Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 1
Sub-outcome:	
Output:	
Division/Agency:	Policy Coordination and Environment Protection Division
Topic: 	Product Stewardship for Waste Oil – Advertising Campaign

Hansard Page ECITA:	146

In relation to the Number 3 campaign for Product Stewardship for Oil Program;
Senator Wong asked:

(a) Were there costs for creative aspects and market research?
(b) Do you have the expenditure of public moneys to date on this third campaign?
(c) Are you able to give me what the total budget is?

Answer/s:

(a)	Yes ($403,625)
(b)	The Campaign has expended, as at 25 May 2004, $190,000.
(c)	The total budget is $2,268,442.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 2
Division/Agency:	Policy Coordination and Environment Protection Division
Topic: 	CRC Review

Hansard Page ECITA:	29

Senator Carr asked:  

Did the department make a submission to the review [of CRCs by Howard Partners]?

Answer/s:

Yes. A submission was provided by the Department in June 2003.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 3
Division/Agency:	Policy Coordination and Environment Protection Division
Topic: 	CRC Review

Hansard Page ECITA:	29

Senator Carr asked:  

When was the department advised that these three CRCs were not successful in their funding applications?

Answer/s:

The Department was advised by phone by the Department of Education, Science and Training as to the outcome of Stage 1 of the 2004 CRC Round on 30 April 2004.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 4
Division/Agency:	Policy Coordination and Environment Protection Division
Topic: 	CRC Review

Hansard Page ECITA:	30

Senator Carr asked:  

Where you able, once these review committee decisions were brought down, to make comment to the government, or was the department able to make comment to the government, about the nature of the review?

Answer/s:

The Department did not provide advice to the Government about the nature of the review once the review committee decisions were brought down. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority provided briefing to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage on 5 May 2004 advising him of the outcome of Stage 1 of the 2004 CRC Round and the implications for the Reef CRC.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 5
Division/Agency:	Policy Coordination and Environment Protection Division
Topic: 	CRC Review

Hansard Page ECITA:	33

Senator Carr asked:  

I ask you specifically:  what is the nature of the discussions with Dr David Kemp [and Minister McGauran, Minister Nelson and Mr Entsch]?

Answer/s:

The Department is not aware of such discussions.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 6
Division/Agency:	Policy Coordination and Environment Protection Division
Topic: 	CRC Review

Hansard Page ECITA:	35

Senator Carr asked:  

Have the officers seen this proposed budget for these refunded CRCs?

Answer/s:

No.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 7
Division/Agency:	Policy Coordination and Environment Protection Division
Topic: 	Environment Protection

Hansard Page ECITA:	42

Senator Wong asked:

Correct. I know it says ‘Housing and community amenities’, which is interesting, but you will see that there is what I think Treasury calls a subfunction called ‘Environment protection’ with $257 million. I understand that the functions that are specified in these budget papers are based on a standard classification of functions incorporated into the government’s finance statistics. For environment protection there is a somewhat lesser sum of $257 million. Do you know what environment protection, referred to on page 6-14, means, Mr Borthwick?

Answer/s:

The "Environment protection" sub-function includes various regional development and environment programmes, but not all environment and heritage related programmes. For instance, as indicated on page 6-14,  "Other significant expenses on conservation and sustainable use and repair of Australia's natural environment are included in the National Estates and Parks Sub-function (Recreation and Culture Function) and the Natural Resources Development Sub-function (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Function)."

The "Environment protection" sub-function includes expenditure on programmes like national vegetation initiative, national landcare - urban water, coasts and clean seas, assistance for water and sewerage, national rivercare, and environmental restoration. It includes components of each of the NHT "four Cares" programmes.

The "Environment protection" sub-function does not include expenditure on programmes such as rural water supplies and programmes indicated on page 6-14. The sub-function does not include other significant programmes which appear in the Environment Budget Statement 2004-05. For examples, the expenditure on the surveillance and enforcement programme to provide for the protection of Australia's Southern Ocean Waters, which is included in the Coastwatch sub-function of the Public Order and Safety Function, and assistance to developing countries through the International Development Corporation, which is included in the Foreign Economic Aid sub-function of the General Public Services Function.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 8
Division/Agency:	Policy Coordination and Environment Protection Division
Topic: 	Environment Protection

Hansard Page ECITA:	43

Senator Wong asked:

Going back to page 6-14 in Budget Paper No. 1, can you confirm that under that subfunction of environment protection funding actually drops in the forward estimates from $284 million to $233 million? 

Answer/s:

The responsible agencies for preparing the whole of government Budget Paper No.1 are the Treasury and Department of Finance and Administration. The published estimates are based on whole of government central records. The central records such as those relating to the "Environment protection" sub function are based on data provided by all relevant agencies, not just the Department of the Environment and Heritage.

The Department of Environment and Heritage can only confirm that the details match those shown in Budget Paper No. 1. 

It is important to note that current funding for programmes such as the Environment Protection Policy lapses in 2006-07 and the Government's consideration for extension into 2007-08 and beyond is normally undertaken in the context of the 2007-8 Budget.

