1.1 The Bill was referred to the Committee on 25 June 1996 by the Selection
of Bills Committee (Report No.6 of 1996).
1.2 The Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 19 June
1996.
Submissions
1.3 The Committee received 99 submissions, and these are listed at Appendix
1.
Meetings
1.4 The Committee considered the Bill at 8 private meetings. A total
of 6 separate public hearings were held and details of these and the private
meetings are at Appendix 2.
Disagreement concerning funding of the Bill
1.5 Opposition and Democrat Senators (Senators Schacht, Lundy and Lees)
wished to state that although they were in agreement with the general
thrust of the report, in its consideration of the operation of the proposed
Natural Heritage Trust Fund, their consideration of the Fund cannot be
taken in any way as support for the Government's proposal to fund the
Trust from the partial privatisation of Telstra. They believe the Trust
must be funded from Consolidated revenue which in turn receives significant
payments from the profits of Telstra.
1.6 Government Senators (Patterson, Campbell and Eggleston) were of the
opinion that given the level of National debt, that it was necessary to
use an alternate source of funding to ensure that the initiatives in this
Bill are implemented.
2.1 The purpose of the Bill is to establish the Natural Heritage Trust
of Australia Reserve.
2.2 Specifically, the Bill will establish the Natural Heritage Trust
of Australia Reserve as a component of the Reserved Money Fund under the
Financial Management and Accountability Act 1996 as soon as that Act comes
into operation; moneys not immediately required for payment out of the
Reserve will be invested and income from these investments will be paid
into the Trust Reserve via Consolidated Revenue.
2.3 The main objective of the Reserve is "to repair and replenish
Australia's natural capital infrastructure"[1]
and "money in the Reserve will be spent on the environment, sustainable
agriculture and natural resources management."[2]
A major part of the expenditure under the Trust centers on five capital
projects. The aim of the Trust is to ensure an integrated approach to
environmental concerns and therefore the initiatives have been developed
around five interdependent environmental packages - Vegetation, Rivers,
Biodiversity, Landcare, and Coasts and Clean Seas.
2.4 To avoid confusion, the Committee agreed to use the terms 'packages'
and 'initiatives' to describe the general overall areas of funding viz.:
Vegetation, Rivers, Biodiversity, Landcare and Coasts and Clean Seas;
and the terms 'projects' or 'capital projects' to describe the National
Vegetation Initiative, the Murray-Darling 2001 Project, the National Reserve
System, the National Land and Water Resources Audit and the Coasts and
Clean Seas Initiative.
2.5 The primary objectives of each of the capital projects are given
in Part 3, Sections 10 to 14 of the Bill.
2.6 The Government has pledged to spend an additional $1.15 billion over
the next 5 years on environmental and sustainable agriculture initiatives.[3]
The main source of funds for the Reserve will be $1 billion from the partial
privatisation of Telstra.
2.7 The government's pre-election policy statement "Saving Our Natural
Heritage" stated:
We will - for the first time in the nation's history - establish
a Commonwealth Trust Fund to be known as the Natural Heritage Trust
of Australia. It will be a perpetual Trust, with initial funding of
$1 billion sourced from the partial privatisation of Telstra.
The money invested in the Natural Heritage Trust will be devoted
entirely to capital projects to maintain and replenish Australia's environmental
infrastructure. All interest earned from the Trust will be devoted to
recurrent expenditure on environmental projects and the further development
of sustainable agriculture.
At the end of the five year program over $300 million will
remain in perpetuity in the Trust.
All interest earned by the Trust will be devoted to environmental projects."[4]
2.8 It is the Government's intention to spend $693 million of the Trust
funds on the five projects over a five year period. Specifically:
1. A National Vegetation Initiative to tackle Australia's
land and water degradation problems ($318 million over five years).
2. The rehabilitation of the Murray-Darling Basin through
the implementation of the Murray-Darling 2001 Project ($163 million
over five years).
3. The undertaking of a National Land and Water Resources
Audit ($32 million over five years).
4. The implementation of a comprehensive National Reserve
System to protect Australia's biodiversity ($80 million over four years)
5. The Coasts and Clean Seas Initiative to tackle the pollution
problems in our coastal areas ($100 million over four years).
[5]
2.9 These funds are additional to other environmental programs and projects.
Supplementary to the $693 million to go to the five projects is a further
$456 million (making a total of $1.149 billion rounded to $1.15 billion)
which is part of ongoing funding for environmental projects. Certainly,
the Committee encountered a considerable amount of confusion in the community
as to the difference between funds from the Trust and other funding available
for environmental projects. This confusion was exacerbated by the inclusion
in 1996-97 budget forward estimates for outlays of $29.6 m from both the
Environment portfolio and the Primary Industries and Energy portfolio
that initiate many of the programs specifically identified in the Natural
Heritage Trust Bill.[6]
2.10 Other areas of expenditure are listed as environment protection,
supporting sustainable agriculture, natural resources management, a purpose
incidental or ancillary to any of the above, the making of grants of financial
assistance for any of the above purposes and an accounting transfer purpose.[7]
2.11 The Bill makes provision for other amounts of money to be appropriated
from Consolidated revenue to the fund as well as enabling gifts and bequests
of money to be given to the Trust.[8] The Bill
is not clear on the matter of interest earned by the Trust funds and the
Committee wants this clarified.
2.12 As noted above, a number of policy statements support the view
that all interest from the Trust Funds will be used for the environment,
and the Bill has a short note about interest in Part 3 Section 10, however
the Committee recommends that statements be included in the Bill to clarify
this issue, categorically stating that all interest from the moment of
inception of the Trust will be devoted to environmental Trust initiatives.
Further, the Committee agreed that, whilst it may not be appropriate to
include this in the Bill, the Government needs to clarify the issue of
funds made available under the Trust and other funding for environmental
projects.
2.13 The Bill proposes that responsibility for the Trust should rest
with a Board of two members - the Minister for Environment, Sport and
Territories and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy.[9]
2.14 Whilst the Bill does not specifically state it, the Minister for
Environment is implied to have precedence. The Committee agreed that
the Bill should clearly state that the Minister responsible for the Environment
Portfolio will be the chair of the Board and thus have ultimate responsibility
to Parliament.
2.15 The functions of the Board will be to provide a forum for consultation
between the Ministers on matters relating to the Trust, decisions relating
to expenditure and investments of moneys under the Trust, and decisions
relating to regulations under the Bill, preparation of estimates and any
other matters relating to the Bill.
2.16 The Bill requires the Board to prepare estimates of debits from
the Reserve for each financial year[10] as
well as having the Trust's financial statements examined by the Auditor-General.[11]
These financial statements must be in accordance with the written guidelines
issued by the Minister for Finance.
2.17 Further, the Minister for Environment, Sport and Territories must
cause to be prepared an Annual Report including the operations of the
Reserve, financial statements and the Auditor-General's report. The Annual
Report is required to be tabled in Parliament within 15 sitting days of
its completion. Under Section 33 of the Bill, the Minister for Primary
Industries and Energy is required to provide such information as the Minister
for Environment, Sport and Territories requires to prepare the Annual
Report and financial statements.
