Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  2
Division/Agency:	Approvals and Wildlife Division
Topic:	Assessment of Poisoning of Wedge-tailed Eagles
Hansard Page ECITA:	60

Senator Brown asked:
What about poisoning, either deliberately or otherwise, of wedge-tails? Do you keep a watch on that?...it is a known major threat to the Tasmanian wedge-tail which is listed as endangered.

Answer:
The Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle (Aquila audax fleayi) is listed as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

Poisoning is identified as a threat to the Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle in the recovery plan under the EPBC Act. The recovery plan identifies that Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagles are sensitive to pindone, a rabbit poison used in Tasmania, and secondary poisoning has been reported after consumption of poisoned carcasses. 

Anecdotal reports also claim that Wedge-tailed Eagles have died from eating carcasses of animals poisoned with 1080 (sodium monoflouroacetate); however there has been no postmortem evidence to confirm the cause of death of these eagles. 

The Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries and Water has advised that it keeps a record of mortalities of threatened raptors. The Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries and Water is also responsible for the issue of poisoning permits. 

My Department has not received any reports of deliberate poisoning of Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagles. Any such action would be treated extremely seriously by my Department as a breach of the EPBC Act.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 4
Division/Agency: 	Approvals and Wildlife Division	
Topic: 	Bald Hills Wind Energy Installation	
Hansard Page ECITA: 	66

Senator Carr asked:
How many of these mitigation plans are there for wind farms?

Answer:
Three wind energy installations have been approved with conditions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The approval conditions for each of the three wind energy installations require management plans to be prepared that incorporate measures that mitigate the impact on specified listed threatened species.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 6 
Division/Agency: 	Approvals and Wildlife Division	
Topic: 	Bald Hills Wind Energy Installation	
Hansard Page ECITA: 	68 

Senator Carr asked:
What were the conditions (for the Woolnorth proposal)?

Answer:
The conditions of approval, and variations to the conditions, for the Woolnorth Wind Farm are attached.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  7
Division/Agency:	Approvals and Wildlife Division
Topic:	Orange-bellied Parrot
Hansard Page ECITA:	69

Question:
In relation to a series of questions asked by Senator Carr, the Minister agreed to table information related to the listing of the Orange-bellied Parrot as an endangered species. 

Answer:
The Orange-bellied Parrot was originally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 (ESP Act) which was replaced by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) on 16 July 2000. When the EPBC Act came into force, species listed as threatened under the ESP Act were automatically transferred to the EPBC Act list of threatened species. The Orange-bellied Parrot was one species that was listed as threatened under the EPBC Act by virtue of its former listing under the ESP Act. 

At the commencement of the EPBC Act, the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) was established to provide advice to the Minister on proposed amendments to the EPBC Act list of threatened species. As the Orange-bellied Parrot was originally listed as endangered under the ESP Act, the Committee has, until now, not been required to provide advice to the Minister regarding the conservation status of the Orange-bellied Parrot.

The “Modelled cumulative impacts on the Orange-bellied Parrot of wind farms across the species’ range in south-eastern Australia” report prepared by Smales et al (2005) has raised concerns about the high probability of the Orange-bellied Parrot going extinct within about 50 years. In light of this new information, the Committee is currently considering whether the Orange-bellied Parrot should more correctly be categorised as critically endangered under the EPBC Act in line with its listing as critically endangered in the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) 2006 Red List of Threatened Species. Information that will form the basis of the Committee’s consideration is currently available on the Department’s website at: www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/nominations/neophema-chrysogaster.html for a two-month public consultation period, which closes on 24 July 2006. 

The Committee will provide its advice regarding the Orange-bellied Parrot’s conservation status under the EPBC Act to the Minister as soon as possible, once it has undertaken a rigorous assessment of the species’ eligibility for listing against the EPBC Act criteria.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 8
Division/Agency: 	Approvals and Wildlife Division	
Topic: 	Bald Hills Wind Energy Installation	
Hansard Page ECITA: 	69

Senator Carr asked:
	In 2001 what was the level of advice that the department had when it approved a wind farm that could kill six parrots in two years?

