When measured on a like-for-like basis, the figure is likely to be about 6 or 7 per cent.

Two, output as measured by gross value added, in the three salmon producers - Tassal, Huon Aquaculture and Petuna - has increased significantly, reflecting the overall growth, automation, temporary build-up of biomass that was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Three, the Salmon Tasmania report is based on an economic impact assessment rather than a cost-benefit analysis. This means that it does not account for the social or environmental impacts of the industry, which also means that some results in the Salmon Tasmania report are not directly comparable with the 2018-19 IMAS report.

Four, Salmon Tasmania claims that industry jobs pay 56 per cent more than the average Tasmanian job. Although it is difficult to directly compare wage data, is it likely that wages in the broader salmon industry are almost the same as the average Tasmanian wage, if both direct and indirect employment in the industry is considered. If the comparison is only the wages paid directly by the three salmon producers, then wages are higher than the average wage in Tasmania. However, on a like-for-like basis, this difference is likely to be significantly less than 56 per cent.

I will speak to these as they relate to the data provided in the Salmon Tasmania report, which I referred to in my opening comments.

The report from the Independent Science Council's first key finding, and I will read it again so we can focus the comments, says:

Salmon Tasmania's claim that the salmon industry represents one-fifth of the entire agriculture, forestry and fishing industry is grossly exaggerated. When measured on a like-for-like basis, the figure is likely to be around 6 7%.

That was that finding. This figure is markedly different from that in the statement in the report that is subject to this motion, where it suggests a figure of 20 per cent.

Point 6 of the Salmon Tasmania report states that the salmon industry is approximately double the size of the fruit and vegetable and horticultural sector in Tasmania, and 38 per cent larger than the red meat processing industry.

The salmon industry represents one-fifth of the entire Tasmanian agriculture, forestry and fishing industry.

As noted in an opinion piece recently published in the Mercury by economist and author of the Independent Science Council report, as I have mentioned, Dr Graeme Wells:

In the claim that the industry represents one-fifth of the entire Tasmanian agriculture, forestry and fishing industry, it is important to compare industries on a like-for-like basis. According to the Bureau of Statistics data for 2020-21, value added in the Tasmanian agriculture, forestry and fishing industry was $471 million.

The report itself notes value added by salmon producers was $426.9 million.

The comparison of those two figures suggests that the salmon industry share is more like about 9 per cent, not 20 per cent, as claimed by Salmon Tasmania. Even that overstates the case, as the salmon industry includes fish processing, which is included in the manufacturing industry by the Bureau of Statistics.

On a like-for-like basis, the salmon industry probably accounts for about 6 7 per cent of Tasmanian agriculture, forestry and fishing Industry, not 20 per cent.

Finding 2 of the Independent Science Council, just to remind members what that one is:

Output (as measured by Gross Value Added) in the three salmon producers - Tassal, Huon Aquaculture and Petuna - has increased significantly, reflecting the overall growth, automation and temporary build-up of biomass that was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

That partly explains why the salmon industry output has grown, and no-one is disputing that. However, as noted in the report from the Independent Science Council, and I go back to that report:

Economic contribution is conceptually different to value added. Economic contribution refers to the monetary value of the final output of the salmon industry. By construction it is a much larger number than the GVA (as it ignores the cost of inputs) which is why industries are keen to emphasise this measure.

He made an example of the Bell Bay smelter in his previous comments related to this finding. He made the point about the Bell Bay smelter, saying its economic contribution is large, but after subtracting the cost of electricity and imported alumina, its GVA is relatively small.

The Salmon Tasmania report states:

This economic contribution does not consider the auxiliary job figures reported by the industry - for example people working in the service industries, local health and education facilities needed to support salmon workers and their families.

It also notes:

The economic benefits generated for other businesses in the region are in addition to the direct and indirect benefits included in the report.