3.1 The Committee was originally required to report on the Bill by 22
August 1996, however, due to the complexity of the issues and the need
to consult widely, the Committee sought an extension of time until 19
September 1996. A further extension of time was sought because the Committee's
commitments at Estimates Hearings allowed little time for consideration
of the draft report. The reporting date was set for 10 October 1996.
4.1 The Committee consulted a broad spectrum of interested parties across
Australia and received submissions from environment groups, peak bodies,
landcare groups, individuals, local and State/Territory Government bodies,
water authorities, research specialists, and Commonwealth Government bodies.
4.2 The majority of witnesses and submissions expressed support for the
general thrust of the Bill and its initiatives and the comments made by
the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), CSIRO (Commonwealth, Scientific
and Industrial Research Organisation) and the World Wide Fund for Nature
(WWF) are examples.
ACF welcomes the five initiatives contained within the Trust.
......We believe these five initiatives address important and pressing
environmental problems in Australia and indeed we have lobbied for enhanced
action on all five of these initiatives in the past. If implemented,
the initiatives outlined in the bill should achieve significant environmental
gains in the areas of land and water management.[12]
CSIRO supports the major directions of the National Heritage
Trust of Australia Bill. It particularly welcomes the Bill as material
evidence of the considerable attention the Government proposes to give
to major environment and natural resource issues...
Our experience supports the Government's conclusion that considerable
and decisive action is needed to halt any further deterioration of Australia's
resource base, to support its rehabilitation, and to secure our country's
future on a basis which is sustainable in both economic and ecological
terms.[13]
We feel that, in general terms, the thrust of the Natural
Heritage Trust Bill is excellent for the environment.(WWF)[14]
4.3 However, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), the WWF and
many other organisations and individuals raised a broad spectrum of issues
and concerns during the hearings and in submissions to the inquiry, about
various aspects of the Bill as drafted and how they perceived it would
operate.
4.4 As the Committee progressed in its inquiry it became obvious that
the nomenclature used in the Bill was causing some concern and confusion
in the community. In particular, many organisations expressed the view
that the Trust would not be subject to the normal parliamentary scrutiny
and accountability mechanisms, despite the provisions in Sections 33 and
34 of the Bill. The word "Trust" appeared to imply that
the fund would be outside of the accountability process, perhaps because
of how the community perceives the operation of family and private Trusts.
..I do not really understand why a trust is being set up in
preference to another scheme. Therefore, we have not made a strong statement
as to whether a trust should exist or not. In a sense, my understanding
of what a trust constitutes is contradicted by this. I do not see this
as really being a trust, simply having two ministers constituting the
board of a so-called trust. (ACF).[15]
SCEC (Sunshine Coast Environment Council Inc.) believes that
environmental expenditure must be part of the normal budgeting processes.
If a Trust, as proposed by the Bill, was established there would be
no mechanism for Parliament to scrutinise the Trust's operation or to
review the programs' effectiveness and no accountability of the Trust
to Parliament. [16]
The formation of a Trust Fund would remove the ability for
normal parliamentary processes to scrutinise the Trusts operation or
question expenditure.[17]
4.5 In view of these concerns the Committee wrote to the Attorney General
seeking his advice...His reply states:
..it is clear that the Bill does enable Parliament
to scrutinise the operations of the Reserve. Clause 33 would provide
that the Minister for Environment, Sport and Territories must cause
to be prepared an annual report which includes, but is not limited to,
a report about the operations of the Reserve during the relevant financial
year, financial statements relating to those operations and the Auditor-General's
report on the financial statement (cl.33(1)). The report on the operations
of the Reserve during the relevant financial year and the financial
statements would need to comply with written guidelines issued by the
Minister for Finance (cls 33(2) and 33(3)). Clause 34 would provide
that the financial statements must be given to the Auditor-General for
examination and report. The Auditor-General would be required to state
whether the financial statements had been prepared in accordance with
the Finance Minister's guidelines and whether they gave a true and fair
view of the matters required by those guidelines (cl.34(3)). The annual
report would have to be laid before each House of the Parliament within
15 sitting days of that House after the completion of the preparation
of the report (cl.33(4)).
The administration of the reserve would also be subject to
accountability mechanisms under the Audit Act, and later the FMA Act
[Financial Management and Accountability Act 1996] and the proposed
Auditor-General Act ('the AG Act'). An efficiency audit of the Department
responsible for administering the Reserve, under s.48C of the Audit
Act, could clearly include the Department's management of the Reserve.
(To the extent that the Board was regarded as 'responsible for the administration
of' the Reserve, its operations could be the subject of an efficiency
audit under s.48C(6).) Such an efficiency audit could include the procedures
being followed for assessing the extent to which moneys paid out of
the Reserve by way of financial assistance to States and other bodies
were applied to the purposes specified in the Bill (s.48D). Under the
AG Act, the Auditor-General will be empowered to conduct a 'performance
audit' of an 'Agency' (cl.13 of the Auditor-General Bill ('the AG Bill)).
An 'Agency' includes a Department, and a 'performance audit' may cover
'any aspect of the operations' of the relevant body (see the definitions
in cl.5 of the AG Bill). Reports of efficiency audits under the Audit
Act may be transmitted to each House of the Parliament (s.48F(8)(c))
and similar provisions will apply under the AG Act (cl.22 of the AG
Bill). The provisions for performance audit are additional to the normal
compliance auditing and reporting to which all elements of the Trust
Fund are subject under the Audit Act (ss 40, 41, 50, 51) and to which
the Reserved Money Fund will be subject under the FMA Act (cls 50, 56-58
of the Financial Management and Accountability Bill).
4.6 The use of the name 'Board' to describe the partnership of
administration between the Ministers for Primary Industries and Energy
and Environment, Sport and Territories was also felt to convey the impression
of a body less subject to parliamentary scrutiny than say, an Advisory
Committee.[18]
4.7 In response to these concerns, both the Departments of Environment,
Sport and Territories and Primary Industries and Energy made the following
comments which, to a large extent, clarified the intentions under the
Bill, but from the Committee's point of view, highlighted the need for
greater explanation and clarity in the Bill itself:
Some submissions which have made reference to the Natural
Heritage Trust board suggest there is some misunderstanding of its role
and function. The board will provide a forum for consultation between
the two ministers with expert independent advice on the programs being
provided to the ministers through existing and proposed advisory structures.
Its operations will be transparent. It will produce an annual report
and be open to the usual parliamentary scrutiny.[19]
[DPIE]
It appears in the appropriation lines of one or other or both
departments [DPIE and DEST]. So it is treated in the way that appropriations
are normally treated. It is subject to scrutiny at estimates time. It
is subject to an annual report, audits and all of those normal processes...
The reason for the structure is that a common fund provides
money for projects that would be implemented by one or other departments.