Answer:
The best available information was used at the time of the approval decision in 2001. The information included the previous Orange-bellied Parrot (OBP) Recovery Plan: Management Phase 1998-2002 and the proponent’s modelling data. However, the data available at the time was limited and the modelling was not as sophisticated as that used for the report Modelled cumulative impacts on the Orange-bellied Parrot of wind farms across the species’ range in south-eastern Australia (December 2005) prepared by Biosis Research Pty Ltd in 2005.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 9
Division/Agency: 	Approval and Wildlife Division	
Topic: 	Biosis Report	
Hansard Page ECITA: 	71

Senator Evans asked:
When did you make it (the Biosis report) available to the Minister?

Answer:
The complete and final Biosis report was provided to the Minister on 16 March 2006.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 10
Division/Agency: 	Approvals and Wildlife Division	
Topic: 	Wind Energy Installations
Hansard Page ECITA: 	75

Senator Allison asked:
What sorts of conditions were set on the three wind farms that were approved, having come through the process?

Answer:
Copies of the approvals with conditions (and any variations to conditions), for the Woolnorth, Musselroe and Portland Wind Energy Installations are attached.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  11
Division/Agency:	Approvals and Wildlife Division
Topic:	Australian Government expenditure on Recovery of the 
	Orange-bellied Parrot
Hansard Page ECITA:	76

Senator Allison asked:
What has been put in place to deal with those threats [to the orange-bellied parrot]?

(a) Has there been any action on the Victorian coastline or close to it or anywhere near the Bald Hills site?
(b) What is in the budget to protect the orange-bellied parrot?

Answer:
The Australian Government has spent over $1 million (including pre-Natural Heritage Trust funds) since 1989 for direct actions to address Orange-bellied Parrot recovery. This includes over $80,000 for the development of Orange-bellied Parrot recovery plans.

Since 1996, the Orange-bellied Parrot recovery programme has received on average an annual allocation from the Natural Heritage Trust of approximately $80,000 per year. Each year up to $30,000 of this allocation has been transferred from the Tasmanian government to Victoria and South Australia to undertake winter work across the species’ migration range. 

The Australian Government has been supporting the management of the Orange-bellied Parrot captive breeding programme since 1989. This assistance has enabled a breeding population in Tasmania at Melaleuca to remain stable, and the release of captive-bred individuals to increase the breeding population. Genetic investigations and the maintenance of genetic diversity in captive and wild birds have greatly assisted the management of the Orange-bellied Parrot.

In Victoria, up to 70% of the entire population concentrates at three wintering sites around Port Phillip Bay and the Bellarine Peninsula. Over half the habitat around Port Phillip Bay is now fenced against stock grazing. Coastal feeding habitat in Tasmania and saltmarsh habitat in Victoria and on King Island have been reserved or are currently being managed for the conservation of the Orange-bellied Parrot. 

Other activities benefiting the species include the maintenance and monitoring of nest boxes at Melaleuca, Birch’s Inlet, Noyhener Beach, and Towterer Creek in southwest Tasmania. Population monitoring is ongoing and is conducted at key sites such as 

King Island and Melaleuca in Tasmania, Lake Conewarre, Swan Island, Lake Yambuk and the Spit Nature Reserve in Victoria, and Hacks Point in South Australia.

The Natural Heritage Trust regional investment for biodiversity conservation includes a number of activities that complement Orange-bellied Parrot recovery, totalling over $5.5 million across the species’ range. 

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 12
Division/Agency: 	Approvals and Wildlife Division	
Topic: 	Wind Energy Installations
Hansard Page ECITA: 	77

Senator Allison asked:
How close is this site (Bald Hills Wind Energy Installation) to a wetland?

Answer:
The site of the proposed Bald Hills Wind Energy Installation abutts the Bald Hills Wetland Reserve on the northern boundary of the site. The largest area of open water habitat on this wetland reserve occurs approximately 500 metres from the northern boundary of the site.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 13
Division/Agency: 	Approvals and Wildlife Division	
Topic: 	Bald Hills Wind Energy Installation	
Hansard Page ECITA: 	78-79

Senator Carr asked:
(a) 	Why was it (the Penny Olsen consultancy) a select tender and not an open tender?
(b) 	What was the value of the commission for that work?
(c) 	Are we able to get a copy of that report?
(d) 	Who actually received a copy of the report and who was advised of its contents?
(e) 	What was the total value of the research?