These statements reflect the fact that not only the first-round indirect effects are included in the Deloitte analysis, unlike the IMAS report which also included second round indirect effects …

My point here is that we need to be focusing on like-for-like if we are going to be relying on the rigour of documents being put out. It does not matter what industry or sector it is, if we are going to make claims about comparators, we need to compare like with like.

We go to the third finding of the Independent Science Council. I will requote that one:

The Salmon Tasmania report is based on economic impact assessment, rather than a cost-benefit-analysis. This means that it does not account for the social or environmental impacts of the industry, and also means that some results in the Salmon Tasmania report are not directly comparable with the 2018 19 IMAS report.

Before commenting more fully on this point, I reiterate point 7 of the Tasmanian Salmon report noting that it states:

The economic contribution of a salmon industry includes the value of its exports, and the flow-on benefits across Tasmania from the jobs and families it supports, to the provision of nutritious food. This economic contribution does not consider the auxiliary jobs figures supported by the industry - for example people working in service industries, local health and educational facilities needed to support salmon workers and their families.

The Independent Science Council makes a number of relevant points regarding this, and I will quote from their report. There is a bit of length to this as I do not want to be taken out of context. This report notes:

An EIA [economic impact assessment] reports the effect of an industry on economic activity and employment. A CBA [cost-benefit analysis] asks whether the activity under question is socially desirable. A CBA would take into account environmental costs, the opportunity costs of resources used, and so on.

Further, it goes on:

Salmon Tasmania's report is somewhat misleading in that it dresses up an EIS with extraneous material to make it look a bit more like a CBA, but in no way should it be interpreted as such. It makes no mention of environmental costs, loss of amenity, correctly defined, or subsidies paid by governments.

The approach taken by Deloitte differs from the most recent assessment of the Tasmanian salmon industry by the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS). The IMAS report draws on a computable general equilibrium model (CGE), which is a standard tool for an EIA. Maintaining one of these models is an expensive exercise, which is why it is the preserve of large consultancies.

Economists debate the structure of CGE models, but it is standard for consulting firms. Importantly, results from CGE models and EIA approaches are always presented ignoring the width of the confidence bands which measure the uncertainty around the reported estimates. When it gets down to highly disaggregated results at the Local Government Area (LGA) level, the confidence bands must be very wide indeed. This matters when, as in this report, model estimates compared to data from other sources.
I go back to that comparing like with like. With regard to estimating gross value, the Independent Science Council had this to say:

Gross value added (GVA) measures the difference between the sales value of output minus the cost of inputs purchased by other entities. GVA is the sum of the return to the labour hired by the firm, and gross profits to its owner. The sum of GVA for all entities in Tasmania is Gross State Product (or GDP if it were referring to Australia-wide measure). GVA is the preferred measure when comparing the 'contribution' of various industries to the State economy because different industries vary in their dependence on purchased inputs.

We go back to the Bell Bay aluminium smelter. He notes about that:

The Bell Bay aluminum smelter, for instance, has a large input cost (imported alumina and electricity) but value added is relatively small when compared to total output.

This measure of 'Gross Profits' is inclusive of depreciation, interest payments and taxes. Deducting these and other minor items from 'gross Operating Surplus' gives an amount available for distribution to owners.

The economic impact of the Tasmanian salmon industry can be decomposed into direct and indirect effects. The direct effect measures just the activities of the three salmon producers. In a standard CGE approach, the indirect component of GVA arises when:

a. Suppliers to the salmon producers generate value on their own account and so on through the production chain, and

b. Households (who now have higher incomes because of increased employment) spend their higher incomes, generating even more value added as these work through the economy.

As mentioned earlier, the Deloitte report is a 'contributions analysis, rather than the CGE approach often used for an impact assessment … Instead, the indirect effect is analysed by means of a survey of suppliers to the three producing firms, generating data for the indirect effect (a). Details of the survey instrument or response rate are not provided. The underlying Deloitte report, however, does give a two stage breakdown with the indirect component limited to point (a) above.