So the overarching responsibility of the two ministers is to make a
decision as to the allocation of funds to the respective departments.
The process of evaluation and implementation, I think, is the point
at which it is appropriate to bring non-government advisory and participative
processes into the process. The ministers would receive advice that
would lead them to make a decision, but I do not see how non-ministers
could participate as equals in a decision about which appropriation
line the money appeared on.[20][DPIE]
The Department[DEST] has been looking at the submissions that
have been made to your committee during its hearings and we thought
it might be helpful if we picked up on some of the common threads in
some of those submissions and provided you with our perspective. One
of the issues that we notice has been raised is the question of parliamentary
scrutiny of trust activities: because this is a trust, does that in
some sense inhibit parliamentary scrutiny? Our submission tries to bring
out that parliamentary scrutiny is possible in a number of ways: in
the debate on the heritage trust bill itself and through the Senate
estimates committees where details of annual transactions will be reported
in the portfolio budget statement which is a budget related paper tabled
in both houses. The details will also be published in Budget Paper No.
2, 'The Commonwealth public account'. Also, the consolidated revenue
funds which flow into the trust will be able to be scrutinised in the
normal way by parliament and the annual report of the trust must be
tabled by the minister-that is section 33. So, in the normal and appropriate
way, the Senate should be able to get us coming and going in the sense
of going through the budget papers with the prospective activities of
the trust and then retrospectively, as we table the annual report, the
Senate should be in a position to quiz us about how we have met our
obligations..........We understand to an extent the public concerns
about the trust being a novel-although not at all that novel- way of
providing for public expenditure. But I understand that the government's
objective in providing for a trust to which there would be this automatic
appropriation of funds from Telstra was to provide assurance that there
was a greater certainty of funding for nominated projects over a period
of time than would be the case under the normal annual appropriations
process. I think we can achieve that objective of surety and we do not
believe that the parliament's ability to scrutinise officers and ministers
will be reduced.[21]
4.8 The committee concluded that the misconceptions raised by the
use of the words "Trust" and "Board" in the Bill are
important issues with the Bill but easily corrected either by changing
the names or explaining in greater detail in the Bill, the Parliamentary
accountability arrangements and the roles of the various Ministers. While
supporting a 'name' change or greater clarification, the Committee was
not of the view that the Board should include representatives of other
groups. The Committee strongly agreed that only the elected representatives
of the people had ultimate responsibility for Government funding decisions
and, because they were responsible to Parliament and the people, they
were fully accountable to the electorate for any decisions. Senator
the Hon Chris Schacht summed up the Committee's position in answer to
this issue raised at the Brisbane Hearing:
If there is a dispute between them [the two Ministers], the
alternative dispute resolution mechanism is cabinet and that is how
it will be resolved and that is how it should be resolved. If you do
not like it you vote them out at the next election. That is the ultimate
responsibility of the people, together with all the arrangements for
the estimates hearings.
This is a subsidiary issue and from my personal point of view
I would rather have two ministers responsible, answerable to parliament
and the people, than an advisory board. You cannot unelect the advisory
board and whenever something goes wrong they usually disappear into
the night and leave the minister holding the bag to take the rap.[22]
4.9 Three separate issues were raised during the inquiry about the proposed
Board which is to consist of the two responsible Ministers.
4.10 A number of environment groups expressed the view that with the
two-Minister Board the more powerful Primary Industry Portfolio would
overshadow the Environment Ministry and control decision-making with respect
to projects. Some organisations advocated that the two areas of funding
should be kept separate. It was felt that the focus of the Bill, also
reflected in the Board's construction was sustainable agriculture, particularly
given the five capital projects and were concerned that environmental
issues would be overtaken by this agricultural focus.
4.11 Prof. Roger Kitching noted:
It is probably true to say that the single activity which
is having the most negative impact on the ongoing loss of biodiversity
in Australia is primary industry, through activities such as vegetation
clearing, the altering of water and nutrient regimes, and the introductionaccidentally
or deliberatelyof exotic animals ranging from foxes and rabbits
to sheep and cows. I am not passing judgment on any of those things.
I am just saying that this does put the primary industry portfolio in
a very different position from the environment portfolio, which is charged-although
you could sometimes be forgiven for thinking this was not the case-with
a quite different approach to the land and the organisms that occupy
it.[23]
4.12 The Queensland Conservation Council also appeared to hold this view:
While there is some merit in co-ordinating ecologically sustainable
agricultural activities with environmental initiatives, the funding
arrangements for both should be separated. Unless, such agricultural
initiatives funded by the Trust fund actually enhance and protect the
environment.[24]
4.13 The WWF noted in its submission:
...it would appear that as little as 16% of the funds will
be allocated directly to environmental protection through the Environment
portfolio, the remaining 84% being allocated to sustainable agricultural
and other productive systems.
Given the lack of biodiversity and other conservation objectives
enshrined in programs administered by Primary Industries and Energy
and other portfolios, this proposed distribution of funds is unacceptable.[25]
4.14 The contrary view was held by the Catchment and Land Protection
Boards at the hearing in Albury:
I am representing the North Central Land Protection Board
today. I am also a broadacre farmer in north central Victoria. I am
here today to put the case for the north central catchment region. I
will be talking specifically on saving flora, fauna and farm forestry...The
north central region... is a very diverse and also a very closely settled
region of Victoria. The impact of settlement, clearing, irrigation,
mining and general community needs has been to see much of our native
flora and fauna fragmented and ultimately threatened with extinction.
Sixty species have already disappeared from our region and a further
700 native plants and animals are threatened with extinction...The need
to reinstate timber and other sustainable vegetation, along with appropriate
practices to make the entire region not only environmentally sustainable
but also economically sustainable, is of the utmost importance...Too
often we only look at our forests and we tend to overlook the smaller
plants, animals and insects that are so important in the make-up of
the biodiversity of a region.[26]
4.15 The environmental representatives of the Goulburn Broken Catchment
and Land Protection Board supported the idea of integration of the programs:
Certainly a lot of the work that we do is on public land,
but occasionally we do work in combination with the land-holders or
adjoining land-holders. We have found in our catchment that very often
the benefit is to the environment in the long run, because the land-holders
then realise what the problems are. They are also at last beginning
to realise that biodiversity, and the saving of biodiversity, helps
their productivity as well as the actual quality of their soil.
I can understand the environment groups feeling this, but
it depends on the type of environment group you have been speaking to.
But our own environment group-I am speaking now of my particular environment
group that I am involved in - has tended to keep the lines of communications
open rather than end up in two corners. We have tried to modify things
rather than change things abruptly, if you know what I mean. That is
the basic way we have worked, and I think it has worked in the area.[27]
4.16 The Committee concluded that the Bill needs to be redrafted to
explicitly state the Environment Portfolio's primacy. However, providing
certain environment issues of significance which have been omitted (see
Section (e)) are included,
the Committee agreed that at this time the five key capital projects as
identified were undoubtedly of a high priority.
