Outcome: 	Environment			Question No: 17
Output:  	1.4 Environment Assessment and Approvals
Division/Agency:	Approvals and Wildlife Division
Topic:	Stuart Oil Shale Project
Hansard Page ECITA:	123

Senator McLucas asked:
I recall your advice that the department was seeking additional information from SPP. Did you ever receive that information?  I thought there was also a dioxin question as well. What I am seeking to clarify is whether or not they ever complied with the request from the department for that additional information. So if you could just check your records on that, that would be appreciated. In February 2004 we were told that Synnot and Wilkinson had provided a draft report to the department and that it would be inappropriate at that time for you to provide a copy of that to the committee until it was finalised. Now that the EIS has ostensibly been withdrawn, would it be appropriate for the committee to have a copy of that report now?

And the additional information that was required. When you go back over that information, Mr Forbes, it would be useful to this committee to complete this process to find out if SPP at any point provided the department with information that would verify either of those three claims. But I do recognise that you may not have received that information from SPP. SPP said that stage 2 of the Stuart project can proceed with minimal environmental impact. And that would go to their claim that there would be a tenfold reduction in dioxin formation their greenhouse prediction of a reduction to as low as 40 kilograms C per boe.

Answer/s:
Although the Department of the Environment and Heritage received further information from SPP in relation to the request for additional information, not all the additional information requested was received. Accordingly, it is not possible to verify claims made by SPP.

The Synnot and Wilkinson draft report referred to is in the control of the Queensland Government. The Department has sought agreement from Queensland Department of State Development and Innovation to release the report. To date agreement has not been reached.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 18
Output:  	
Division/Agency:	Approvals and Wildlife Division
Topic: 	Multiplex land at Burns Road-Harcourt Road, Altona
Hansard Page ECITA:	124

Senator Webber asked:
Has the company been in contact with the department about the cost that is being incurred while the department assesses the matter or are they happy?

Answer/s:
Prospective developers are encouraged to refer proposals early in their planning in order to obtain certainty in relation to their obligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Representatives of the developer have communicated the fact that awaiting the outcome of the current assessment is having an impact on the parties. In response, staff of the Department met in person with representatives of the company during the referral stage and again during the assessment phase.

The impact on potential land purchasers could have been avoided had Multiplex referred its proposal earlier in its planning.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 19
Output:  	
Division/Agency:	Approvals and Wildlife Division
Topic: 	Multiplex land at Burns Road-Harcourt Road, Altona
Hansard Page ECITA:	124

Senator Wong asked:
Can you also take on notice then in relation to the development that Senator Webber is talking about relating to Burns Road-Harcourt Road in the Altona North industrial estate these questions: when was the department first aware of the discovery of the spiny rice-flower? When did the department contact or advise the developer of this fact? When was an investigation commenced? What is the likely time frame for the assessment process by the department?

Answer/s:
An informant contacted the Department in February 2004 alleging that the Spiny Rice-Flower was present on the land in question.

An investigation commenced immediately, starting with enquiries to validate this report. Once the Department was confident that the matter warranted compliance action, several telephone calls were made to Multiplex. A letter formally raising the matter and seeking referral of the project was sent to Multiplex on 21 April 2004.

The approval phase for this project is anticipated to conclude in mid-April 2005.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 20
Output:  	
Division/Agency:	Approvals and Wildlife Division
Topic: 	MOU between AFMA and DEH on reporting of protected species

Hansard Page ECITA:	125

Senator Bartlett asked: So you do not have a rough time line? It is always dangerous to be too solid, but do you have a rough time line for the conclusion of the MOU?

Answer/s: 
Yes. By end of April 2005.