Direct GVA for the Tasmanian salmon industry is listed as $426.9 million, and indirect gross value added as $343.1 million. Bearing in mind that the IMAS employment data are for persons employed, while Deloitte's are for FTE, employment data are not strictly comparable. However, the increase in overall employment is consistent with the overall increase in GVA.

…

Direct GVA from the three producers has grown rapidly, partly reflecting inventory accumulation during the Covid-19 period. The employment and labour productivity data are puzzling.

I will come back to that in a minute, Mr President. Key finding 4 in the report of the Independent Science Council states:

Salmon Tasmania claims that industry jobs pay 56% more than the average Tasmanian job. Although it is difficult to directly compare wage data, it is likely the wages in the broader salmon industry are almost the same as the average Tasmanian wage, if both direct and indirect employment by the industry is considered. If the comparator is only the wage paid directly by the three salmon producers, then wages are higher than the average wage in Tasmania; however, on a like for like basis, this difference is likely to be significantly less than 56%. … The Deloitte study that underpins the Salmon Tasmania report is an economic impact assessment (EIA). An EIA is conceptually different to a cost benefit analysis (CBA).

As I referred to in my earlier comments.

Referring to the employment matters and the claims there, the Independent Science Council notes:

Direct employment by the three producers has risen by just 16.7%, implying an increase in labour productivity of 59%. In addition to inventory accumulation, increasing automation has limited direct employment growth. On the other hand, labour productivity in industry supplying the producers has actually fallen by nearly 20%. This result is consistent with indirect low wages … If the trend in these data, that output is growing much faster than direct employment, continues, salmon producers are unlikely to be a regional employment 'growth engine'. Conversely, falling labour productivity in firms supplying the industry holds out little prospect for higher wages for their employees.

Deloitte Economic Analysis 2023 Socioeconomic contribution of the Tasmanian salmon industry, Salmon Tasmania, table 3.1 notes that no adjustment has been made for inflation in comparing gross value added in the two periods. IMAS employment data are for persons, while Deloitte's are for FTE. However, this difference is, if anything, likely to understate the measured decline in labour productivity. The report contains tables to illustrate those figures.

Mr President, I do not dispute that employment in our regions where many of those directly and indirectly employed are based is very important to our regions, and the opportunities for employment across a range of skill sets - some obviously higher paid than others. However, we also need to factor in the impacts that are not considered in this report. Compare apples with apples, or fish with fish, if we are to claim this industry is the vital contributor that this motion suggests to the social and economic wellbeing of the state. Particularly in my electorate, when I was recently doorknocking, this matter was number two on the list of matters that people wanted to raise with me. Many people are deeply hesitant about the expansion of salmon farming into many parts of our state, particularly along the north-west coast. Others can speak about areas in their electorate if they wish. But I was staggered - well, not really staggered, I was surprised - by the consistent approach. First was the stadium, second was the finfish farming, the third was the Voice. That was the order of topics at the doors.

Mr President, the critically endangered Maugean skate in Macquarie Harbour has seen many experts and concerned citizens call for a severe reduction, if not a complete cessation, of salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour. While salmon farming is not the only contributing factor here to the challenges faced by the Maugean skate, it does play a role and should be considered in part of the solution.

In my view, this is a time when the precautionary principle should be taken, not an adaptive management approach. Extinct animals, or fish, have no chance if adaption waits until the system sees how they adapt rather than taking a precautionary approach when we know the Maugean skate is critically endangered. If this is not a time when the precautionary approach should be taken rather than adaptive management, then I do not know what is.

As I mentioned, there are very few people along the north-west coast who want to see expansion of salmon farming into the waters of Bass Strait. This is especially the case as we have seen the recovery of the Bass Strait area along the north-west only in very recent years, particularly from Penguin west, as the waters recover from years of pollution that has been poured into that ocean. From Australian Paper, the black liquid used to get let out every afternoon, usually under the cover of darkness. The Tioxide paint pigment factory and the acid plant - those of us who lived along that coast, saw what it did, and the fish were gone.

