cost recovery under the environment protection and ...€¦ · web viewon 16 september 2011, a...

DRAFT

Cost Recovery under the

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

DRAFT COST RECOVERY IMPACT STATEMENT

(December 2012 – June 2017)

MAY 2012

The proposed cost recovery arrangements documented in this draft CRIS are

subject to final Government’s approval before the introduction of cost recovery

of 83

DRAFT

Version Control

Version Author Date Comments

0.1The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities Initial draft for consultation.

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

1.0

of 83

DRAFT

Table of Contents

1. OVERVIEW

1.1 Australian Government Cost Recovery Policy1.2 Background to cost recovery under the EPBC Act 1.3 Purpose of this document1.4 Description of activities1.5 Stakeholder consultation1.6 Amendments to the EPBC Act and regulations

2. DESIGN

2.1 Design of cost recovery arrangements2.2 Who pays the fees 2.3 Basis of charging – Fee or Levy

3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

3.1 Policy authority3.2 Legal requirements for the imposition of charges3.3 Commencement of charging for environmental impact assessments3.4 Users and stakeholders3.5 Cost recovery model 3.6 Description of activity3.7 Cost components3.8 Schedule of fees and charges for environmental impact assessments3.9 Changes in cost base3.10 Volume and/or demand assumptions3.11 Exemptions and waivers (environmental impact assessments)

4 WILDLIFE TRADE PERMITS

4.1 Policy authority4.2 Legal requirements for the imposition of charges4.3 Commencement of revised and new wildlife trade fees 4.4 Users and stakeholders4.5 Existing fees for wildlife trade permits 4.6 Description of activity4.7 Cost components4.8 Costs and fees for activities proposed for cost recovery 4.9 Changes in cost base4.10 Volume and/or demand assumptions4.11 Exemptions and waivers (wildlife trade)

of 83

DRAFT

5 STRATEGIC ASSESSMENTS

5.1 Policy authority5.2 Legal requirements for the imposition of charges5.3 Commencement of fees 5.4 Users and stakeholders5.5 Policy rationale for strategic assessments5.6 Description of activity5.7 Cost components5.8 Schedule of fees and charges5.9 Changes in cost base5.10 Volume and/or demand assumptions5.11 Exemptions and waivers (strategic assessments)

6 PROJECTED EXPENSES AND REVENUE FOR THE CRIS

6.1 Projected expenses and revenue

7 MONITORING MECHANISMS

7.1 Monitoring mechanisms7.2 Stakeholder consultation7.3 Periodic review

8 COST RECOVERY LINKS

APPENDIX A: SCHEDULE OF FEES

of 83

DRAFT

Glossary

ARI Approval on Referral InformationCost Recovery Guidelines

Australian Government document outlining the principles and criteria for cost recovery activities

CA Controlled Action

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna

CRIS Cost Recovery Impact Statement

COAG Council of Australian Governments

Complexity Matrix Tool used to determine additional costs for complex environmental impact assessments

Consultation Paper The EPBC Act Cost Recovery Consultation Paper (September 2011)EIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

ERC Expenditure Review Committee of Cabinet

Fee Point The point in the assessment or application process that a fee is charged.

‘Free-Rider’ Effect Where a party can avoid costs by waiting for another party to pay a fee and seek approval first (i.e.: ‘free riding’ on the approval of

Matters of NES Matters of National Environmental Significance

NCA Not a Controlled Action

NCA/PM Not a Controlled Action, provided the action is undertaken in a particular manner

Post approval Functions that occur subsequent to an approval under Chapter 4 of the EPBC Act. E.g. Assessment of management plans

Stop clock Suspension of the statutory timeframe of an EPBC Act referral or assessment by the Minister/delegate

The department The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

Staffing classifications

APS 4 Permit Officer / Project Officer / Permit OfficerAPS 5 / 6 Assessment Officer / Project Manager / Permit ManagerEL 1 Assistant Director / Team Manager / Permit Team MangerEL 2 Director / Section Manager SES 1 Assistant Secretary / Senior Executive Staff / Delegate of the Minister

of 83

DRAFT

1 OVERVIEWNote Concerning Decision by Council of Australian Governments Regarding Accreditation of State and Territory Environmental Assessment and Approval Processes

