Animals Australia has lodged two formal complaints targeting the Tasmania salmon industry, calling on Biosecurity Tasmania to investigate potential breaches of the state’s animal welfare laws by its three major salmon producers.
The complaints concern Huon Aquaculture, Tassal Group and Petuna Aquaculture, and raise allegations about both the treatment of farmed Atlantic salmon and the deaths and injuries of native wildlife interacting with salmon farming operations.
Animals Australia is asking Biosecurity Tasmania to investigate whether the practices and incidents documented in the complaints amount to offences under Tasmania’s Animal Welfare Act 1993.
Biosecurity Tasmania has confirmed it received the complaints and said they were under consideration. As of 17 September 2026, no public announcement has been made confirming whether a formal investigation will proceed.
Two Complaints Lodged with Biosecurity Tasmania
The first complaint focuses on the welfare of Atlantic salmon farmed in Tasmania and alleges that a range of industry practices and documented incidents warrant investigation under the Animal Welfare Act.
Animals Australia says these include keeping salmon in warming and low oxygen waters, high stocking densities and intensive confinement, disease and damaged gills, repeated crowding and handling, prolonged periods without feed, fin clipping and slaughter practices.
The organisation also points to the scale of salmon mortality during 2025, saying government data shows approximately four million Atlantic salmon died in Tasmania’s salmon farms.
Animals Australia legal counsel Shatha Hamade said deaths on this scale should be considered an animal welfare issue rather than simply an industry mortality statistic.
The complaint alleges potential breaches of sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Animal Welfare Act, including provisions relating to the duty of care and management of animals, cruelty and aggravated cruelty.
Whether any of those provisions have been breached has not been determined.
Seals, Dolphins and Seabirds Included in Second Complaint
A separate complaint focuses specifically on native wildlife injured or killed through interactions with salmon farming operations.
According to departmental wildlife interaction records cited by Animals Australia, 51 birds, eight seals and five dolphins died during interactions with Tasmania’s salmon farms in 2025. The same records show 3,477 seal crackers and at least 81 beanbag rounds were deployed during the year.
Animals Australia says the complaint documents incidents across multiple operators, facilities and years, including dolphins becoming entangled and dying in predator nets, seals suffering injuries from projectiles or prolonged confinement, and seabirds becoming trapped and dying within salmon farming infrastructure.
The organisation argues that these incidents should have been individually assessed for potential breaches of the Animal Welfare Act, rather than recorded simply as wildlife interactions.
Animals Australia also cites departmental records dating to 2018 which it says show a government wildlife biologist warned that existing seal deterrent practices were likely contravening the Animal Welfare Act “on a significant scale”. The use of beanbag rounds and explosive seal deterrents by Tasmania’s salmon industry was also being publicly scrutinised at the time.
Animals Australia has called on Biosecurity Tasmania to investigate the incidents documented in the complaint and determine whether any offences have occurred.
Tasmania Salmon Industry Rejects Allegations
Salmon Tasmania, which represents the state’s major salmon producers, has rejected the allegations.
Chief executive John Whittington described them as “recycled and false allegations” from an organisation he said was opposed to salmon farming.
Salmon Tasmania said producers have both legal and ethical obligations to maximise the welfare of their fish, with fish health managed by qualified veterinarians and dedicated fish health teams.
The industry body also said its members adhere to internationally recognised standards developed specifically for the welfare of farmed Atlantic salmon.
The ABC approached Huon Aquaculture, Tassal and Petuna individually about the allegations, with Salmon Tasmania responding on behalf of the industry.
Complaints ‘Under Consideration’
Biosecurity Tasmania is responsible for assessing complaints concerning alleged breaches of the Animal Welfare Act.
The Department of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) Tasmania confirmed it had received the Animals Australia complaints and said the matters were “currently being considered”.
Under Biosecurity Tasmania’s published complaints process, reports are initially assessed to determine whether further information is required. Where sufficient information is available and an investigation is considered warranted, a complaint can then be assigned to an authorised officer for investigation.
The complaints were also raised in the Tasmanian Parliament on 8 September, when Greens leader Rosalie Woodruff asked Primary Industries and Water Minister Gavin Pearce whether Biosecurity Tasmania would investigate the allegations.