Now, we are seeing a significant amount of fish come back into that body of water. You only have to go past the Wynyard Wharf in the new fantastic Yacht Club there to see people showing off their big catches. This is something that we have not seen until very recent times. The people of the north-west, particularly around this area, are very concerned to think that we have just cleaned it up; let us not put any more pressure on it while it continues that recovery. The same can be said of Macquarie Harbour.

The social licence of these companies is not a reality with many in our community. That is the sad and tragic reality in many respects, particularly so now that all three producers are foreign-owned. We know some of the history of some of the foreign-owned businesses and that their corporate record is anything but glowing. Their industry finances and economic contribution have become even more opaque since they have become internationally owned companies. That is a matter of great concern to myself and to many others.

As I said, I do not dispute the industry is regulated, it absolutely should be; but as we know, this is not always resolved in sustainable industry practices in the past. If you are not sure about that, just check out Macquarie Harbour. I know there have been significant changes there, but the harbour was trashed. I know the regime has changed a little bit since then, but we cannot allow anything like that, anything near that, to go on again, knowing the critically endangered nature of the Maugean skate.

Returning to a sixth point made by the Tasmanian Salmon report, as follows:

The salmon industry is approximately double the size of the fruit and vegetable (horticulture) sector in Tasmania and 38 per cent larger than the red meat processing industry. The salmon industry represents one-fifth [or 20 per cent] of the entire Tasmanian agriculture, forestry and fishing industry.

I will go back to this fact-checking report from the Independent Science Council, which states that this comparison is somewhat meaningless. They say:

Comparisons with other Tasmanian industries, of the sort provided in the report, are not particularly meaningful. They don't compare like-with-like in terms of stages of production. For example, the approximate comparator for red meat processing is salmon processing…

So, not the whole salmon industry; it is the processing side of it. To go back to the report:

Or, if one wanted to include the whole salmon industry, one could compare it with red meat production and processing. Even so, it is not clear why such a comparison tells us anything about the social value of the industry. In any event, the claim that the salmon industry represents one-fifth of the entire agriculture, forestry and fishing industry is grossly exaggerated. When measured on a like-for-like basis, the figure is likely to be around 6 7%.

Understanding the ABS industry classification is important.

To quote the Australia and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) industry classification used by the ABS:

The Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Division (A) includes units mainly engaged in growing crops, raising animals, growing and harvesting timber and harvesting fish and other animals from farms or their natural habitats.

The report quotes the ANZSIC classification again:

The Manufacturing Division includes units mainly engaged in the physical or chemical transformation of materials, substances or components into new products (except agriculture and construction).

The materials, substances or components transformed by units in this division are raw materials that are products of agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining or products of other manufacturing units. Included is fresh fish packaging.

According to ABS data for 2020-21, GVA [or gross value added] in the agriculture, forestry and fishing (AFF) industry is $471 million. Direct GVA in the salmon industry is $426.9 million. A direct comparison of these two figures suggests that the salmon industry's share of AFF is 9%, not 20%, as claimed by Salmon Tasmania.

Even that overstates the case, as the salmon industry defined as the three producers includes fish processing which would be included in the ABS manufacturing industry.

On a like-for-like basis, the salmon industry probably accounts for around 6 7% of the Tasmanian AFF industry, not 20 per cent.

The ABS data referred to is 'total factor' incomes which understates GVA in each industry as it excludes taxes on inputs minus subsidies.

For agriculture, forestry and fishing, this means that 'total factor incomes' understate its GVA slightly.

In support of its claim, Salmon Tasmania refers to a report on the red meat processing industry. The relevance of this reference is unclear.

The claim made in the fourth point of this report is that it is difficult to evaluate that claim. I do not know if the member for McIntyre is able to provide any detail on that, but those claims - if we are going to be noting a report that makes these claims, we should be able to back it up with a meaningful like-for-like comparison.