The Commonwealth currently undertakes assessments of projects that impact on matters of National Environmental Significance (NES) through a range of environmental impact assessment (EIA) approaches outlined in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) communiqué of 13 April 2012 reaffirmed COAG’s commitment to high environmental standards while committing to reducing duplicative environmental assessment and approval processes for business and industry. In support of this commitment, governments will be working to accredit states assessment and approval processes.

COAG acknowledged the Commonwealth’s existing final approval responsibilities for projects within its current jurisdiction affecting world heritage sites and specific areas of action, including nuclear actions, defence development and developments affecting Commonwealth waters.

Cost recovery approaches discussed in this draft Cost Recovery Impact Statement (CRIS) will only apply to work undertaken by the Commonwealth. state and territory charges are matters for those jurisdictions and the Commonwealth will clearly not charge for any work undertaken by states and territories.

As states and territories increasingly undertake environmental assessments and approvals on behalf of the Commonwealth, there will be a corresponding reduction in the amount of work undertaken by the Commonwealth to which this CRIS applies. The department is also committed to reviewing fees as efficiencies are realised.

1.1 Australian Government Cost Recovery PolicyIn December 2002, the Australian Government adopted a formal cost recovery policy to improve the consistency, transparency and accountability of its cost recovery arrangements and promote the efficient allocation of resources. The underlying principle of the policy is that agencies set charges to recover all the costs of a product or service where it is efficient and effective to do so, where the beneficiaries are a narrow and identifiable group, and where charging is consistent with Australian Government policy objectives. The Cost Recovery Policy is administered by the Department of Finance and Deregulation and is detailed in the Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines (Cost Recovery Guidelines).

The Cost Recovery Guidelines apply to all Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) agencies and to relevant Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (CAC Act) bodies. In line with the policy, individual portfolio ministers are ultimately responsible for ensuring agencies’ implementation and compliance with the Cost Recovery Guidelines.

of 83

DRAFT

1.2 Background to cost recovery under the EPBC Act The EPBC Act is the Australian Government's central piece of environmental legislation. It provides a legal framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places. The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (the department) is responsible for administering the regulatory functions of the EPBC Act. Further detail is available at:http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc.

On 24 August 2011, the Australian Government announced the reform of the EPBC Act. The whole of the reform package is about taking a more effective and efficient approach to environmental protection and biodiversity conservation, being more proactive, and using strategic approaches to address the complex issues that pose the greatest threat to Australia’s environment. Cost recovery is a key element of the EPBC Act reforms. Cost recovery will improve the department’s ability to meet statutory timeframes and respond to changes in demand for its services. It will also provide incentives to industry to undertake early engagement and incorporate the most environmentally acceptable outcomes into their business planning, as this may reduce the level of assessment required and therefore the costs payable. Further detail on reform of the EPBC Act is available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/reform/.

On 16 September 2011, a consultation paper on cost recovery under the EPBC Act was released (the consultation paper). The consultation paper outlined potential cost recovery models for a range of regulatory activities under the EPBC Act, and included targeted questions for stakeholders on how the proposed changes would impact them. Key stakeholders and individuals, including peak industry bodies and non-government organisations, provided comments on the consultation paper. The consultation period closed on 31 October 2011. The department published 79 non-confidential submissions received during consultation, which can be found with the consultation paper at:http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/consultation-draft-cost-recovery.html. Discussion on the outcomes of the public consultation process is at section 1.5 below.

1.3 Purpose of this documentFollowing public consultation on the EPBC Act cost recovery consultation paper, the Australian Government decided to introduce cost recovery arrangements for selected regulatory activities under the EPBC Act. Specifically, the government granted policy authority to cost recover the following activities:

EIAs (full cost recovery arrangements); wildlife trade permits (partial cost recovery arrangements); and strategic assessments (full cost recovery arrangements on a case-by-case basis1).