Pearce told Parliament the matters were under consideration and said it would be inappropriate to provide further information while that process was underway.
Parliament Votes 23–9 Against Peter George’s Motion
The following day, independent Franklin MP Peter George moved a motion calling for a formal investigation into the allegations made by Animals Australia.
The motion called on the Government to ensure Biosecurity Tasmania immediately commenced a formal, independent, comprehensive and properly resourced investigation into both complaints. It also called for enforcement action, including prosecution, wherever evidence established that offences had occurred, and for the Minister of Primary Industries and Water to report back to Parliament on 27 October on whether investigations had commenced, their scope and status, and any findings or enforcement decisions.
George argued during the debate that the motion did not presume the salmon producers were guilty of any offence, but sought to ensure the allegations were formally investigated. Labor’s Shane Broad argued that allegations should not be treated as findings of wrongdoing and raised concerns about Parliament directing an investigative authority, citing procedural fairness and natural justice.
The motion was defeated by 23 votes to 9. The official division recorded the following votes:
| Member | Party / Status | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Tabatha Badger | Tasmanian Greens | Aye |
| Vica Bayley | Tasmanian Greens | Aye |
| Helen Burnet | Independent | Aye |
| Craig Garland | Independent | Aye |
| Peter George | Independent | Aye |
| Kristie Johnston | Independent | Aye |
| George Razay | Independent | Aye |
| Cecily Rosol | Tasmanian Greens | Aye |
| Rosalie Woodruff | Tasmanian Greens | Aye |
| Eric Abetz | Tasmanian Liberals | No |
| Bridget Archer | Tasmanian Liberals | No |
| Guy Barnett | Tasmanian Liberals | No |
| Shane Broad | Tasmanian Labor | No |
| Meg Brown | Tasmanian Labor | No |
| Jen Butler | Tasmanian Labor | No |
| Carlo Di Falco | Independent | No |
| Anita Dow | Tasmanian Labor | No |
| Felix Ellis | Tasmanian Liberals | No |
| Michael Ferguson | Tasmanian Liberals | No |
| Janie Finlay | Tasmanian Labor | No |
| Jess Greene | Tasmanian Labor | No |
| Ella Haddad | Tasmanian Labor | No |
| Jane Howlett | Tasmanian Liberals | No |
| Roger Jaensch | Tasmanian Liberals | No |
| David O’Byrne | Independent | No |
| Madeleine Ogilvie | Tasmanian Liberals | No |
| Gavin Pearce | Tasmanian Liberals | No |
| Jeremy Rockliff | Tasmanian Liberals | No |
| Mark Shelton | Tasmanian Liberals | No |
| Marcus Vermey | Tasmanian Liberals | No |
| Josh Willie | Tasmanian Labor | No |
| Dean Winter | Tasmanian Labor | No |
The division records how members voted on George’s motion as a whole. A No vote does not necessarily indicate opposition to an investigation, as the motion also sought to direct its commencement, scope and timing, and called for enforcement action where evidence established offences.
George also tabled documents relating to alleged breaches of the Animal Welfare Act involving seals, dolphins, seabirds and other wildlife during the debate.
What Happens Next?
Animals Australia is seeking formal investigations into both complaints and has called for Biosecurity Tasmania to use its investigative powers to obtain relevant records and evidence.
The organisation wants the practices and incidents detailed in the complaints assessed against the offence provisions of the Animal Welfare Act, with enforcement action, including prosecution, where investigators determine there is evidence that offences have occurred.
Peter George’s parliamentary motion was defeated, but the vote did not determine the outcome of the complaints themselves. They remain before Biosecurity Tasmania for consideration.
As the time of writing this article, Biosecurity Tasmania has not publicly confirmed whether either complaint will proceed to a formal investigation. The next step is Biosecurity Tasmania’s decision on whether either complaint warrants further investigation.
Editorial Note: Wild Island is committed to publishing accurate, evidence based wildlife information. This article has been researched using authoritative sources, including government agencies, official records, statements from relevant organisations and reputable news reporting. Information was verified against the sources available at the time of publication, with significant subsequent developments added as dated updates where appropriate.
Cover Image by JJ Harrison / CC BY-SA 3.0.