4.17 A number of organisations felt that the two-person Board would be
too narrowly constituted to cover the full range of projects which would
be proposed for funding. Various proposals were put forward at the various
hearings aimed at broadening the expertise of the Board. The suggestions
included supplementing the membership with various experts from the five
key initiative areas (Vegetation, Rivers, Biodiversity, Landcare, and
Coasts and Clean Seas) to a Board consisting of eminent Australians. Various
advisory structures were also canvassed with witnesses by the Committee.
4.18 Professor Kitching, Chair, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Griffith
University, Queensland noted at the Brisbane hearing:
The proposed board, as I read the papers, is composed simply
of the two ministers. I think this is extraordinarily inadequate in
terms of both size and composition. I suggest to you that, to operate
properly, the board of a trust of this magnitude and this importance
must include politicians of other colours, non-politicians with some
real expertise in areas of relevance and some user group representatives.
That list could possibly be expanded but those are the obvious categories
that come to my mind. I believe this still could operate with a board
of no more than six to eight people, but I think that in the interests
of the operations of the trust's being non-partisan and transparent
that is absolutely essential.[28]
4.19 The Committee relayed to Professor Kitching at the hearing the information
and explanation from the Departments of Primary Industries and Energy
and Environment, Sport, and Territories that it is the Government's intention
that the Trust and the Board be fully accountable - that the two Ministers
are responsible and fully answerable to Parliament. The Committee also
drew his attention to the type of advisory structure being canvassed by
the departments - viz. using the chairs of the various committees advising
on the five key initiatives.
4.20 Professor Kitching's response was:
In which case, the minister is properly advised by a wider
body; that would probably be a good way to go. I would suggest that
there is a bit of an information gap concerning what is being perceived
out there.[29]
4.21 The Committee agreed and throughout the hearings in Albury and Brisbane
managed to allay the fears of a number of groups about the accountability
of the Board and its advisory structures.
4.22 The RAOU noted during the Melbourne hearing:
I would like to say that the environment is too big an issue
to leave in the agenda setting to just a few groups and that is why
in our submission, we said that it was one of the reasons for our suggesting
that the Natural Heritage Trust might have a board of eminent Australians
with strategic vision - in other words, people who can give the helicopter
view to issues that are out there and who could advise on appropriate
projects and directions.[30]
4.23 The most acceptable advisory model appeared to be to retain the
Board of two Ministers but having a committee made up of various experts
in the environmental field. Whilst this met with general approval and
appeared to be the kind of structure that the Department's are considering,
a few warnings were raised including the avoidance of duplication of existing
structures and the need to ensure that community organisations and scientific
experts are included.
4.24 At the Committee's hearing in Albury, representatives of the Catchment
and Land Protection Boards which appeared made a special plea to the Committee
to seek a simplification of funding arrangements.
Firstly, there is a lot of resolve in this area to communicate
up and down the tree, and we are very interested in helping to get the
right system in place. I do not want to dwell on the point, but a lot
of people are getting tired of how bloody difficult it is to work with
funding organisations. We are losing our way because a lot of experience
is walking away; we are going to go backwards before we go forwards.
What I am really saying to you is that we need a simple, straightforward
decision or an approach so that the locals, through the catchment boards,
basically become the decision makers or the focal point for funds that
come into the area. Let the locals make their hard decisions. They complained
when they could not do it; let them have a go at it themselves. Do not
be afraid to fall over now and then, because we are still learning.
We have been in this game for 10 years, and I am still learning. Everyone
is still going to learn a lot by the processes and what have you.[31]
4.25 A representative of the Catchment Board added:
Let us just have a look at where we have been. I have sat
on a regional assessment panel for three years and I reckon I am still
struggling to come to grips with all the funding organisations, all
their rules, all their intricacies. I then have to sit there and look
at a community submission that comes in and say, 'You have not filled
out question 2 the way they want it filled out.' You could not blame
them for that because you just about need to have a PhD to understand
all the different forms...Perhaps we could have one form and one funding
basket ...I do not mind going to different groups - but simplify the
process. We do not mind being accountable to the nth degree - but simplify
the application process.[32]
4.26 In the Melbourne hearing, a representative of RAOU noted:
Why I am not suggesting the peak bodies route is that, for
example, an organisation such as ours is not on the peak conservation
organisations of Australia. Despite the fact that we actually asked
if we might be, nobody has got around to putting the largest scientifically
oriented organisation that deals with wildlife in Australia on the peak
conservation organisations. As I have intimated, there would be so many
other organisations that are not part of the recognised clique of peak
organisations, if you like, that are there not because of what they
do on the ground but because of what they do at the doors of the lobbies
of Canberra. I think you will skew the outcomes if it is all driven
by those organisations...[33]
...research work that we have done on the basis of ABS information
suggests that there are already 500 pieces of federal and state legislation
governing farmers and the environment. If that legislation was working,
we would not have the environmental problems that we have today. So,
as a fundamental principle, NFF believes that we should try an incentives
based approach integrated with education to change attitudes and approaches.[34]
4.27 The Committee concluded that the Board should be advised by a
committee of about eight experts drawn from the various environmental
initiative areas (Vegetation, Rivers, Biodiversity, Landcare, Coasts and
Clean Seas) as well as covering expertise in research, water use/irrigation,
climate and atmosphere, soil, and salinity issues for instance. The Advisory
Panel should also include Departmental and environment group representation.
Due consideration should also be given to representation by State/Territory
and local government. In order to keep the Panel to a workable size, every
attempt should be made to recruit members who fulfill more than one of
these criteria. (See Table 1)
4.28 The role of the Advisory Panel would be to receive and review
funding applications with a view to ensuring that each program is delivered
in an integrated manner and recommend proposals to the Ministers. The
Panel members should be 3 year appointments contracted by Regulations
set out under the Bill. The Panel would have the power to refer applications
to the special advisory councils and committees which already exist e.g.
the Biodiversity Advisory Council, the National Landcare Advisory Committee,
and the Murray-Darling Basin Commission.
4.29 With respect to these specialists councils, the Committee believes
that the existing structures should be used but that the Departments should
take this opportunity to examine their advisory structures, to streamline
them and to ensure that duplication is avoided. The Committee also concluded
that the Departments should as a matter of urgency, streamline their administrative
processes and co-ordinate with other funding organisations (such as State
Departments) to simplify the funding/submission process.
4.30 Representation by the grass roots community - landowners, farmers,
fishermen - is seen as extremely important given the high proportion of
private ownership of land in Australia as well as the need to ensure that
conservation measures actually work. Also seen as vital by the Committee,
is the representation by the scientific community given the poor level
of base data and that if biodiversity issues are to be tackled, scientific
monitoring and evaluation is crucial to the achievement of the Bill's
objectives.
4.31 Many groups emphasised the need to ensure that a 'bottom up' approach
is adopted for the administration of funding proposals to promote community
'ownership' of projects and a community will to achievement of real outcomes.