I ask this accordingly - according to the report of the Independent Science Council, and I quote:

It is difficult to evaluate Salmon Tasmania's claims that jobs in the salmon industry pay up to 73.9% more than the average job in regional Tasmania, and 56% more than the average Tasmanian job. The Deloitte report provides some context for the latter claim.

Data in table 3.1 of the Deloitte report does provide some detail, as I noted earlier, and this is referred to in the report by the Independent Science Council.

The last column provides an estimate of average wages in Tasmania, obtained by the ABS data. When measured in terms of full-time jobs for the salmon industry as a whole, wages are roughly the same as the average Tasmanian job. From the first column it appears that the average wage in the three salmon companies is higher than the Tasmanian average, reflecting higher labour productivity there. Even with the inclusion of 'add-ons' in the former figure, as detailed in the footnote below, many overstate the difference between direct industry wages and the state-wide average.

In the report from the Independent Science Council, they go on to say:

Note that concept of labour income used in Deloitte's model corresponds to compensation of employees, as defined in the Australian National Accounts. As such, it includes employer contributions to superannuation, holiday pay and other worker benefits.

By contrast, the ABS average weekly earnings figures do not include these add-ons, so that figures are not directly comparable.

With regard to the contribution of taxes and government payments, this report states:

It is not clear where this refers to just the three salmon producers or to the broader industry including indirect activity - however, it is more likely to be the former.

The Salmon Tasmania report further notes:

The economic activity of the 5,103 FTE jobs that the industry creates provides the following benefits to Tasmania.

It is noted on page 5 of that report where it states that the Tasmanian salmon industry supports 5103 fulltime equivalent jobs across Tasmania:

In 2022, Salmon Tasmania members invested more than 55,000 hours and $8.5 million in training their staff.

I note the member for McIntyre referred to this also. Investment in staff training should be considered in light of the number of employees. With the 55 000 hours in relation to the 5103 FTE employees, on average around 11 hours per employee per annum is not particularly large, given the -

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.

Resumed from above (page 34).

[2.53 p.m.]
Ms FORREST (Murchison) - Mr President, I was getting toward the end of my contribution but at the time when the adjournment occurred, I was speaking about the discussion and claims in the Salmon Tasmania report about the investment in staff training and the number of hours and the contribution. Staff training is obviously important, particularly when employees are working in some quite hazardous situations.

I might have said this, but just to put it back into context, the 55 000 hours of staff training in relation to 5103 FTE employees, on average around 11 hours per employee per annum, is not particularly large given the hazards involved with many of the on water jobs.

The Salmon Tasmania report also contains other unverified claims, such as that the industry invested over $7 million into research and development in 2022, which cannot be independently verified. There may be ways that it can be done, but it certainly was not easy to do through the information available in the report. Page 6 of the Salmon Tasmania report talks about research and development, and it says:

The Tasmanian salmon industry invested more than $75 million into research and development in 2022. In the ten years to 2022, the industry invested a total of $681 million.

On page 8 there are references to the breadth and scope of the research that I believe are undertaken by very credible organisations and scientists from the CSIRO, IMAS and others. This is not criticising their work at all. Neither are my comments criticising Deloitte Access Economics. It is simply making an assessment about a report that we are tabling, and trying to unpick some of the facts that are put there as facts.

Mr President, those include some of the research that has been undertaken by credible organisations including CSIRO, IMAS and others. They have looked into sea surface temperature tracking conducted in Tasmania's south-east with CSIRO, for several years. This program has been so successful there are plans to extend it across the state to move with changing weather and sea current patterns. These are very important bodies of work that do not just apply necessarily to the salmon farming industry; it can be any fishery or marine-based activity.

Another one is world-leading biogeochemical modelling that monitors water flows, nutrients and temperatures around the state and has shared the benefits with the broader community, working alongside researchers at IMAS and CSIRO. Again, this is very important work with the changes in climate we are seeing at the moment, the warming of our oceans, and the weather patterns we are now seeing around the world, that are quite frightening in parts.

