31 October 2011
EPBC Act Cost Recovery consultation
EPBC Reform Taskforce
GPO Box 787
Canberra ACT 2601
SUBMISSION: Consultation paper on cost recovery under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
The Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the above consultation.
Introduction
The Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) is the peak industry body representing the interests of fishers operating in Commonwealth managed fisheries[1]. Commonwealth fisheries contribute a significant proportion of Australia's $2.2 billion seafood industry[2].
Commonwealth fishers are committed to environmental sustainability. The sector is regulated by two ecologically sustainable development (ESD) frameworks – the Fisheries Management Act 1998 and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) with a focus on natural resources and eco-system management.
The key provisions of the EPBC Act that apply to Commonwealth fisheries include fishery strategic assessments (Part 13 accreditations for fisheries under sections 208A, 222A, 245 and 265, Wildlife Trade and permits Commonwealth reserves managed by the Director of National Parks
General Comment
As a matter of principle CFA supports appropriate cost recovery mechanisms to support an effective regulatory framework that ensures that the legislative administration promotes, and does not hinder, efficient industry operations, innovation and markets.
Commonwealth Fisheries Association Inc| PO Box 9022, Deakin ACT 2600 | T: 02 6162 1283
M: 0450190066 |E: | W: www.comfish.com.au | ABN 15 903 947 429
The CFA supports the following proposed ‘out of scope’ activities as they relate to Commonwealth fisheries and agrees that the policy context does not support the application of cost recovery for those activities:
Strategic assessments of Commonwealth Fisheries
Wildlife trade operations for non-CITES commercial fisheries under Part 13A
Part 13 accreditations for fisheries
We also note that Commonwealth fisheries are subject to cost recovery under the Fisheries Management Act 1998 and that a proportion of the costs associated with managing fisheries are a result of EPBC Act compliance. We believe that it is appropriate therefore for cost recovery under the EPBC Act not be introduced as it would in effect amount to ‘double charging’ for activities that are subject to two pieces of Commonwealth legislation, one of which is already subject to cost recovery.
In addition, CFA also support the other activities proposed to be ‘out of scope’ as appropriate policy.
Notwithstanding this support, CFA strongly calls on the Commonwealth government to ensure that appropriate resources are, and continue to be, available to ensure that these EPBC Act activities are adequately resourced, administered and managed to best practice standards and in a timely manner.
Industry Involvement – Managing Cost Recovery Arrangements
CFA considers a significant omission of the consultation document is the lack of discussion of the proposed arrangements for industry (stakeholder) involvement in managing the cost recovery arrangements. We note that the introduction of such a significant management and administrative function to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (the Department) also requires the establishment of the structure for advising, monitoring and reviewing the cost recovery arrangements. CFA notes the integral involvement of relevant industry sectors in other cost recovered agencies including Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and Therapeutic Goods Administration.
CFA recommends that a framework for industry engagement also be prepared in collaboration with relevant industry sectors. This is an important aspect to ensure the most efficient and effective cost recovery arrangements are in place.
Specific Comments
Wildlife Trade – CITES Species – Commonwealth Fisheries
CFA notes that wildlife trade activities as they apply to CITES species are proposed to be subject to cost recovery.
CFA considers that the policy rationale for not applying cost recovery for non-CITES commercial fisheries applies equally to CITES species managed in Commonwealth fisheries. In addition, we note that many current (and potential) commercial fish species managed by the Commonwealth are also subject to a range of fishing and species specific international agreements and arrangements for which the fishing industry incurs additional costs in relation to participation in their management framework and fisheries
2
management obligations. CFA does not believe therefore that such fisheries should be subject to another ‘cost’ relating to these species’ management.
Business Improvement Charge
The CFA does not support the inclusion of a business improvement charge as it does not consider such a charge is consistent with the Government’s Cost Recovery Guidelines. We note that a number of other government agencies that operate under cost recovery arrangements do not include such a charge and still manage for continuous improvement.
The proposed ten per cent charge is arbitrary and does reflect the actual cost of initiatives, activities, infrastructure and resources identified and required to ensure the most EFFICIENT operation of the Department . It also does not reflect the potential and real contribution by industry in the consultation process that is often an industry funded expense and has been demonstrated to deliver returns to an agency that would have otherwise cost more. The quality of advice from industry is a non tangible asset that clearly allows departmental managers to work more efficiently.
Any ‘business improvements’ should be identified in collaboration with industry and budgeted for in the regular (annual) budgetary cycle and assessed under the criteria of the Cost Recovery Guideline. Such required improvement should also clearly recognise the effort and quality advice that industry can bring to the effective and efficient operation of management, by providing for that advice to continue in the context of an unstressed financial organisational framework.
Review of Cost Recovery Arrangements
The CFA notes the consultation document seeking response to an at least five year timeframe for review. The CFA calls for EPBC Act cost recovery arrangements to be reviewed as per the Government’s Cost Recovery Guidelines including when:
material amendments are made to existing arrangements (a general rule-of-thumb is that price changes greater than the Consumer Price Index would be considered material—however agencies should also consider the likely impact on stakeholders)
I look forward to the final outcomes of this consultation.
Yours sincerely
[Signed]
Trixi Madon
CEO
3
[1] In general terms States/Territories manage fisheries in waters out to 3nm and the Commonwealth manages marine resources from 3nm to 200nm. Some Commonwealth fishers also operate in international waters.
[2] ABARES. 2011. Australian fisheries statistics 2010.