A 'top down' approach was seen as less than satisfactory and liable to
failure and waste of funds.
4.32 A number of Catchment Boards, Landcare Groups and Shire Councils
saw themselves as appropriate vehicles for directing funding to projects
on the ground. Whilst the Committee appreciated that some Boards and Councils
were very well placed to achieve significant results with additional funding,
it recognised that this may not be the case Australia-wide and therefore
refrained from adopting or recommending any sort of rigid model for funding
and assessing applications. Rather, it was felt that the Advisory Panel
should be open to differing models of funding in different geographical
areas and for different environmental problems. A witness from Tasmania
summed up the point as follows:
One of the key points on the whole initiative is that we want
to generate strong multiple outcomes by integration. I challenge any
member of this committee to tell me how you have focused on that integration.
That is the key point to it. If we want strength to come out of this,
we have to be flexible enough that when we see a point of integration,
when we see that we can do something with sewerage that generates an
outcome for fisheries or something with the weed strategy that generates
an outcome for biodiversity, we have to be able to capture it while
it is there.
If we have these inflexible structures that are just not attuned
to quick movement, then the money will be wasted. And I think that,
in this case, if the public sees the billion dollars not generate substantial
outcomes, they will be very disappointed. The public desire is there
to do it. In a recent conversation with a farmer in the Mallee he said,
'You would think that with the problems they would sit down around a
table and not get up until they had decided what to do and told us how
to do it.'...
I think that, to lift the community confidence that we can
tackle the big issues in the environment and therefore encourage us
to continue to fight to save it, we need to pick some winners.[35]
4.33 Thirdly, on the positive side, a number of organisations expressed
their agreement to what they saw as the establishment of an important
formal consultative mechanism via the two Minister Board. It was felt
that this would improve the co-ordination of funding for the environment.
It is the Committee's understanding that a Memorandum of Understanding
is proposed between the two portfolios. However, when asked if such could
be added as an appendix to the Bill the Department of Environment, Sport
and Territories noted that this would be unusual but agreed that the community
needs reassurance of the primacy of the Minister for Environment in relation
to the Trust Bill.
We want to see this as a partnership, not a competition. We
would see ensuring that biodiversity and conservation take their proper
place as integral to sustainable agriculture. Throughout, the landcare
programs and the other agricultural programs have been brought into
this. I have described them as 'agricultural' only in the sense that
they have traditionally been in primary industry, but they are about
addressing environmental problems and concerns. We bring them in together.[36]
The Trust is located within the environment minister's administrative
arrangements orders. That is symbolically very important. We will be
ensuring through these partnership agreements that environmental issues
are addressed at a very early stage in this exercise.[37]
4.34 Of major concern to many of the environment groups was the link
between the partial sale of Telstra and the funding to be provided for
the Trust. Most considered that the funds should be provided from core
consolidated revenue in the same way as other environment program funding.
I would still ask why some aspect of the environment needs
to be handled differently from other aspects of the environment. Our
basic premise, which you can read between the lines - if not in the
lines - in our submission is that we believe the environment is core
government business, just as health and education and other matters
are core government business.[38]
The main thing I did want to clarify was that we believe it
is not necessary to establish a trust fund in order to achieve funding
for the environment portfolio. In our submission we do say that we think
it has some benefits in that it allows for a slightly longer term planning
and expenditure allocation for the environment. We are quite happy with
that but we do not feel that it is absolutely necessary. We hold the
opinion that, in ideal circumstances, funding should come from core
revenue and not from any outside sources.[39]
ACF strongly opposed the Telstra link, ie that the funding
for these initiatives is contingent on the partial sale of Telstra........Given
the national importance of the environment ACF believes that the government's
environment program should be seen as a core function of government
in the same way that, for example, defense programs are.........If additional
revenue is needed to ensure environmental programs are funded to the
required level, the introduction of environmentally-based forms of revenue
generation is a more appropriate approach than public asset sales.[40]
4.35 Not all witnesses or submissions opposed the sale of Telstra as
a source of funds but the Committee noted that, particularly within the
environment groups, there was opposition to this method of funding the
Trust. Still other organisations such as the National Farmers Federation
(NFF) gave full support to the sale.
It is simply not feasible in the current fiscal environment
for any Australian government to undertake substantial investments of
the type envisaged in the Natural Heritage Trust unless it is funded
through the proceeds of asset sales.
Alternative proposals to fund the same level of investment
through increased spending and new or higher taxes are clearly a second
best approach that are unlikely to tackle our natural resource and environmental
problems in a comprehensive or concerted way.[41]
4.36 The Goulburn Broken Catchment and Land Protection Board stated at
the hearing in Albury:
It is an issue that has been canvassed widely in the catchment.
There is certainly a strong view within the catchment that the gains
that could be made through the trust more than justify the partial sale
of Telstra.[42]
4.37 Others refrained to comment preferring to look at the operation
of the Bill.
4.38 A few organisations conceded that should there be no other sources
of funding available, then the sale of Telstra should go ahead to provide
the funds for what they saw as vital environmental projects.
4.39 On the other hand, other environmental groups felt so strongly about
the sale that they considered the Trust should not go ahead unless alternative
funding was found.
4.40 The type of alternative funding proposed included a taxation levy
not unlike the Medicare levy, cuts to the annual Defense budget, usage
of a percentage of the annual profits of Telstra and levies on industry.
4.41 The Colong Foundation noted at the Sydney hearing:
Another suggestion that has been put forward - and I think
it has been done to some extent in the United States - is that industry
should be responsible for all the damage they cause, particularly in
the disposal of waste. That would be quite feasible. It would mean of
course, that the price of goods would have to go up because the cost
of production would rise, and the consumers would then pay for the damage
that was being done. I think that is practical.[43]
4.42 Whilst the majority of submissions supported the five capital projects,
some expressed the view that the Bill as drafted, with these as the centrepiece,
had the potential to become inflexible and unable to change to meet new
and unforeseen environmental challenges and changes in priorities. In
essence, organisations accepted that the five were very long term projects
but could foresee that within five to ten years, say, priorities within
the environment area may change and the Bill did not seem to be able to
adapt to such change.
4.43 The Sunshine Coast Environment Council submission stated:
It is impossible to foresee the types and magnitude of environmental
problems Australia may face in the future. Furthermore, environmental
priorities are likely to change in the future. Funding amounts and priorities
will therefore have to be adjusted to need. SCEC is instructed that,
according to the Commonwealth Financial Management Handbook, it will
not be possible to accommodate such changes under the proposed Trust
without first closing the trust account, repaying the balance to the
Consolidated Revenue Fund and then establishing a new trust account
with the modified purposes.[44]
4.44 While recognising this as a valid point, the Committee agreed
with the Government's aim to encapsulate the five major problem areas
and set aside specific funding to commence the tasks ahead. However, a
way of tackling the problem of potential inflexibility was to identify
broad goals and objectives within the Bill (viz. Vegetation, Rivers, Biodiversity,
Landcare, Coasts and Clean Seas and Atmosphere Issues) and specific program/project
priorities by way of the Memorandum of Understanding or a portfolio vision
statement.