Answers:
(a) 	Only a limited number of people have the relevant expertise relating to determining impacts of wind energy installations on birds. Those experts that had been involved in the assessment of the Bald Hills Wind Energy Installation were not considered. Three other suitable experts were contacted by the Department to determine their availability to undertake the consultancy. Dr Olsen was selected on the basis of value for money, availability and expertise in subject matter.

(b) 	The total cost of this consultancy was $6,930.

(c) 	A copy of Dr Olsen’s final report is attached.

(d) 	The Department received the final copy of the report, dated December 2004. The Minister was provided with a copy of the report when making his decision on whether to approve the Bald Hills Wind Energy Installation. Mr Stephen Buckle, (the proponent for the proposed Bald Hills wind energy installation), and Mr Brett Lane (the proponent’s consultant) were provided with a copy of the draft report in November 2004. 

(e) 	See (b) above.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 14 
Division/Agency: 	Approvals and Wildlife Division	
Topic: 	Bald Hills Wind Energy Installation	
Hansard Page ECITA: 	81

Senator Carr asked:

(a) 	What mitigation proposals were advanced by the independent consultant in regard to the Orange-bellied Parrot in the Bald Hills project?
(b) 	Why were they found to be unacceptable?
(c) 	Senator Campbell – we will table the statement of reasons, won’t we Mr Early.

Answers:

(a) 	Dr Olsen was commissioned to provide an independent review of the assessment documentation for the Bald Hills wind energy installation. Dr Olsen was not asked to provide views on suitable mitigation proposals as part of this review, nor were any mitigation proposals advanced by Dr Olsen in her report.

(b) 	See (a) above.

(c) 	A copy of the Statement of Reasons for Decision under Section 133 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 relating to the Bald Hills Wind Energy Installation is attached.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  16
Division/Agency:	Approvals and Wildlife Division
Topic:	Importation of Asian elephants
Hansard Page ECITA:	95

Senator Bartlett asked:
Once they are here and installed, as it were, what sorts of things can you do if those conditions are not met?

Answer:
The conditions of the import permit are legally enforceable. A contravention of any condition of the permit constitutes an offence under section 303GF of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). 

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 17
Division/Agency:	Approvals and Wildlife Division
Topic:	Kangaroo harvesting
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Bartlett asked:
(a)  	Is there any estimate of the number of joeys that die either in pouch or at foot as part of this process?
(b)  	Could you also see if there is any estimate or anything more solid than estimates about the percentage of adult females versus males?

Answer/s:
(a)	There are no surveys or conclusive figures available on the number of joeys that die due to commercial harvesting of kangaroos. 

(b)	The harvest figures submitted by State authorities show that generally more males are killed during commercial harvesting. The ratio tends to be approximately 60/40 percent. However it varies from species to species. 

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  18
Division/Agency: 	Approvals and Wildlife Division	
Topic: 	Kuranda Range Road Upgrade	
Hansard Page ECITA:	97

Senator Bartlett asked: 

What is the level of assessment on that (the Kuranda Range road upgrade)?

Answer:
The assessment approach is assessment by preliminary documentation. 

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 19
Division/Agency: 	Approvals and Wildlife Division	
Topic: 	False Cape Development	
Hansard Page ECITA: 	101

Senator McLucas asked:
What is the difference between a net area of land and a gross area of land?  Surely 800 square metres is 800 square metres. If you find out, I wonder whether you could share that with the committee?