There has been ongoing investment into pen technology so that our marine farms can withstand more exposed and offshore locations, as well as technical improvements to help circulate cooler bottom waters during the times of water temperature fluctuations to build further resistance into their operations. That research is very important for the ongoing survival of the industry, because if temperatures continue to rise in our oceans, these fish may not have time to adapt to those changes. There has been $10 million invested in world-leading wildlife-excluding pens, which has significantly decreased our interactions with seals while keeping people safe. I do not think I need to remind people of a certain constituent of mine who lost his cool over the relocation of seals and got some action from the Government by taking fairly drastic actions at a certain set of traffic lights on the north-west coast to stop that terrible practice of relocation.

Fish breeding programs have resulted in temperature tolerance traits and improved genetics to ensure we are breeding future stocks of strong, healthy and resilient fish. That is important research; but it is in the industry's best interests to do that, otherwise they would not have an industry in the future. The science is not lying about what is happening in our oceans.

Sophisticated data and real-time forecasting management tools have been used to prepare for changes in weather responding to modifications to diets, and different husbandry practices. My previous comment relates to that point as well.

Real-time environmental monitoring and water quality programs help us to adapt to changing weather patterns and to understand the systems that support the production of the world-renowned and high-quality product we farm here in Tasmania.

Those last few are essential for the industry's survival, with everything we know about what is happening in the climate and in our oceans.

Mr President, as I stated, I do not doubt this work is being done or that it is worthwhile and important; it is absolutely important and worthwhile. It has been done by eminent scientists and organisations that I respect. The issue I am raising here is the unverified claim that the industry invested $75 million into research and development in 2022. It does not appear easy to independently identify.

The report from the Independent Science Council made the following observation on this point, and I quote:

Many other claims by the Salmon Tasmania or Deloitte reports, for example that the industry invested over $75 million into research and development in 2022, cannot be independently verified. Important considerations such as the scope of the industry or source of the funds are not detailed. However, it is likely that much of the claimed $75 million includes research funded by taxpayers through government agencies, such as CSIRO and the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) or independent research bodies such as IMAS. As such, these amount should be considered a direct industry subsidy.

I am just making the point that if you claim that the industry has spent that amount of money, unless you can verify the incoming and outgoing, it is a claim that is made that is not verified. I am sure I will be corrected on a lot of this in the replies, and I hope I am.

In addition, if we consider the fees currently paid by the industry - and I know the member for Nelson was asking questions about this previously - it is $3.1 million. After considering other international jurisdictions, these are poorly designed and do not reflect the cost borne by taxpayers or costs to the Tasmanian environment.

It seems like an age ago now, but those who were in the finfish inquiry will know there was a point raised with the committee in looking at other jurisdictions where the licence fees and other related costs are significantly higher, reflecting the environmental impact of such an industry. The degree of taxpayer support through the various research agencies remains unclear. It is not easily or clearly identified in the Salmon Tasmania report.

Many support the call for an independent comprehensive review which identifies an appropriate return to the Tasmanian community, rather than just rely on a report such as this that does fall short of being open and transparent in some areas or at least backing the claims. When I went to the links I could not find that information there. We only had a weekend to do this. It only came on the Notice Paper last week and we had the weekend to prepare.

It seems my reticence to blindly accept the claims of a glossy brochure have been somewhat well founded, though I guess there will be others who will dispute that. If this industry is to be truly open and transparent and actually achieve a real social licence to operate in our state, we should expect better and more verifiable claims in the reports, particularly if we have to note them in this place.

The member for McIntyre moved the motion alluded to in her closing comments and asks us to note The Tasmanian Salmon Industry: a Vital Social and Economic Contributor report and note the economic analysis provided by the Deloitte Access Economics report dated 2022.

Ms Rattray - Note the report and acknowledge.