4.45 Quite a few areas were identified in submissions and by witnesses
as being omitted or not given sufficient emphasis in the Bill.
4.46 Several environment groups thought these issues should have been
included in the Bill.
4.47 CSIRO stated:
An important area which is not explicitly covered by the definitions
within the Bill is that of atmosphere-related issues, including climate
change and variability and also air quality which is largely, though
not exclusively, an urban issue. It is important that atmosphere-related
issues are encompassed within the 5 package areas since they are crucial
components in the outcomes for each area.[45]
4.48 The Committee agreed that, given the complete interdependence
of all environmental issues, there was an argument to address atmospheric
issues in the Bill.
4.49 The damage to the environment by weeds, feral animals, rabbits and
other introduced species has been well documented and recognised by the
Australian community and was raised by a broad spectrum of submissions.
4.50 The Committee agreed with the witnesses and various submissions
that overcoming the problems associated with these pests are integral
to the achievement of the Aims of the Bill and should be given attention
in it.
4.51 A number of submissions pointed out that the Bill did not recognise
Australia's International commitments and obligations.
4.52 The Committee agreed that given its national significance and
objectives, the Trust Bill should recognise Australia's obligations.
4.53 In addressing the Committee, a number of research organisations
and individuals such as CSIRO, RAOU, and Prof. Roger Kitching referred
to the need for research.
4.54 Prof. Kitching noted:
I believe the trust offers an opportunity for
a biodiversity research and management initiative very comparable with
the British government's Darwin initiative, for instance, which has
had a very major influence on filling in gaps in our knowledge of that
part of the world. A 'Joseph Banks fund', for instance, would be an
extraordinarily exciting think to see happening in Australia, to help
redress in part our woeful ignorance of our nation's biodiversity and
our impacts upon it.[46]
4.55 In its submission, CSIRO noted:
Research alone does not solve all of Australia's environmental
problems. But it does provide an important part of the toolkit. Research
outcomes include technologies and also, importantly, part of the information
and knowledge base for better informed decisions at the political/policy
level and the resource management and use levels. For successful outcomes,
research has to be accompanied by other measures which may involve all
levels of government, and the managers and users of Australia's resources.........we
wish to stress that each initiative proposed by the Government is closely
reliant on past research or requires a continuing - even enhanced -
research effort, only some of which has been explicitly identified in
the Government's proposals thus far.[47]
4.56 A representative of RAOU noted at the hearing in Melbourne:
My problem is that when I talk to the people in ERIN (Environmental
Resources Information Network) or other GIS (geographic information
systems) jockeys in Canberra and they say, 'This is a beaut area in
western Queensland, based on the atlas data', I have to say, 'That data
is 15 years to 20 years old and that is a cotton field now'. We have
cleared 10 million hectares in those last 15 to 20 years, and we basically
need to update that information, especially if we are going to spend
$80 million on a national reserve system. Where are we going to site
these areas? Which are the key areas? We simply do not know or, at best,
we have old data on which to base it.[48]
4.57 It became clear to the Committee from the submissions and witnesses
that basic environmental research and data is crucial to the achievement
of the Bill's goals and that a significant statement supporting research
was warranted in the Bill
4.58 Whilst very few submissions identified the need for widespread education
and training, the Committee agreed strongly with those organisations which
did draw it to their attention, that the attitudes and knowledge of the
Australian people are fundamental to changing habits and rehabilitating
the natural environment.
4.59 The National Farmers' Federation noted in their submission:
Substantial amounts of money will need to be invested in repairing
the legacy of 200 years of national development facilitated in some
cases by inappropriate government programs and incentives and management
practices.[49]
4.60 But it will also be important to make a national investment in education
and training, including Property Management Planning, to ensure that farmers
and other natural resource managers follow sustainable development practices.
4.61 Consequently, the Committee concluded that the Bill should make
provision for funding of programs to educate children, the general population,
farmers, industry management, employees, and other relevant groups.
4.62 A number of National Trust organisations submitted the view to the
Committee that the Bill should include the 'built''' heritage of Australia
which they felt was of equal priority and significance and equally endangered.
They submitted that a relatively small amount of funding (in comparison
to what was needed to address urgent land and water environment issues
and to what was available under the Trust) was needed to recover and repair
the majority of heritage sights in Australia.
4.63 Whilst the Committee was sympathetic to the needs of the National
Trust organisations, it questioned the appropriateness of this Bill as
a source of funding.
4.64 Notwithstanding this, in recognition of its importance and the
very urgent nature of the work needing to be done,[50]
the Committee recommends that the Government pursue, as a matter of priority,
the issue of adequate funding for our National Heritage with the States/Territories.
4.65 Under Part 4, Section 24 and Part 5, Section 37 of the Bill, provision
is made for the Trust to be able to receive unconditional gifts and bequests
of funds.
4.66 Three separate issues arose concerning gifts and bequests.
4.67 Firstly, a few organisations considered that such gifts should be
made tax deductible.
The Committee agreed.
4.68 Secondly, the Committee was concerned that the Trust and its two
Minister Board of management was not constructed in a form to receive
and disburse funds by way of donation or gift in the normal way the community
would expect such a Trust to operate. Rather, from the Committee's investigations
the 'Trust' is simply a dedicated 'parcel' of funding for the environment.
Although the Committee was in full agreement that the funding for environmental
projects provided by the Government should rightly be administered by
the two Minister Board, the Committee did not consider this appropriate
for funds obtained by way of bequest or gift.
4.69 The Committee felt that a separate highly visible 'account' or fund
would be needed for these moneys and that they would have to be administered
by an independent Trust Board. Consequently, the Committee agreed that
the Government should look more closely at whether such funding should
be attracted to the trust, and if so how is it managed.
4.70 Thirdly, the Committee heard from a number of groups on the issue
that such a provision would work in competition with their own fund raising,
given that many environmental organisations rely on donations to carry
out their work.
4.71 The WWF expressed the following concern:
As far as funding is concerned, the bill must provide for
additional funding for the environment. We have some concerns about
the provision within the bill that allows it to fundraise within the
community. If you like, the government would then become a direct competitor
for organisations such as ours.[51]
4.72 However, RAOU was not as concerned:
We would view it with only moderate concern, I suppose. There
is more to gaining a bequest than erecting a flag. A bequest program
is the final triangle on a very broad base which starts with what you
do, how you deal with your members, whether your members have gone on
to being donors, whether they have been moved up to being major donors
and then have become a bequest maker. You actually have to be in contact
with them or they go and change their mind and leave their bequest to
someone else. So I think you will get bequests to something, say, government
linked, where perhaps people really had not thought about it very much.
But if people within your organisation and concerned with you do so,
then I think they will basically stick with the organisation, provided
you continue to service your members properly.[52]
4.73 The Committee concluded that if the Government retains the Bill's
provision concerning gifts and bequests, that the Departments should maintain
a watching brief on this and ensure that funds are not attracted away
from the community-based groups.
