Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 1
Division/Agency:	AWD
Topic:	Gunns Pulp Mill
Hansard Page ECITA:	102

Senator Heffernan asked:
When a pulp mill was given support in 2004 in Tasmania, was this based on a commitment that the pulp mill would be chlorine free and/or plantation based? So, you can come back with the answer to that?

Answer:
The Australian Government has given no environmental support to the proposal. It was referred under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and deemed to be a controlled action. As such it will be subject to a rigorous assessment and approvals process.

The original proposal, referred to the Minister in December 2004, and later re-submitted in modified form, envisaged either a Total Chlorine Free or Elemental Chlorine Free bleaching process, using wood stock from both native forests and plantations.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 2
Division/Agency:	AWD
Topic:	Gunns Pulp Mill
Hansard Page ECITA:	105

Senator Heffernan asked:
Is the department aware that the current proposal will use roughly 3 to 3.2 million tonnes of wood coming from native forests and that this resource use will compete directly for the regrowth timber required to support the timber industry when the old growth forest is gone? 
Do you want to take that on notice? 

Answer:
According to the referral received under the terms of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Gunns anticipates that between 2.6 and 4.0 million tonnes of woodchips would be processed annually. They would be sourced from native forests, and pine and eucalypt plantations, in accordance with the Regional Forest Agreement.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 3
Division/Agency:	AWD
Topic:	Gunns Pulp Mill
Hansard Page ECITA:	104

Senator Heffernan asked:
What does the department believe a world’s best practice pulp mill would use for wood supply, water supply and bleaching? Do you want to go away and think about that on notice?
You can answer these questions in your own time and in your own manner, but I think they are questions that reasonably need to be raised.

Answer:
The Department evaluates developments such as pulp mills on a project-specific basis, depending upon location, the environmental context and likely impacts on matters of National Environmental Significance.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 4&5
Division/Agency:	AWD
Topic:	Budget allocation EPBC Act
Hansard Page ECITA:	108

Senator Siewert asked:
1.)  Can you tell me what your budget allocation for monitoring conditions under approvals is?
2.)  Do you have a compliance table or a formal process of actually monitoring projects? 
3.)  So you do not make publicly available reports of the monitoring of conditions on projects?

Answer/s:
1)  All officers involved in the approval of proposals are responsible for monitoring the conditions placed on those proposals, so it is not possible to give a precise estimate of budget. Should any breach of conditions be detected, and compliance action be necessary, the matter is referred to the Compliance and Audit Section. Cases requiring detailed investigation are forwarded to the Environment Investigations Unit.

2)  Yes. All projects approved are subject to a risk assessment at the time of approval and a database is used to assist in monitoring projects.

3)  No.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 6
Division/Agency:	Approvals and Wildlife
Topic:	Threatened Marine Species
Hansard Page ECITA:	109

Senator Siewert asked:
Why are there no commercial marine species on the list?

Answer:
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 requires the Minister to maintain a list of nationally threatened species. The Minister must take advice from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee on a species’ eligibility for listing.

The Threatened Species Scientific Committee is currently assessing the eligibility for listing of a number of commercial fish species including the Orange Roughy, Eastern Gemfish, School Shark, Harrisson’s Deepsea Dogfish, Southern Dogfish, and Endeavour Dogfish.

Outcome:	1. Environment		Question No: 7&8
Division/Agency:	Approval and Wildlife Division
Topic:	Reef Cove Resort at False Cape
Hansard Page ECITA:	110 & 111

Senator McLucas asked:
1. I want to ask about the approval for Reef Cove Resort and False Cape on Trinity Inlet in Cairns. On 27 July, the minister announced an approval for that proposal. In the press release he goes on through a range of things, and I wonder if you could help me with them, Mr Early. He says that strict conditions are going to be imposed to minimise the impact of the development on the surrounding environment. Can you tell me how that happens?

2. Did you ask for comments from GBRMPA and WTMA as part of the process?

Answer/s:
1. The proposal was approved, with conditions, under the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Those conditions address the following matters:
•	minimisation of vegetation clearance; 
•	the implementation of a conservation agreement which restricts the development that may occur on the site; and 
•	mitigation of short term construction impacts. 
Civil or criminal action can be taken against the person taking the action if a condition of the approval is contravened.  

2. Comments were sought from GBRMPA but not WTMA.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No: 9
Division/Agency:	Approval and Wildlife Division
Topic:	EPBC Act
Hansard Page ECITA: 	Written Question on Notice
Senator Siewert asked:
1. Are amendments to the EPBC Act currently being considered?
2. If so, what amendments are being considered?

Answer/s:
Experience over the first five years of the operation of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) has identified a number of ways in which its operation could be improved.
Consideration is currently being given to the development of a package of possible amendments to the EPBC Act with the aim of improving efficiency and effectiveness of processes, increasing use of strategic approaches, giving priority attention to protecting heritage and species of national importance, clarifying and strengthening enforcement provisions, and correcting a range of anomalies and ambiguities within the existing provisions.
The proposed package of amendments will not alter the fundamental environment protection regime of the EPBC Act and is aimed at making the Act more effective and less process driven.