Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 50
Division/Agency:	Heritage Division
Topic: 	Norfolk Island

Hansard Page ECITA:	133

Senator Wong asked:

When did the ACF nomination to the commission of these six sites first occur?

Answer/s:

The six areas on Norfolk Island nominated by the Australian Conservation Foundation for assessment for entry in the Commonwealth Heritage List were first nominated to the former Australian Heritage Commission, for assessment for entry in the Register of the National Estate, on 6 December 1996.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 51
Division/Agency:	Heritage Division
Topic: 	World Heritage Area Funding
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written question on notice

Senator Mackay asked:

Could you please provide the details of World Heritage Area funding allocations made to each of the States and Territories over the previous 10 years?

Answer/s:

A table showing World Heritage Area funding since the 1994-95 financial year is attached.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 52
Division/Agency:	Heritage Division
Topic: 	World Heritage Area Funding

Hansard Page ECITA:	Written question on notice

Senator Mackay asked:

What consultation is undertaken with local communities, local interest groups, industry bodies and environment groups in determining the allocation of funding?

Answer/s:

The Australian Government invests in a range of World Heritage consultation mechanisms, including Boards of Management, Community Advisory Committees, Technical and Scientific Advisory Committees and combined Community and Scientific Advisory Committees. Different approaches have been developed to meet the property and local community needs. There is strong community support for these mechanisms domestically and their operation has attracted favourable international comment.

Consultation regarding funding allocations varies between World Heritage Areas depending on the structure, number and membership of the World Heritage Area Committees for each World Heritage property. However, the broad membership of the above mentioned groups ensures that appropriate consultation is undertaken.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 53
Division/Agency:	Heritage Division
Topic: 	World Heritage Area Funding

Hansard Page ECITA:	Written question on notice

Senator Mackay asked:

Why have World Heritage Area base funding allocations to Tasmania been reduced by $1.9 million over the past 2 years?

Answer/s:

With the commencement of the second phase of the Natural Heritage Trust, the framework for the provision of Australian Government funds has changed. Funding is now available at the national, state and regional levels, with the majority of funding provided through regional investment. As a result, national funding for World Heritage properties has been reduced. States may access additional funds through the regional investment strategies.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 54
Division/Agency:	Heritage Division
Topic: 	World Heritage Area Funding

Hansard Page ECITA:	Written question on notice

Senator Mackay asked:

Is this reduction going to be addressed and the funding amounts reallocated to Tasmania?

Answer/s:

A funding program is being developed for the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area for the next two years. In addition to these funds, Tasmania has the opportunity to access funds through the Natural Heritage Trust regional investment stream.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 55
Division/Agency:	Heritage Division
Topic: 	World Heritage Area Funding

Hansard Page ECITA:	Written question on notice

Senator Mackay asked:

Is this reduction (of 32% over 2 years) comparable to other World Heritage Areas, such as the Northern Territory and areas such as Kakadu National Park and Uluru? If not, why not?

Answer/s:

No. Following World Heritage listing of the Tasmanian Wilderness in 1982, and the associated Gordon-below-Franklin Dam case, the Australian Government provided Tasmania with a generous funding package to, among other things, protect the World Heritage values of the area and assist with the development of environmentally sustainable resource use.
Since that time 11 Australian properties have been added to the World Heritage List. Australia has obligations under the World Heritage Convention to ensure that all are managed to protect and conserve their outstanding universal values. 
Today the Tasmanian Wilderness, which back in 1982 was considered an economic liability, has been transformed into a great asset, delivering valuable eco-tourism dollars into the State's economy
The Australian Government will continue to meet its World Heritage obligations for all of Australia’s 16 World Heritage Areas – including the Tasmanian Wilderness. Clearly there is a need to ensure funding for World Heritage is provided in a manner that meets priority management needs across all properties.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 56
Division/Agency:	Heritage Division
Topic: 	World Heritage Area Funding

Hansard Page ECITA:	Written question on notice

Senator Mackay asked:

On 20 April this year, Minister Kemp at a door stop interview in Hobart said that he “would like to see Port Arthur go forward in the next two or three years to World Heritage nomination”. If this nomination is successful, would the reduced funding issue be addressed to take into account this additional site in Tasmania?

Answer/s:

Funding for the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area is determined by a funding agreement between the Australian and Tasmanian Governments. This arrangement is independent of the Port Arthur nomination. Port Arthur, which could only be listed under the cultural criteria, would not be eligible for funding under the Natural Heritage Trust, in accordance with the Trust guidelines.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 57
Division/Agency:		Heritage Division
Topic: 		World Heritage Area Funding

Hansard Page ECITA:	Written question on notice

Senator Mackay asked:

Have all of Australia's world heritage areas been nominated for the National Heritage List? If not, why not? When will they be nominated?

Answer/s:

Schedule 3 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Regulations 2003 No.1 provides for the Minster to transfer to the National Heritage List any of Australia’s World Heritage Properties for the values for which they were inscribed on the World Heritage List. Given the Schedule 3 provision a nomination of Australia’s existing World Heritage properties is not required.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 58
Division/Agency:		Heritage Division
Topic: 		World Heritage Area Funding

Hansard Page ECITA:	Written question on notice

Senator Mackay asked:

What extra protection, if any, will World Heritage Areas receive if they are on the National Heritage List?

