Budget Review 1996-97

---

Detailed Portfolio Reviews

August 1996

---

5. ENVIRONMENT, SPORT AND TERRITORIES

5.1 Environment Program
5.1.3 Australian Heritage Commission
5.1.5 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
5.4 Sport and Recreation

The Statement by Senator Hill outlines the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Programs which are to be funded to the amount of $29.6 million in 1996-97 from the Budget, but which funding will be repaid to Consolidated Revenue if and when the Telstra (Dilution of Public Ownership) Bill 1996 and the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Bill 1996 are passed by the Parliament.

The following table (see next page) shows the 1996-97 Budget allocations to environment programs which are now called the National Heritage Trust of Australia programs.

The Forward Estimates of the Environment Program through to the year 1999-2000 are difficult to assess until the fate of the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia is decided by Parliament.

1996-97 Budget *	$m
National Vegetation Initiative	2.5
Murray-Darling 2001 Project	4.7
National Land and Water Resources Audit	1.4
Coasts and Clean Seas	0.0
National System of Reserves	1.0
Total-Capital Projects	9.6
Landcare and tax credits	8.0
Farm Forestry tax credits	0.0
National Rivercare Program	0.0
National Wetlands Program	0.5
Endangered Species Program	1.0
National Feral Animal Control Strategy	4.4
National Weed Strategy	1.9
Air Pollution in Major Cities	1.5
Waste Management Awareness Program	0.5
World Heritage Area Management and Upkeep	0.5
Tasmanian Water Quality	1.8
Total-Non-Capital Initiatives	20.1
Total-Capital and Non-Capital Projects	29.7
* All this funding is dependent on enactment of the National Heritage Trust of Australia Bill 1996.

The Australian Heritage Commission budget has been reduced by $2.4 million for the forthcoming year. This reduction has been brought about by the Government's decision to discontinue the State and Territory component (in operation since 1977) of the National Estate Grants Program (NEGP) which began in 1973. The National Estate Grants Program has been reduced by $3.5 million in 1996-97. At the same time the budget for salaries and administrative expenses has increased by $3.3 million and program costs have been budgeted to increase by $2.8 million. The increased allocations to operational costs (salaries and administrative expenses) and program costs are related to increased program responsibilities under the Commonwealth Forest Policy Program. They are largely to be funded from an increase in revenue of $3.9 million from fees-for-service.

The State and Territory component appropriation for 1995-96 was $5.0 million compared to the $0.3 million allocated to national component projects.⁽¹⁾ The national component of the NEGP was reintroduced in 1991 to take into account the need to fund projects, such as methodologies of national relevance, which have a wide application across Australia or wide ranging comparative studies which involve more than one State or Territory.⁽²⁾ Fourteen of the 347 projects funded in 1995-97 were funded under the national component. 174 projects (58% of funds) were awarded to non-government organisations, 99 (15% of the funds) went to Local Government authorities, 71 projects (26% of the funds) went to State and Territory bodies and 3 projects (1% of funds) went to Commonwealth authorities. The State and Territory component has enabled people to work locally to identify, conserve and protect their heritage.⁽³⁾

There should be $1.0 million available to the national component of the revised National Estate Grants Program in 1996-97, which represents an increase of $0.7 million. It would appear that projects involving thematic and regional studies and surveys to identify and document places of national estate significance, which received over $1.9 million last year, will receive little or no funding this year.⁽⁴⁾

Funding for the Australian Heritage Commission is planned to decline to $9.1 million by the year 1999-2000. The Natural Heritage Trust of Australia program, referred to in Senator Hill's Statement 'Investing in our Natural Heritage', does not appear to have any components which would fund programs implemented by the Australian Heritage Commission, so there is no additional funding from that area which is still to be included.

1. Australian Heritage Commission 1996, 1995/96 National Estate Grants Program.
2. Australian Heritage Commission 1992, Australian Heritage Commission Annual Report 1991/92.
3. ibid.
4. op. cit.

The principal changes to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority are the increase in the environmental management charge on visitors to the Great Barrier Reef, from $1 to $6 as of 1 January 1997, raising an extra $2.5 million for 1996-97; and an associated cut in budget allocation of $2.0 million. This management charge is expected to raise approximately $9 million if an expected 1.5 million tourist days per year are charged at the rate of $6 per tourist day. The GBRMPA's funding will be cut by more than $6 million in three years to 1999-2000. There are still questions as to the costs of collection of this charge and whether the tourist numbers will stay the same.

Tourist operators in the Great Barrier Reef Region have come out against this charge. Some operators would have to absorb bottom line losses of up to $1.5 million because they had published prices and signed contracts for the coming season.

Imogen Zethoven, coordinator of the Queensland Conservation Council, is concerned that the GBRMPA may not be able to operate as an independent authority and could become dependent on the tourism industry, a major reef user. She is quoted as saying 'That is going to throw up a range of conflicts of interest. What the Federal Government is doing is devolving core funding for World Heritage areas back to the private sector.' Jeremy Tager, spokesperson for the North Queensland Conservation Council, has said that the charge unfairly targets the tour operators and should be paid by all park users.

The Sport and Recreation Program promotes participation in sport and recreation, encourages excellence in sport, and discourages the use of drugs in sport. The three sub-programs, with their levels of funding, are as follows:

The decrease in Recreation Development reflects the fact that 1995-96 saw the final of three annual payments of $50 million to NSW for the development of sporting facilities for the Olympic games.

Commonwealth funding for the Australian Sports Commission comprises a base funding level supplemented by two specific purpose programs, Maintain the Momentum (MTM) and the Olympic Athlete Program (OAP). MTM was a four year program (1992-96) directed at both Olympic and non-Olympic sports and aimed at achieving a better performance at the elite level together with improved participation, officiating and gender equity. The OAP is specifically targeted at improving Australian athletes' performance in Atlanta and, more particularly, Sydney 2000. It is a six year program (1995-2000) providing $135 million in funds.

The 1996-97 Budget retains both the OAP and the MTM. The latter continues for another four years with funding of around $36 million p.a. The Budget also includes a reduction in the ASC's baseline funding of $5 million and a new Indigenous Sports Program to cost $2 million in 1996-97. Projected funding for the Sport and Recreation Program after 1996-97 is $96.1 million (1997-98), $97.5 million (1998-99) and $100 million (1999-2000).

Back to Budget Review 1996-97 Contents
Back to Detailed Portfolio Reviews Contents

© Commonwealth of Australia