Tasmania Must Come First

Position Statement — AI Data Centres in Tasmania. Firmus, our power, and who gets to decide. September 2026.

Tasmania is being asked to host one of the biggest expansions of AI data-centre capacity in Australia.

Firmus currently has three major developments in northern Tasmania:

104 MW at St Leonards

288 MW at Bell Bay

52 MW at Wesley Vale

That is a combined stated maximum demand of 444 MW.

If all three operated continuously at that level, they would use about 3.9 TWh of electricity a year, equivalent to roughly 35% of Tasmania's entire 2024 electricity consumption.

They will not necessarily operate at maximum capacity all year. But the comparison shows the scale.

This is not an ordinary development. It is a major decision about how Tasmania uses its power, water, infrastructure and other strategic resources.

Our position

Pause further major expansion and prove the case first.

One Nation Tasmania is calling for no further major data-centre approvals or new major electricity commitments, beyond existing legally binding commitments, until the Parliamentary Inquiry reports and Tasmania has assessed the cumulative impact on our power system, hydro storages, water, infrastructure and existing industries.

Where we stand

1. Pause and assess

No further major data centre approvals and no new major energisation commitments, beyond existing legally binding commitments, until the parliamentary inquiry reports and a comprehensive statewide resource and infrastructure assessment is completed.

We need to properly assess the cumulative costs, benefits and resource impacts of the industry before committing further major resources.

2. Ensure Tasmania gets a fair go

Major data centres should bear the costs reasonably attributable to the energy, connection, network and infrastructure requirements their development creates, rather than passing those costs on to Tasmanian households and businesses.

However, where a development delivers clear strategic value to Tasmania or Australia, including sovereign computing, critical data security, national security, research capability or significant long-term economic benefits, government support may be justified.

Any public support must be transparent and proportionate to the strategic and economic benefits returned to Tasmania and Australia.

3. Protect Tasmania's power

Major data centres should only receive their full electricity connection where reliable supply and network capacity can be demonstrated without compromising affordable and reliable electricity for Tasmanian households or existing industry.

Where their load creates a need for additional reliable generation, network works or other system requirements, they must secure them and bear the costs reasonably attributable to their development.

Any commitment to reduce demand during system stress must be binding and measurable, with clear triggers, minimum load reductions, response times, duration and consequences for non-performance. Any claimed demand flexibility must also disclose whether it is achieved through genuine workload reduction, on-site generation or another method.

4. Require full transparency

Tasmanians deserve to know what these developments actually deliver.

Government should publish public-interest summaries of agreements involving government and government-owned businesses and require independently verified reporting of actual electricity and water use, employment, Tasmanian procurement, council rates and taxation contributions, public support received, demand-reduction performance, and the share of Tasmanian computing capacity serving Australian and overseas markets.

5. Put Tasmania's strategic interests first

Every major development must be assessed against its statewide impact on Tasmania's hydro system, water, existing industries, agriculture, electricity prices and reliability, Marinus Link, transmission infrastructure and alternative productive uses of our limited resources.

This must include independent modelling of hydro storage levels and operations under normal, dry and prolonged low-inflow conditions, including whether the development would increase storage drawdown, change hydro operations, require replacement generation or network investment, or reduce reliable electricity available to Tasmanian households and industry.

Siting must also form part of the assessment, including proximity to homes and communities, noise, backup generation, fire risk and emergency response.

6. Protect Australia's sovereign interest

Australia must retain sovereign capability and effective control over critical digital infrastructure and strategically important workloads.

Ownership, data sovereignty, cybersecurity, critical supply chains, resilience and the location and control of strategically important workloads must form part of the assessment of major data-centre developments.

Why this matters

Firmus Technologies is developing three AI data centres in northern Tasmania. St Leonards near Launceston is under construction, with an Aurora electricity agreement ramping to 104 megawatts from November 2026. Bell Bay, on the former Gunns pulp mill site at Long Reach, was approved by George Town Council on 25 August 2026 at a stated maximum demand of 288 megawatts. Wesley Vale is still in process, starting at around 26 megawatts and scaling to 52.

Together that is a stated maximum demand of 444 megawatts. If these centres ran at full capacity for a year, they would consume roughly 3,890 gigawatt-hours of power. To put that in perspective, Tasmania's total energy consumption in 2024 was about 10,980 gigawatt-hours – meaning this single company's upper limit equals roughly 35% of the power our entire state used that year. That 35% is an absolute ceiling rather than a day-to-day forecast – since the sites will open in stages, usage will fluctuate, and Firmus says they can dial back power when the grid is stressed. However, the electricity system still has to plan around the credible demand these connections create.

Even with those daily fluctuations, the sheer strategic scale of this project is undeniable. If just the St Leonards and Bell Bay sites reach their maximum stated demands, Firmus will draw up to 392 megawatts before Wesley Vale even enters the picture. That alone immediately places Firmus among the heaviest electricity users in Tasmania.

For context, Bell Bay Aluminium is already one of our state's biggest industrial power consumers. The new Bell Bay data centre alone is asking for 288 megawatts of capacity, while promising just over 115 permanent local jobs in return.

Making this comparison does not mean the project is not worthwhile. Direct employment is just one metric; upgrades to our fibre-optic networks, new tax revenues, keeping strategic computing power in Australia, and local procurement all bring massive value. Rather, it highlights that a short-term burst of construction jobs and capital spending isn't enough to automatically settle the public interest question. Before we hand over a massive slice of the state's power grid, we need to definitively measure the true, long-term return for everyday Tasmanians – and so far, that hasn't happened.

