Bills Digest No. 19 2003-04
Ozone Protection (Licence Fees - Manufacture) Amendment
Bill 2003
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details
Passage History
Ozone Protection (Licence
Fees - Manufacture) Amendment Bill 2003
Date
Introduced: 5 June 2003
House:
House of Representatives
Portfolio:
Environment and
Heritage
Commencement:
On Royal
Assent
To extend the current payments applying to the
manufacture of prescribed ozone-depleting substances to certain
synthetic greenhouse gases. The Bill also allows for an increase in
these payments.
Background
The Ozone Protection (Licence Fees -
Manufacture) Amendment Bill 2003 (the Bill) is one of a package of
three Bills dealing with ozone protection. The policy background to
this package is contained in the Digest for the Ozone Protection
and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Legislation Amendment Bill 2003.
Existing Section 4 of the Ozone Protection
(Licence Fees Manufacture) Act 1995 provides that the holder
of a controlled substances(1) licence must pay a fee to
the Commonwealth for any HCFC or methyl bromide manufactured by
them during a quarter. The fee is calculated by clause 4 of the
Ozone Protection (Licence Fees Manufacture) Regulations.
Items 1-3 all make minor
consequential changes as a result of regulation of synthetic
greenhouse gas being introduced under the Ozone Protection and
Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Legislation Amendment Bill 2003.
Item 4 substitutes a
new section 4 that provides that the holder of a
controlled substances licence is liable to pay a levy to the
Commonwealth for the manufacture of any substance allowed by that
licence. As for existing section 4, the amount is payable on how
much is manufactured during a quarter and is to be calculated under
regulations.(2) Where the manufacture of a SGG is
permitted by regulations made under section 13(1A) of the Ozone
Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Legislation Amendment Bill
2003, no levy is payable: new subsection 4(2).
New subsection 4(4) sets an upper limit on the
levy. The upper limits are 50% above the current
fees.(3) According the Explanatory Memorandum
to the Bill:(4)
The original aim of the [Ozone Protection Act
1989] was that meeting Environment Australia s administrative
and industry support activities be financed through fees paid by
industry. However, commencing in 2010, Environment Australia s
costs are expected to exceed the combined revenue available from
accumulated financial reserves and future revenue from payments
under existing fee structures. In order to meet obligations
extending through to 2020 when ODS will no longer be needed for
most applications, Environment Australia is seeking increases of 50
percent in selected licence application fees, increases of 50
percent in activity fees and the introduction of fees for certain
administrative functions now performed free of charge.
Licence application fees have not risen since
1995. In the ensuing period, normal parameter adjustments in the
average cost to Environment Australia of employing staff to process
licence applications have been experienced. Second, in the next
10-15 years the revenue which Environment Australia obtains from
activity fees will decline sharply as legislative limits covering
industry access to imports of two prominent ODS -
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and methyl bromide used for
horticultural purposes - progressively restrict imports. A decline
in revenue from activity fees will occur at the same time
[Environment Australia] faces the greatest demand on its resources
to assist industry in adjusting to ozone benign alternatives.
Note that new section 4 uses
the term levy as opposed to the existing fee . A levy is a form of
taxation. The change of wording from fee to levy is consistent with
Office of Parliamentary Drafting Directions that state that
taxation should be imposed by express words .(5)
- These are hydrochloroflurocarbons (HCFCs) and methyl
bromide.
- Note that this quarterly activity levy is additional
to the costs of holding a controlled substances licence. A
controlled substances licence, which is valid for two years, costs
$10 000. See Explanatory Memorandum, p. 5.
- There is no current fee for SGGs as these are not covered by
current legislation.
- P. 4.
- Drafting Direction 4/1993. See also Drafting Direction
6/1982.
Angus Martyn
25 August 2003
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to
Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care
is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the
paper is written using information publicly available at the time
of production. The views expressed are those of the author and
should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services
(IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in
this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for
related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional
legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an
official parliamentary or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's
contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with
members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 2003
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior
written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Members
of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official
duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library,
2003.
Back to top