Outcome:		1. Environment				Question No: 9
Division/Agency:		Policy Coordination and Environment Protection Division
Topic: 		Environment Protection

Hansard Page ECITA:	43

Senator Wong asked:

The amounts I have, which have been pulled out of Budget Paper No. 1, in relation to environment protection spending by this government between 1999-2000 and 2004-05 are: $555 million, $390 million, $403 million, $244 million, $284 million and $257 million. Perhaps you can confirm on notice that they are correct.

Answer/s:

The responsible agencies for preparing the whole of government Budget Paper No.1 are the Treasury and Department of Finance and Administration. The published estimates are based on whole of government central records. The central records such as those relating to the "Environment protection" sub function are based on data provided by all relevant agencies, not just the Department of the Environment and Heritage.

The Department of Environment and Heritage can only confirm that the details match those shown in Budget Paper No. 1. 

The Department cannot confirm the figures $555 million, $390 million and $403 million against the relevant Budget Paper No 1 in the relevant year.

The Department was able to identify the following details in the relevant Budget Paper No. 1 against the "Environment protection" sub-function..

2004-05 Budget Paper No 1: $284 million for 2003-04 and $257 million for 2004-05 at page 6-14

2003-04 Budget Paper No 1: $244 million for 2002-03 and $248 million for 2003-04 at page 6-34 noting note (b) at that page which states that "Refinement of the functional attribution of the departmental expenses of the Department of the Environment and Heritage, previously classified to the Environment Protection Sub-Function will now be classified to the National estates and Parks Sub-function (Recreation and Culture Function)."

2002-03 Budget Paper No. 1: $364 million for 2001-02 and $288 million for 2002-03 at page 6-34.

2001-02 Budget Paper No. 1: $452 million for 2000-01 and $463 million for 2001-02 at page 6-33 noting note (a) at that page which states that "Estimates for the extension of the NHT, whilst formally in Contingency Reserve expenses, have been allocated to relevant sub-functions in Statement 6."

2000-01 Budget Paper No. 1: $621 million for 1999-2000 and $653 million for 2000-01 at page 6-82.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 10
Division/Agency:	Policy Coordination and Environment Protection Division
Topic: 	Environment Protection

Hansard Page ECITA:	43

Senator Wong asked:

Mr Glyde, on notice then, could you tell me what programs are included in the subfunction? Not just EA expenditure, but which programs are actually included. 

Also, I think you were going to confirm on notice whether the figures I gave to you were correct.

Could you clarify whether or not the definition of the subfunction has changed for the same time?

Answer/s:

The answers for Questions 7, 8 and 9 are relevant to the first two questions above.

The only variations to the definition of the "Environment protection" sub-function is that in note (b) identified in the answer for Question 9 in relation to Budget paper No. 1 in 2003-04.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 11
Division/Agency:	Policy Coordination and Environment Protection Division
Topic: 	Environment Protection

Hansard Page ECITA:	44

Senator Wong asked:

What proportion of the AusAID funding is for renewable energy? They have an aid energy sector, don’t they?

Answer/s:

The Department of the Environment and Heritage cannot identify any direct reference to renewable energy under the AusAID funding in question.

The Department understands that AusAID may have activities relating to aid energy under its resource management sector. However, the Department considers that matters relating to AusAID would be best referred directly to AusAID.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 12
Division/Agency:	Policy Coordination and Environment Protection Division
Topic: 	Environment Protection

Hansard Page ECITA:	48

Senator Wong asked:

Perhaps you can advise—and you might need to take this on notice—what environmental benefits are associated with the AusAID funding of $280 million for the International Development Corporation? Perhaps also in relation to the $306 million for Customs.

Answer/s:

The Department of the Environment and Heritage provides the following details.

AusAID funding of $280 million for the International Development Corporation
Managing and preventing environmental degradation are integral parts of the Government's international development cooperation objectives of reducing poverty and ensuring sustainable development in developing countries. Australia contributes significantly to international environmental development cooperation through bilateral, regional and multilateral action. Pages 69 to 70 of the Environment Budget Statement 2004-05 provide more details on this matter.

$306 million for Customs civil maritime surveillance and response
Surveillance reports of significant wild life or sea life concentration or mortality, oil pollution or other environmental damage are provided to relevant government agencies.

In the 03-04 Budget, the Government provided $89.3 million over two years to the Australian Customs Service and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to strengthen Australia’s patrol capability in the Southern Ocean. The waters of the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica are rich in biodiversity and essential to our national fishing industry, security and sovereignty. Australia is responsible for the environmental protection of our sub-Antarctic islands. Illegal fishing in Australia’s Fishing Zone at Heard Island and McDonald Islands threatens the sustainability of fisheries in the area, a prime target being the endangered but highly valuable Patagonian Toothfish. Increased surveillance and enforcement in the Fishing Zone assists in ensuring the long-term sustainability of Patagonian Toothfish stocks and dependent and associated species. Between August 2003 and February 2004 two vessels fishing illegally for the Patagonian Toothfish in Australian’s sovereign waters were successfully pursued and apprehended.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 13
Division/Agency:	Policy Coordination and Environment Protection Division
Topic: 	Environment Protection

Hansard Page ECITA:	48

Senator Wong asked:

Can you just clarify something: is it the case that the renewable energy project funding under the AusAID budget, which is referred to in this portfolio budget statement, has reduced to $647,000 in the last financial year?