4.74 A number of groups raised the issue of conflicting Commonwealth,
State/Territory and local government regulations, programs and policies
and the potential that these had to reduce the effectiveness of programs
under the Trust. For example, incentives to farmers to clear land of native
forests, water pricing mechanisms which encouraged inefficient irrigation
practices and unrestricted urban sprawl.
4.75 Other obstacles to effectiveness outside of the legislative framework
were also raised, such as fishing practices, in particular the practices
of foreign fishermen in Australian waters, other land-based farming practices
which lead to degradation of the land environment rather than enhancing
its productivity.
4.76 The Murray Darling Basin Commission noted:
Documentation describing the Natural Heritage Trust emphasises
that 'an integrated approach is needed right across the spectrum of problems
we face.' There have been several attempts in the past to achieve such
integration, but most have foundered due to turf-fighting or to the unwillingness
of participants to take off their blinkers.[53]
4.77 The Committee considered this a very serious issue and agreed
that the Bill should include measures to:
- account for improvements as a result of expenditure on specific
programs against base level data and objectives; and
- ensure that no project receives funding where the existing regulations
will work against achievement of the Trust's goals.
Further, the Commonwealth should actively work toward complementary,
if not uniform Commonwealth and State/Territory legislation in the environment
field and that this should be an objective of the Bill.
4.78 A number of witnesses from Tasmania put the case for needs-based
planning and funding through the Trust rather than any per capita approach.
Tasmania has a particular interest because of the key role
it plays in the preservation of Australia's natural heritage and because
of the disproportionate difficulties that we have in servicing these
responsibilities. For example, we have almost 2.1 million hectares set
aside in parks and conservation reserves, more than 30 per cent of the
state. This is not much less than the area of parks and reserves in
Victoria and far more than any other state in percentage terms.
Tasmania has 618 threatened species listed under its Threatened
Species Protection Act. Victoria has 257 listed on its equivalent legislation.
Tasmania has a greater length of coastline than both Victoria and New
South Wales combined, yet Victoria has a population of around 10 times
that of Tasmania and, therefore, has a much broader taxation base to
deal with these issues.[54]
4.77 The Committee was sympathetic to this argument and believed it
appropriate to draw this to the attention of the Minister for Environment,
Sport and Territories.
5.1 The Committee reports to the Senate that it has considered the Natural
Heritage Trust of Australia Bill 1996 and is in agreement with the basic
thrust of the Bill and its intentions. The Committee agreed with a number
of witnesses who saw an urgent need for the Government to restore confidence
in the community's ability to tackle environmental problems and that this
Bill has the potential to fulfill that role, particularly if a number
of high profile projects are tackled with success.
5.2 Nevertheless, the Committee is of the view that specific provisions
of the Bill should be amended or reviewed.
5.3 Notwithstanding this, the Committee was unable to come to agreement
on the issue of the link between the Bill and the sale of Telstra. Opposition
and Democrat Senators (Senators Schacht, Lundy and Lees) wanted the funding
to come from Consolidated Revenue. Recognising this fundamental disagreement,
the Committee decided to concentrate on the issues arising from the Bill
as drafted.
| Recommendation 1 : that the Bill proceed, however,
the Committee foreshadows amendments in the Committee of the Whole. |
5.4 The Committee agreed that the confusion raised by the use of the
words 'Board' and 'Trust' warranted attention.
| Recommendation 2: that the words 'Board' and 'Trust'
be changed or greater explanation be given in the Bill of the
parliamentary accountability arrangements and the roles of the
various Ministers. |
5.5 The Committee supports the composition of the Board as the two responsible
Ministers. However, it noted the concerns raised in submissions and at
the hearings that the Board needs to be fully accountable to Parliament
and 'transparent' in its activities . Further, the Committee felt that
advisory structures for the Board need to be representative and accountable
in their activities and be comprised of the full gamut of interested groups.
Notwithstanding this, the Committee also agreed that there is already
a plethora of funding mechanisms in the field and these should be streamlined.
Recommendation 3: that
- the two Ministers responsible for the Environment and
Primary Industries Portfolios comprise the two-person Board;
- the Minister responsible for the Environment Portfolio
be the Chair of that Board;
- an Advisory Panel consisting of about 8 experts be established
to advise the Board and assess proposals for funding (see
table 1);
- as far as possible, and if appropriate, the existing
specific purpose advisory councils should be retained and
be a source of advice to the Panel if necessary;
- however, Departments should take this opportunity to
examine these and other advisory structures, to streamline
them and to ensure that duplication is avoided;
- the Departments should as a matter of urgency, streamline
their administrative processes and co-ordinate with other
funding organisations (such as State Departments) to simplify
the funding/submission process and ensure that any system
is flexible enough to address unforeseen changes in priorities
or methods; and consequent to the above;
- the Bill should include a reference to the type of advisory
structures which will be put in place by the Departments and
their roles and responsibilities and that separate regulations
should contain the role of the Advisory Panel, the tenure
of the members etc.
|
5.6 The Committee understood the view stated in the submissions and at
hearings that there was a need to clarify the roles and responsibilities
of the Departments of Environment, Sport and Territories and Primary Industries
for the general public. The evidence given by the Departments allayed
many of the concerns previously raised with the Committee. In hearings
which followed the Departments' appearance, the Committee explained to
witnesses that the Department of Environment would indeed be the 'lead'
Department and that a Memorandum of Understanding was to be signed between
the Departments.
5.7 However, the Committee concluded that the bill needs to explicitly
state the Environment Portfolio's primacy, including making the Environment
Minister, chair of the Board.
| Recommendation 4: that the Bill explicitly state
the Minister responsible for the Environment Portfolio's primacy
as Chair of the Board and the relative roles and responsibilities
of each Department. |
5.8 The Committee felt that, providing certain environment issues omitted
from the Bill are included, that at this time, the five key projects identified
in the Bill are undoubtedly of a high priority. Notwithstanding this,
the Committee recognised that there may be potential for the Bill to be
inflexible and unable to deal with changes in priorities and that broad
goals and objectives within the Bill or a separate portfolio vision statement
may be a way of overcoming this.
| Recommendation 5: that the Bill include broad
goals and objectives in the environmental areas - Vegetation,
Rivers, Biodiversity, Landcare, Coasts and Clean Seas and Atmospheric
Issues, to enable the Bill to respond to changes in priorities
and that the Government give consideration to full description
of the five capital projects in a portfolio statement. Such a
Statement could be made annually to inform the community on achievements
and any changes in priorities. |
5.9 A number of other environmental issues were identified by groups
as not being covered in the Bill. These include atmospheric conditions,
exotic pests, feral animals and weeds, international treaties, education
and training, and the built environment. Except for the built environment,
the Committee agreed that these issues should be canvassed by the Bill.