Answer:
Gross site area is defined as the area described on the Title for the land, whereas net site area is the gross site area less setbacks that have been agreed with Cairns City Council.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 20
Division/Agency: 	Approvals and Wildlife Division	
Topic: 	False Cape Development	
Hansard Page ECITA: 	102 & 103

Senator McLucas asked:
(a) 	The geotechnical survey work I understand has been completed. Is that right?
(b) 	Will it be made public?  I understand the report is provided to you?
(c) 	Can I ask you, then, on notice that if you do receive it, can it be made public? Can you also provide me with the start date and finish date of the geotech survey work and what equipment was involved in that work? 
(d) 	And what was the nature of the work?  This goes back to the earlier discussion we had in February about whether we are building a road or trying to work out what the geotech circumstances are.
(e) 	Is there any information you have?
(f) 	Can you confirm that roadworks were still carried out 12 days after the geotechnical equipment was removed from the site?
(g) 	I wonder if you could provide us with a list of the dates of those site visits from officer of both authorities?
Answers:
(a) 	Yes.
(b)  The geotechnical work was a requirement of the Cairns City Council approval. The report was not provided to the Department.
(c)  The geotechnical works were commenced on 30 January 2006 and completed on 31 January 2006. The equipment used for the geotechnical works involved a Truck Mounted Rason 300 drilling rig, generally utilising Auger Screwing drilling methodology for the initial penetration, followed by 52mm diamond core drilling to full depth of up to 10m.
(d)  The nature of the geotechnical works was to carry out sub soil investigations in the actual location of the proposed civil works to ensure that engineering drawings included geotechnical design input. The geotechnical works were a requirement by Cairns City Council prior to any issuing of a full operational works permit for the site. The geotechnical investigations could only be carried out by accessing the site through the construction of access tracks along the centre line of the proposed roadworks. The access tracks were constructed mainly with two tracking excavators and a smaller excavator for detail work. Haulage trucks were used to carry crushed rock to the site.

(e)  See (d) above.
(f)  The only work carried out following the removal of geotechnical equipment (31 January 2006) was to stabilise the site, as required by the Cairns City Council and Queensland Environment Protection Agency. The Cairns City Council confirms that the stabilisation works have been effective in protecting the site from cyclones and a number of heavy rainfall events. 
(g)  To date, two site visits have been undertaken by staff from the Department of the Environment and Heritage on 21 December 2005 and 10 April 2006. A list of dates for site visits by the Cairns City Council and Queensland Environment Protection Agency can not be confirmed by the Department. However, the Cairns City Council has been visiting the site at least two to three times a week.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 21
Division/Agency: 	Approvals and Wildlife Division	
Topic: 	False Cape Development	
Hansard Page ECITA: 	103

Senator McLucas asked:

In that 23 December letter from your department to the EDO in Queensland, it states: ‘Works to date are broadly consistent with the preliminary works approval issued by Cairns City Council’. What does ‘broadly consistent’ mean?

Answer:
Broadly consistent means that the preliminary works on site to date have been undertaken in a manner that complies with the Council’s environment protection requirements. This phrase was used in the letter to the EDO to reflect that Council in its Preliminary Operational Works approval allowed for alterations during construction because of particular engineering requirements and to comply with good engineering practices. 

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 22
Division/Agency: 	Approvals and Wildlife Division	
Topic: 	False Cape Development	
Hansard Page ECITA: 	105-106

Senator McLucas asked:
(a) 	So how many cassowaries do we expect to lose because of the development at False Cape?  Some analysis must have been done, I imagine.
(b) 	But using the same modelling that the department clearly has, I wonder if that could be applied to the cassowary at False Cape.

Answer:
(a)	Based on the current information available to the department, it is unlikely that cassowaries are present on site and we do not expect that any will be lost as a result of the development. 
(b)	see (a) above. 

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 23 
Division/Agency: 	Approvals and Wildlife Division	
Topic: 	Global Nuclear Energy Partnership IDC	
Hansard Page ECITA:	121

Senator Carr asked:
At the PM&C estimates on Monday, it was revealed there was a new interdepartmental committee which is headed up by DFAT. It has other departments on it. I take it your department is on it.

Answer:
No.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  24
Division/Agency:	Approvals and Wildlife Division
Topic:	EPBC Act decisions
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Carr asked:
(a) 	How many times has the Minister for the Environment and Heritage failed to meet his statutory obligations from decisions under the EPBC Act?
(b) 	What were those circumstances?

Answer:
Information about non-compliance with timeframes is available in Appendix 4 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 annual report. This report satisfies the reporting obligations in section 518 of the EPBC Act. 