Answer/s:

To be on the World Heritage list a place must be of ‘outstanding universal value’. The World Heritage provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 protect the values for which a World Heritage property is listed. To be in the National Heritage List a place must have ‘outstanding heritage value to the nation’. As a consequence of the different thresholds a World Heritage place may have National Heritage values that are not of ‘outstanding universal value’.

The provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Regulations 2003 No.1 provide for the full Constitutional protection available to the Australian Government for listed places of both ‘outstanding universal value’ and ‘outstanding value to the nation’.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 59
Division/Agency:	Heritage Division
Topic: 	World Heritage Area Funding

Hansard Page ECITA:	Written question on notice

Senator Mackay asked:

Are you aware of how the World Heritage Area funds are allocated by the individual States and Territories?

Answer/s:

Australian Government funding for State-managed World Heritage properties is directed to meeting Australia’s international obligations under the World Heritage Convention to protect and manage Australia’s World Heritage Areas. This funding is additional to the States’ funding allocations given its heritage management responsibilities. 

To meet its responsibilities, the Australian Government makes funding grants to State Governments from the Natural Heritage Trust under the program ‘Meeting our Obligations under the World Heritage Convention by Protecting and Managing Australia’s World Heritage’. Funding is allocated, through a financial agreement, after applications have been received and assessed from the State managers. 

Funding grants are made across five categories:
•	Baseline funding for the Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area; 
•	Baseline funding for the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area; 
•	Strategic Management Support activities such as community and technical and scientific advisory mechanisms and executive officers; 
•	Priority Projects such as those identified in agreed property management plans and strategies; and 
•	Assessment and Nomination activities.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 60
Division/Agency:	Heritage Division
Topic: 	World Heritage Area Funding

Hansard Page ECITA:	Written question on notice

Senator Mackay asked:

Are you aware of what overall costs are incurred in managing the various World Heritage Areas?

Answer/s:

The Commonwealth’s funding of Australia’s World Heritage Areas is provided in the answer to Question 51.

State Governments make appropriations for the management of State-managed World Heritage Areas according to their own budget, and heritage management processes and priorities. The Australian Government is not party to State processes. State budget processes do not necessarily identify World Heritage management allocations.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 61
Division/Agency:	Heritage Division
Topic: 	World Heritage Area Funding

Hansard Page ECITA:	Written question on notice

Senator Mackay asked:

In the case of Tasmania, are you aware of what percentage of World Heritage Areas funding is allocated to staffing and salary costs?
 (In Tas approx 80 staff, largest item of expenditure, $3.4m doesn’t cover)

Answer/s:

I understand that approximately 74% of the combined Commonwealth and State World Heritage Area funds are used for staffing and associated costs, including: salary, superannuation, payroll tax, training, recruitment, uniforms, and occupational health and safety.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 62
Division/Agency:	Heritage Division
Topic: 	World Heritage Area Funding

Hansard Page ECITA:	Written question on notice

Senator Mackay asked:

Given salary costs are the greatest item of expenditure in managing the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, it is inevitable that this reduction in funding will impact upon staff and services. What processes are in place or are planned for the staff who are likely to be effected directly by the reduction in funding?

Answer/s:

The Tasmanian Government has not advised the Australian Government of any job losses as a result of the reduction in funding through the Natural Heritage Trust national World Heritage investment stream.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 63
Division/Agency:	Heritage Division
Topic: 	Wet Tropic Management Authority

Hansard Page ECITA:	Written question on notice

Senator Mackay asked:

Is the Wet Tropic Management Authority currently under review, or has a review recently been completed? 

Answer/s:

The Queensland Government has commenced a process to review how they manage World Heritage properties in that State, including arrangements for the Wet Tropics World Heritage property. The Commonwealth has not yet been formally invited to engage in that process. However, it is expected that the Australian Government will be invited to engage at the appropriate time.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 64
Division/Agency:	Heritage Division
Topic: 	Wet Tropics Management Authority

Hansard Page ECITA:	Written question on notice

Senator Mackay asked:

If so, what are the key recommendations?

Answer/s:

See answer to question 63.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 65
Division/Agency:	Heritage Division
Topic: 	Wet Tropics Management Authority

Hansard Page ECITA:	Written question on notice

Senator Mackay asked:

When will the report become public?

Answer/s:

See answer to question 63.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 66
Division/Agency:	Heritage Division
Topic: 	Wet Tropics Management Authority

Hansard Page ECITA:	Written question on notice

Senator Mackay asked:

How much funding did the Wet Tropics Management Area receive this financial year?

Answer/s:

The Wet Tropics Management Authority received $2,754,500 in baseline and priority project funding, through the World Heritage component of the Natural Heritage Trust, in the 2003-04 financial year.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 67
Division/Agency:	Heritage Division
Topic: 	Wet Tropics Management Authority

Hansard Page ECITA:	Written question on notice

Senator Mackay asked:

Has it been allocated funding for future years, if so how much and over what period?

Answer/s:

In May 2004 the Natural Heritage Ministerial Board approved the 2004-05 and
2005-06 financial years World Heritage funding allocation. The allocation to the
Wet Tropics of Queensland, as with all other State managed properties, is yet to be finalised.