A CRIS is required where cost recovery exceeds $5 million per annum. A Department of Finance and Deregulation circular (Finance Circular (2008/08) further advises that a CRIS with receipts greater than $10 million per annum will be referred to the Expenditure Review Committee of Cabinet (ERC) for consideration. The current forecast for annual receipts is estimated to exceed $10 million per annum. As such, review by ERC will be required prior to

1 The final funding model for strategic assessments is subject to agreement by Government.

of 83

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/consultation-draft-cost-recovery.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/reform/

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc

DRAFT

implementation of cost recovery arrangements.

The purpose of this draft CRIS is to document cost recovery arrangements for the regulation of specified activities under the EPBC Act, and transparently demonstrate their compliance with the Cost Recovery Guidelines. This draft CRIS also demonstrates that the proposed fees reflect the efficient delivery of services and do not introduce cross-subsidisation between cost recovered and non-cost recovered activities under the EPBC Act.

Stakeholder comments on the draft CRIS are sought during a six week consultation period concluding 21 June 2012. Following consideration of stakeholder comments and any refinements to the proposed cost recovery arrangements, the final CRIS will be considered by ERC and published on the department’s website prior to the introduction of cost recovery arrangements, which is expected in December 2012.

1.4 Description of activityThe cost recovery activities documented in this draft CRIS are EIAs, wildlife trade permits, and strategic assessments. Full description of these activities is provided in chapters 3, 4, and 5 of this draft CRIS.

These activities are deemed appropriate for cost recovery as they meet the following criteria: the activities deliver a clear benefit for a particular beneficiary; charging for these activities does not deliver a ‘free ride’ for other proponents; charging for these activities is consistent with policy goals under the EPBC Act; and it is efficient to implement cost recovery arrangements on a ‘fee for service’ basis, as

the department can determine costs of its services, attribute these costs to particular proponents and recover them at the statutory decision points.

1.5 Stakeholder consultationBefore finalising this CRIS, the department will continue to consult with stakeholders that may be potentially affected by the new or amended cost recovery measures. The steps for stakeholder consultation on the introduction of cost recovery are outlined below:

publication of a consultation paper on proposed cost recovery measures under the EPBC Act in September 2011 (80 submissions received);

correspondence seeking comment on the department’s consultation paper sent to repeat referrers and parties engaged in wildlife trade under the EPBC Act, peak industry bodies, relevant non-government organisations and relevant state and territory departments and agencies;

consultation with Commonwealth agencies; publication of this draft CRIS in May 2012 with a six week consultation period; correspondence seeking comment on this draft CRIS sent to repeat referrers and

parties engaged in wildlife trade under the EPBC Act, peak industry bodies, relevant non-government organisations and relevant state and territory departments and agencies; and

consideration of all written submissions and verbal feedback to inform the preparation of the final CRIS.

of 83

DRAFT

Summary of key issues from public consultation to date The following is a summary of key stakeholder issues arising from the 80 submissions received during the public consultation period for the consultation paper.

Some stakeholder groups remain concerned by the imposition of a fee for service. Most stakeholders, however, are willing to pay for improved service, streamlined assessments and increased transparency in the system.

Stakeholders generally agreed that cost recovery should be accompanied by service level standards, and some stakeholders considered that fees should be refunded if standards are not met.

Stakeholders are broadly supportive of the reforms to the relevant regulatory activities that cost recovery will enable, in particular, tailored guidelines on referrals and assessments, consistent national standards for the listing of threatened species and ecological communities and online tracking for assessments and permit applications.

Many stakeholders commented that full cost recovery could create a disincentive to refer projects or seek appropriate wildlife trade permits.

Proposed changes to the EPBC Act cost recovery model following consultation in 2011The department has given thorough consideration to the range of verbal and written stakeholder feedback received during the consultation period. As a result of this feedback, the following changes have been made to the proposed cost recovery arrangements:

Environmental impact assessmentso The proposed business improvement charge has been removed;o Fee exemptions for EIAs will be offered to small business2;o Ministerial consideration of fee waiver applications will be considered in limited

circumstances3; and o Cost recovery of post-approval audits is no longer being considered.