Do you know if renewable energy funding is an element within the AusAID funding that is referred to here?

Answer/s:

Refer answer to Question 11. 

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 14
Division/Agency:	Policy Coordination and Environment Protection Division
Topic: 	Environment Protection

Hansard Page ECITA:	48

Senator Wong asked:

You might have seen that there has been a suggestion in the media that the AusAID budget funding for renewable energy projects has gone from $20 million in 1996-97 to $647,000 in 2002- 03. Could you confirm, on notice, if that is correct?

Answer/s:

Please refer answer to Question 11.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  15
Division/Agency:	Policy Coordination and Environment Protection Division
Topic: 	Environment Protection Funding - AusAID

Hansard Page ECITA:	48

Senator  Wong  asked:

So does anyone in the department have discussions with AusAID to try to enhance the environmental outcomes of our aid budget, or is that a matter for AusAID only?

Answer: 

Officers from the department do engage with AusAID on ways in which the environmental outcomes of Australia’s aid budget can be enhanced, in particular in the major recipient countries such as Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and the Pacific Island countries.

Under section 160 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, AusAID are required to obtain and consider advice from the Minister for the Environment and Heritage in relation to the entry by the Australian Government, under Australia's foreign aid program, into a contract, agreement or arrangement for the implementation of a project that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment anywhere in the world. After considering any advice provided, AUSAID must give the Minister a report stating what action has been taken in relation to the advice, and if effect was not given to some or all of the advice, and why this was not done.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 16
Division/Agency:	Policy Coordination and Environment Protection Division
Topic: 	Environment Protection

Hansard Page ECITA:	49

Senator Wong asked:

On notice, when you are looking at that aspect of the portfolio budget statement, could you tell us how much is spent on renewable energy projects, both in flat dollars and as a percentage of the total amount of AusAID that is identified as environment spending?

Answer/s:

Please refer answer to Question 11.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 17
Division/Agency:	Policy Coordination and Environment Protection Division
Topic: 	Envirofund Advertising

Hansard Page ECITA:	144

Senator Wong asked:  

(a) What is the cost of the buy for the next round?

(b) What was the cost of the creative aspect and the cost of the research?

(c) Can you provide that and the name of the agencies you used?

Answer/s:

(a)	Based on previous advertising rounds, it is estimated that the cost for the two rounds for 2004-5 will be approximately $360,000.

(b)	Creative costs (advertising design) were $916.85. There were no research costs.

(c)	Portfolio Design carried out the advertising design work in 2003-04.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 18
Division/Agency:	Policy Coordination and Environment Protection Division
Topic: 	Envirofund Advertising

Hansard Page ECITA:	 146

Senator Wong asked:  

I would like to know what is likely to be spent in the remainder of this financial year and the next financial year in relation to Envirofund advertising.

Answer:

Expenditure on Envirofund advertising in 2003-04 to the end of May was $198,597. There is no further Envirofund advertising expenditure proposed for the remainder of 2003-04. 

Based on previous advertising rounds, it is estimated that the cost for the two rounds for 2004-5 will be approximately $360,000.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 19
Division/Agency:	Policy Coordination and Environment Protection Division
Topic: 	Cycle Connect

Hansard Page ECITA:	147

Senator Wong asked:

Are you able to tell me, perhaps on notice, how many applications have been received and how many were successful—or have they not been determined yet?

Answer/s:

Twelve proposals were received and six were successful.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 20
Division/Agency:	Policy Coordination and Environment Protection	
Topic: 	Management of Chemicals

Hansard Page ECITA:	147

Senator Wong asked:

1.	In the 2002-2003 CEE, there were a number of programs which are now not listed in the budget statement—international chemical management, chemicals assessment and research, and dioxin management. Could you advise whether they are now included under the budget item Chemicals Management?
2.	Are you able to provide me with the expenditure for 2003-2004 in relation to those three line items?

Answers:

1.	This question was previously answered as Question on Notice No. 81 from the 29-30 May 2003 Budget Estimates. The answer is that the CEE 2002-2003 programs of chemical management, dioxin management, and chemicals assessment and research are included in the ‘Chemicals Management’ budget item as described on page 74 of the “Environment Budget Statement 2004-05”.
2.	The actual expenditure in 2003-2004 for these programs was as follows:
	2003-2004	
	$m	
Chemicals Management	$2.800	
Dioxin Management	$1.167	
Chemical Assessment and Research	$1.758	
Total	$5.725	

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  21
Division/Agency:	Policy Coordination and Environment Protection Division
Topic: 	Natural Heritage Trust Media Advertising

Hansard Page ECITA:	 148

Senator  Wong  asked:

The amount spent on media advertising for the first phase was $1.74 million, and for the second phase it was $2.635 million. Is that the media buy or the total cost? 

Answer:

The amounts of $1.74 million and $2.635 million relate to the media buy.