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 25
Division/Agency:	Approvals and Wildlife Division
Topic:	Denmark Wind Farm, Western Australia
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Carr asked:
(a)	Given the Department of Environment and Heritage has decided the Denmark wind farm is not a controlled action, does the Minister have any power under the EPBC Act to block the project?
(b)	Has the Denmark wind farm project received any Commonwealth Government funding?
(c)	What Department resources have been used to consider the issues arising from the Minister’s intervention with the Denmark wind farm, excluding action leading up to the decision on 27 May 2005 to approve the wind farm?

Answers:
(a)	After careful examination of the proposal and public comments, my Department, under my delegation, determined on 27 May 2005 that the proposed wind farm at Denmark is not likely to have a significant impact on any matter protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiveristy Conservation Act 1999 (the Act). At no time have I discussed with my Department the blocking of this project under the Act. As I have stated publicly though, I am concerned that local community views are not being sufficiently considered in wind farm proposals, including at this particular site.
This is why I have proposed a national code for wind farms. Such a code would ensure local affected communities are given an appropriate say in the location of these facilities.
(b)	Yes. I am aware that, under the Department of Transport and Regional Service’s Regional Partnership Programme, a grant of $240,317 was allocated in September 2004 to the Denmark Community Windfarm Inc to assist it to develop a proposal for a community-owned wind farm near Denmark in the south west of Western Australia.
(c)	None. 

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  26
Division/Agency:	Approvals and Wildlife Division
Topic:	Perth Airport Brickworks
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Carr asked:
(a)  	Is the Minister or Department considering action to support the community campaign against the brickworks being built at Perth airport (which is Commonwealth property)?
(b) 	If not, why not?

Answers:
(a)	The proposal was referred to me by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, under section 160 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, for advice. My advice to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services included information on community concerns brought to my attention.
(b)	See above.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  27
Division/Agency: 	Approvals and Wildlife Division	
Topic: 	Siting of Nuclear Power Stations in Australia	
Hansard Page ECITA:  	Written Question on Notice

Senator Milne asked:
Has the Department provided advice to the Minister on the siting of nuclear power plants in Australia?

Answer:
No.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 28 
Division/Agency: 	Approvals and Wildlife Division	
Topic: 	Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Milne asked:
(a)	Is the Department aware of the controversy surrounding the licensing of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada?
(b)	Will the Department follow the US Environmental Protection Agency in setting radiation standards for the next 1 million years? 

Answers:
(a)	The Department is aware of the strongly held and expressed views in relation to this facility.
(b)	Australia does not have a high level radioactive waste repository nor is it planning to build one. In planning for the intermediate level national store, the Australian Government’s objective is that the highest standards for protecting human health and the environment will be applied.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 61  
Division/Agency: 	Approvals and Wildlife Division	
Topic: 	Rehabilitation of mining leases on Christmas Island	
Hansard Page ECITA:	58

Senator Siewert asked:
There was another question I asked, too, and I asked Territories – it gets confusing to be working across two committees virtually at the same time – about meeting some of the other criteria which relate to dust and noise. I was told they are a responsibility of our EPA in WA. Would you have spoken to them when you were doing your assessment?

Answer:
Yes, the Department of the Environment and Heritage has spoken with officers of the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority together with the Western Australian Department of Industry and Resources.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 62
Division/Agency: 	Approvals and Wildlife Division	
Topic: 	Mining on Christmas Island	
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Siewert asked:
(a)	Is the Minister concerned that none of the current areas under rehabilitation by the mining company PRL meet rehabilitation completion criteria of restoring Functional Native Vegetation? 
(b)	Is the Minister concerned that the company acknowledges in its Draft EIS that it is impossible to restore closed canopy evergreen forest in mined areas because of the damage done to the soil during the course of mining?

Answers:
(a)	The performance of the company in meeting rehabilitation objectives is something that the Minister will take into account in considering the proposed expansion of mining on Christmas Island. All mining companies are expected to apply best practice environmental management techniques. This applies to rehabilitation as much as any other aspect of mining operations, but of course the practicalities of the environment in which the mining is taking place must also be acknowledged.
(b)	The assessment documents should portray the facts as clearly as possible.