Wildlife trade permitso Fees will increase to double the current level, however this will still be below full

cost recovery level;o Annual fee indexation will be introduced to ensure that fees are increased in line

with increases in costs of delivering the relevant services;o Cost recovery of wildlife trade operations, captive breeding programs and

aquaculture programs is no longer being considered as cost recovery is not considered efficient; and

o The proposed business improvement charge has been removed.

Strategic assessments will be delivered under two separate funding streams - budget funded or full cost recovery. Details of the costs that are likely to be incurred in strategic assessments that are considered appropriate for cost recovery are contained in chapter 5. Costs and revenue for cost recovered strategic assessments will be determined on a case-by-case basis and hence, are not included, in the costs and revenue presented in this draft CRIS.

2 The definition of small business is further described in chapter 3.11.3 Criteria for consideration of waivers are described in chapter 3.11.

of 83

DRAFT

The department is committed to providing a high level of service. The department’s highest priority in improving services will be to improve compliance with statutory timeframes. Service level standards will be developed and made available before 1 December 2012. The department will also be seeking to establish ongoing engagement through an industry reference group to assist in the continued improvement of performance, including service delivery. Details of these ongoing arrangements will be developed as part the EPBC Act reforms.

Further discussion of the appropriateness of cost recovery of EIAs, wildlife trade permits, and strategic assessments is contained in the consultation paper. The consultation paper also outlines the regulatory activities under the EPBC Act that were determined inappropriate for cost recovery.

1.6 Amendments to the EPBC Act and regulationsAmendments to the EPBC Act and regulations will be required before commencement of proposed cost recovery arrangements. The necessary legislative amendments are expected to be introduced into Parliament in 2012, with amendments to the regulations made after the Parliament’s passage of the legislative amendments.

The amended regulations are expected to include the commencement date for implementing cost recovery charges and a broad structure for the proper and efficient administration of cost recovery services. The regulations will provide for, but not be limited to:

administrative requirements for submissions and processes for payment; the manner and timing of fee payments, and the requirement for full payment of

relevant fees as part of statutory processes; definitions and limitations for exemptions and waivers; and, administrative review options for decisions relating to cost recovery.

of 83

DRAFT

2 DESIGN2.1 Design of cost recovery arrangementsFor each cost recovery arrangement documented in this CRIS, the department applied the following key principles in their scoping and design:

costing model to drive efficiency for both stakeholders and the department; charges to reflect ‘efficient costs’ as based on ‘best practice’ scenarios; aligning regulatory effort undertaken with statutory charging points; and compliance with the Cost Recovery Guidelines.

2.2 Who pays the fees The proponents/applicants of the activities subject to cost recovery include private entities, individuals, and government agencies (including both inter/intra governmental charging). Some applications may be eligible for exemptions and waivers. Should this be the case, costs of these services will be met through the department’s annual appropriation (i.e. taxpayer funded). Further information on exemptions and waivers is provided in sections 3.11, 4.11 and 5.11. Funding of exemption and waivers through appropriation ensures equity in the cost recovery model and avoids cross-subsidisation between proponents/applicants.

2.3 Basis of charging – fee or levyCost recovery charges under the Cost recovery Guidelines include:

Fees that charge individuals or firms directly for the cost of the service; or Levies on a group of individuals or firms (legally a form of taxation). A taxation Act is

required to collect levies4.

The Cost Recovery Guidelines stipulate that where appropriate, charges should be based on fees. The department determined that a fee for service is an appropriate cost recovery charge for regulatory activities under the EPBC Act. There are two types of fees that are proposed to apply under the EPBC Act: 1) fees set in regulations; and 2) fees determined on a case by case basis such as for strategic assessments. Figure 2.1 below shows where set fees or case-by-case fees will apply. Further information on the fee levels and process for setting fees is contained within chapters describing cost recovery activities.