With respect to the built environment, the Committee agreed that the Government
should address funding for National Heritage as a matter of priority.
| Recommendation 6: that the Bill include reference
to atmospheric issues, exotic pests, feral animals and weeds,
international treaties, education and training. |
| Recommendation 7: that the Government address
funding for Australia's Built Heritage as a matter of priority. |
5.10 The Committee agreed with the view put forward by some groups that
these should be tax deductible, but was unable to assess on the basis
of the evidence received and heard, whether or not the Bill's provision
to allow the Trust to receive gifts and bequests of funds would be problematic
for community funding of environmental groups. However, the Committee
did feel that the Trust and its Board as drafted in the Bill may not be
the appropriate vehicle for handling funding such as gifts and bequests.
Consequently, the Committee made the following recommendation:
Recommendation 8: that the Government should consider whether gifts
and bequest funds should be attracted by the fund and if so whether a
more appropriate vehicle for handling such funds (perhaps a separate highly
visible account and administration Board) should be established; and that
if gifts and bequests are retained, the Bill should include reference
to those of a certain amount being tax deductible; and that a watch be
kept on the matter of gifts and bequests to ensure that funds are not
attracted away from community-based groups.
5.11 The Committee agreed that in order for the Commonwealth's funds
to be used effectively to achieve the goals of the Trust, administrators
would need to ensure that there are no Commonwealth, State/Territory or
local government policies or legislative programs in place which will
mitigate against the achievement of the project's objectives.
Recommendation 9: that the Bill
- should include measures to account for improvements as
a result of expenditure programs against base level data and
objectives;
- includes measures to ensure that no project receives
funding where the existing regulations will work against achievement
of the Trust's goals; and
- has as an objective, that the Commonwealth will work
actively toward uniform or complementary legislation in the
environment field.
|
5.12 The Committee was sympathetic to the argument put forward by the
Tasmanian representatives that funding from the Trust should be based
on priority need.
| Recommendation 10: That the matter of needs-based
funding be brought to the attention of the Minister for Environment,
Sport and Territories. |
Senator Kay Patterson
Chairperson
October 1996
Footnotes
[1] Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Bill
1996, Part 1, Section 2, page 3.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Second Reading Speech, Natural Heritage
Trust of Australia Bill 1996, The Hon John Anderson, Minister for Primary
Industries and Energy, 19 June 1996.
[4] Saving Our Natural Heritage, Coalition Policy
Statement, 1996, page 10.
[5] Saving Our Natural Heritage, Coalition Policy
Statement, 1996, page 11.
[6] 'Investing in our Natural Heritage', Statement
by Senator the Hon Robert Hill, Minister for the Environment, 20 August
1996, page 36.
[7] Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Bill
1996, Part 3, Section 8 page 6.
[8] Natural Heritage Trust of Australia bill
1996, Part 4, Section 24, page 13.
[9] Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Bill
1996, Part 5, Section 30, page 16.
[10] Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Bill
1996, Part 5, Section 31, page 16.
[11] Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Bill
1996, Part 5, Section 34, page 18.
[12] Submission No 9, Australian Conservation
Foundation, 24 July 1996, page 1.
[13] Submission No 90, CSIRO, 22 August 1996,
page 1.
[14] Hansard, Wednesday, 14 August 1996, WWF,
page 67.
[15] Hansard, Friday, 9 August 1996, ACF page
3.
[16] Submission No 24, Sunshine Coast Environment
Council Inc., 29 July 1996, page 2.
[17] Submission No 11, Queensland Conservation
Council, 31 July 1996, page 2.
[18] See also Section b (i), page 8
[19] Hansard, Friday 23 August 1996, Department
of Primary Industries and Energy, page 142.
[20] Hansard, Friday 23 August 1996, Department
of Primary Industries and Energy, page 146.
[21] Hansard, Friday 23 August 1996, Department
of Environment, Sport and Territories, page 148-149.
[22] Hansard, Thursday, 29 August 1996, Senator
the Hon Chris Schacht, page 211.
[23] Hansard, Thursday, 29 August, 1996, Professor
Roger Kitching, Griffith University, page 209.
[24] Submission No 11, Queensland Conservation
Council, 31 July 1996, page 5.
[25] Submission No 15, World Wide Fund for
Nature, 30 July 1996, page 5.
[26] Hansard, Wednesday 28 August 1996, North
Central Catchment and Land Protection Board, page 172.
[27] Hansard, Wednesday 28 August 1996, North
Central Catchment and Land Protection Board, page 195.
[28] Hansard, Thursday, 29 August 1996, Professor
Roger Kitching, Griffith University, page 209.
[29] Hansard, Thursday, 29 August 1996, Professor
Roger Kitching, Griffith University, page 211.
[30] Hansard, Friday 9 August 1996, Royal Australian
Ornithologists Union, page 44.
[31] Hansard, Wednesday, 28 August 1996, North
Central Catchment and Land Protection Board, page 168.
[32] Hansard, Wednesday, 28 August 1996, North
Central Catchment and Land Protection Board, page 169.
[33] Hansard, Friday 9 August 1996, Royal Australian
Ornithologists Union, page 49-50.
[34] Hansard, Friday 23 August 1996, National
Farmers Federation, page 122.
[35] Hansard, Friday, 13 September 1996, Mr
B Quin, Tasmanian Agribusiness Services Group, page 262.
[36] Hansard, Friday 23 August 1996, Department
of Environment Sport and Territories, page 149.
[37] Hansard, Friday 23 august 1996, Department
of Environment Sport and Territories, page 152.
[38] Hansard, Friday, 9 August 1996, ACF, page
4.
[39] Hansard, Friday 9 August 1996, Friends
of the Earth (Australia), page 26.
[40] Submission No 9, Australian Conservation
Foundation, 24 July 1996, page 1-2.
[41] Submission No 35, National Farmers' Federation,
July 1996, page 2.
[42] Hansard, Wednesday, 28 August 1996, Goulburn
Broken Catchment and Land Protection Board, page 198.
[43] Hansard, Wednesday 14 August, 1996, The
Colong Foundation for Wilderness, page 94.
[44] Submission No 24, Sunshine Coast Environment
Council Inc., 29 July 1996, page 2.
[45] Submission No 90, CSIRO, 22 August 1996,
page 4.
[46] Hansard, Thursday, 29 August 1996, Prof.
Roger Kitching, Griffith University, page 209.
[47] Submission No 90, CSIRO 22 August 1996,
page 1.
[48] Hansard, Friday, 9 August 1996, RAOU,
page 46.
[49] Submission No 35, National Farmers' Federation,
July 1996, page 3.
[50] See Appendix 3.
[51] Hansard, Wednesday, 14 August 1996, WWF,
page 67.
[52] Hansard, Friday, 9 August 1996, RAOU,
page 54.
[53] Submission No 55, 9 August 1996, MDBC,
page 14.
[54] Hansard, Friday, 13 September 1996, the
Hon Peter Hodgman,Minister for the Environment, Tasmania, page 242.