Ms FORREST - Yes, that is the first part and I will come to that. In further consideration of this report, there are claims to reflect the analysis of the Deloitte Access Economics report regarding the Tasmanian salmon industry. It does not appear to accurately reflect some of the claims made, and that is the point I will be making throughout my contribution. I am happy to be shown there are verifiable claims in all of this. I am not sure we will have time today to do that in terms of the ability to get all that information. What was circulated to support this debate was the salmon report.

Some will suggest this is just using different views of economists. That is a healthy thing. Some have tested the views of scientists and lawyers and many others, but we should test and verify scientific findings that we can test and verify economic modelling and make sure we compare like for like. If you are going to make a claim, you need to do it like-for-like and ensure the data you are using is the same data that has been reported.

As I have noted, a number of claims contained in this Salmon Tasmania report are difficult if not impossible to verify. This makes an acceptance of the motion a little challenging on the basis of that, especially when many of the claims do not appear to compare like with like. Regardless of this, I do note the positive actions taken by the industry representatives, the workers, outlined on pages 6 and 7 of the Salmon Tasmania report which describes community support and activity including, and I quote from the Salmon Tasmania report:

Two major whale rescue missions in 2020 and 2022, saving more than 150 whales.

That was an amazing achievement. These pilot whales beached off Macquarie Point and because you have skilled marine operators out in that area who deal with fish all the time - not pilot whales, I might add - but they do deal with fish and have the equipment and the gear. They are trained in looking after marine animals and did provide a good and supportive service to a very remote location in our state which saw a number of whales return to the sea, which is a positive outcome. I did speak about that in the parliament at the time and commended them on that because it was an important contribution they made whilst maintaining their own business.
The significant marine rescuers are boaters, fishers, divers and surfers, and we all know that anyone in the area, whether they are a witness to or are made aware of a marine disaster, it is all hands to the tiller. We have seen the tragic disappearance of a fisherperson off the north-west coast this week who still has not been found, which is really tragic. We do not expect them to or maybe we do, but if any of us were in that circumstance, we would hope whoever was available and had the necessary skills would help with that search and rescue effort.

Sponsoring the Stay Afloat program dedicated to improving the mental health and wellness of the Tasmanian seafood industry is a really important program in any business, and supporting the Working on Water - WoW - program to introduce students from years 9 and 10 to a wide range of career opportunities available on, in and around the marine environment.

One of the claims essentially made about the higher salaries of these workers is there are more highly paid positions in this sector. I am not questioning that, and encouraging students to look at all the options is really important because it is the old thing - if you don't see it, you can't be it or you can't be it if you don't see it. Exposing our young people to a range of skills and opportunities is really important and I do commend them for that.

I certainly do not dispute the importance of employment in our regional areas. I do not dispute the dedication of the workers undertaking their work, whether it be at sea, in the laboratory, the hatchery, in a processing plant, as part of the distribution network or other aspects of the industry, both direct and indirect. I do believe the reports tabled here for debate should be fully considered and tested where fairly bold claims are made. I have not been able to do that to my satisfaction in the time available.

Point 2 in the member for McIntyre's motion she referred to asked us to acknowledge that the Tasmanian salmon industry is a vital social and economic contributor to the Tasmanian community. It is difficult to confirm in the sense that, how does it really compare to other industries when you are not strictly comparing like with like? It is an important sector, I am not disputing that. All of our agricultural or aquaculture and horticulture activities are important contributors. We are a very rural state. We have a lot of land, we have a lot of water - not compared to the big island to the north, but we do. We have some of the most fertile soils in the nation. Obviously, it is all very important and my comments certainly do not reflect on Deloitte Access Economics. I am just trying to understand what sits behind this motion and whether the claims being made are factual. It has been difficult to ascertain that, but I will listen to other members' contributions. Without the real clarity on the claims made, I find myself in a position where it is difficult to support the motion as it stands. I make those comments before I take my seat.

 

Go Back