What went wrong

George Town Council approved a 288 megawatt facility after receiving 349 formal representations, with an electronic petition approaching 6,000 signatures. Council planners noted that some of the broader concerns raised by the community, particularly energy-system and government-policy questions, sat outside what the planning authority could lawfully consider. The statutory framework legally restricted what the councillors were actually allowed to consider. The issue here isn't whether the council followed the law, but that the law itself is completely inadequate. Currently, there is no requirement for a separate, statewide assessment to weigh the massive energy and public-interest questions these projects raise.

Local planning authorities are designed to assess standard development issues like noise, stormwater, traffic, and boundary setbacks. They simply do not have the statutory power to determine whether a single company should be handed a massive share of Tasmania's electricity, how that demand impacts the broader grid, or if the state is getting a fair financial return. Ultimately, a development with severe, statewide energy consequences was pushed through a local process that was never equipped to answer those statewide questions.

Even George Town's own mayor admitted after the vote that a project of this magnitude probably should have been treated as one of state significance. Yet, the State Government brushed this off, arguing that data centres don't meet the criteria for a major project and that standard local development pathways are sufficient. That is the heart of the problem: Tasmania currently has no regulatory assessment pathway capable of handling industrial proposals of this staggering scale.

Meanwhile the Government promoted a Northern Tasmania "AI Factory Zone" alongside Firmus in July 2025, well before any dedicated framework existed. It has ruled out a moratorium and says a statement of expectations will follow within its current 100 day agenda. A House of Assembly inquiry into AI data centres is now running. St Leonards is already under construction, Bell Bay has now been approved, and Wesley Vale remains in the development process.

Approve first. Write the rules later. Fourteen months after that launch, Tasmanians still do not know the price basis in the Aurora agreement, who funds the network augmentation, what protection exists if the load never fully arrives, or what share of this capacity is contracted to Australian customers rather than overseas ones. We are asking to see enough of the deal to know that Tasmanians are protected.

What the evidence tells us

Every country and jurisdiction that got there before us ended up writing special rules for very large loads. Not because they turned against technology, but because ordinary planning and ordinary electricity tariffs were never designed for developments operating at this scale.

Northern Virginia hosts the largest concentration of data centres on earth. Its independent legislative review found data centres were paying their allocated cost of service, and still concluded that future growth could add roughly US$14 to US$37 a month to the generation and transmission component of a typical residential customer's costs by 2040 under its modelled scenarios. Virginia responded with a separate large-load customer class, long minimum contract terms, minimum network payments and financial security. Paying the going rate is not the same as paying your way.

Ireland experienced rapid data-centre growth before tightening its connection rules. Data centres reached around 23 per cent of metered national electricity in 2025. New connections must now provide generation or storage matched to their maximum import demand, and after a transition period source at least 80 per cent of annual consumption from additional Irish renewable projects.

Singapore, short of land and power, stopped taking connections first come first served and now allocates capacity selectively against economic and environmental criteria. The Netherlands restricted where hyperscale facilities can be built. Norway treats large data centres as critical infrastructure with security obligations. The European Union requires public energy and water reporting.

Québec, which like Tasmania sells hydro power, is moving toward a distinct large data centre tariff priced against the cost of new supply rather than the cost of the system it already built. Publicly owned low-cost electricity is a strategic asset. It should not be committed on an extraordinary scale without recovering the costs created and demonstrating a clear public return.

The Commonwealth now accepts the principle. Its March 2026 expectations say new data centres should secure additional generation or storage, cover their share of transmission and distribution costs, provide demand flexibility and advance the national interest. Tasmania's own minister has said operators should pay their way for water and energy. Ultimately, the takeaway isn't that data centres are inherently bad. It's simply recognising that facilities of this massive scale are strategic industrial users – and they must be regulated as such from the very beginning, before the state's megawatts are signed away rather than after.

The Three Questions

Our position rests on three questions the Government has yet to answer publicly.

1. Who pays?

Not simply what tariff Firmus pays today, but whether its published commitments translate into binding Tasmanian arrangements covering additional generation, system-security requirements, substations and transmission, and who carries the loss if the load is delayed, reduced or never arrives. Paying an allocated tariff now does not answer what happens to system costs later. If any of it lands on households or existing Tasmanian industry, Tasmanians are subsidising it whether or not anyone calls it a subsidy.

2. Who benefits?

Firmus describes its model as energy in, tokens out. It has said capacity beyond Australian demand will be sold into allied markets, and it has built the global connectivity to do it. That may be a perfectly good business. But if Tasmanian electricity is being converted into an internationally traded digital product, Tasmanians are entitled to know what share of our power serves Australian government, business and research users, and what share is an export using our hydro as the input.

3. Who decides?

A council planning permit cannot settle how Tasmania allocates a large share of its electricity system. Parliament should set the framework, and projects of this scale should require a separate state-level strategic approval. Some of the most consequential terms, including electricity supply, risk allocation and potentially network costs, sit inside confidential commercial arrangements between Firmus and government-owned businesses. Tasmanians are entitled to enough transparency to know that the public interest is protected.

The Tasmania First Test

Tasmania has something the world wants: reliable hydro-backed electricity, a cool climate, industrial land and a strategic location. That is not a reason to say no. It is the reason we are in a position to set the terms.

If these projects pay their way, bring the energy they need, strengthen Australian sovereign capability and deliver a demonstrable benefit to this state, they should be welcome here. The Government's job is to prove that case before further major resources are committed, not afterwards.

Tasmania First. Australia Always.