Referral Preliminary Documentation

Environmental Impact

Statement

Bilateral Agreement

Approval on Referral

Information

Post Approval

Public Inquiry

Wildlife Trade

Joint Assessment

Panel

Strategic Assessments

Fee for Service – Set Fees Fee for Service – Determined on a Case by Case Basis

Environmental Impact AssessmentsWildlife Trade

Strategic Assessments

EPBC Act Cost Recovery Model

Figure 2.1 - The EPBC Act cost recovery charging model

4 The Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines 2005, page 41.

of 83

DRAFT

3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

3.1 Policy authorityThe Australian Government has granted policy authority for full cost recovery of EIAs, as part of the 2012-13 Budget process (see pages 268-269 of Budget paper number two).

3.2 Legal requirements for the imposition of chargesTo provide legal authority to cost recover EIAs under the EPBC Act, amendment of the EPBC Act is required. Necessary legislative amendments are expected to be introduced into Parliament in 2012. Once passed, the amendments will provide legislative authority for new cost recovery activities. Specific fees will then be set by regulations.

3.3 Commencement of charging for EIAsAny proposed action referred to the department after 8 May 2012 that requires assessment under the EPBC Act will be liable for payment of relevant fees for any stage of assessment that occurs on or after 1 December 2012 (subject to the legislative amendments passed by Parliament and the making of regulations). The department will provide advice to proponents who have referred after 8 May 2012 on any future charges that may apply after 1 December 2012.

Any proposed action referred to the department after 1 December 2012 will be subject to payment of fees for all relevant EIA functions detailed in this chapter. Any project referred prior to or on 8 May 2012 will not be subject to payment of fees.

of 83

DRAFT

3.4 Users and stakeholdersA broad variety of proponents have projects that may be subject to the EIA provisions of the EPBC Act. These proponents include local, state and territory, and Australian Government agencies, private individuals, and small businesses to large companies. The proponents may also belong to a wide range of industries as demonstrated in Figure 3.1 below.

Agriculture and forestry; 0.7%

Aquaculture; 0.4%

Commercial development; 6.1%

Commonwealth; 2.8%

Energy generation and supply (non-renew-

able); 6.5%Energy generation and

supply (renewable); 3.5%

Exploration (mineral, oil and gas - marine);

11.1%

Exploration (mineral, oil and gas - non-ma-

rine); 1.0%Manufacturing; 0.4%

Mining; 14.3%

Natural resources management; 4.6%Private; 0.9%

Residential devel-opment; 14.5%

Science and research; 2.1%

Telecommunications; 0.8%

Tourism and recreation; 5.1%

Transport - air and space; 0.8%

Transport - land; 12.6%

Transport - water; 2.8%

Waste management (non-sewerage); 1.1%

Waste management (sewerage); 2.1%Water management and use; 5.9%

Referrals by category under the EPBC Act1 July 2007 - 30 June 2011

Figure 3.1: Industries which referred their activities for EIAs under the EPBC Act between 1 July 2007 and 30 June 2011. A total of 1706 referrals were received during this period.

of 83

DRAFT

3.5 Cost recovery model The cost recovery model for EIAs documented in this chapter relates to the following functions under Chapter 4 of the EPBC Act, as well as some post-approval functions:

Referrals; Assessments on preliminary documentation; Assessments by environmental impact statement (EIS); Assessments under bilateral agreement or accredited assessment process; Assessment by public inquiry; Assessment by the new joint assessment panel; Approvals on referral information; and Assessment of post approval management plans.

The EIA process and various assessment methods, except for approval on referral information, are outlined below in figure 3.2.

Action referred by proponent

Decision on whether further assessment is required

Not controlled actionor

Not controlled action (Particular manner)

Action determined clearly unacceptableControlled action

Decision on assessment approach

Assessment by preliminary

documentation

Assessment by environmental impact

statement (EIS)

Assessment under bilateral agreement or accredited

assessment process

Assessment by joint assessment panel

Assessment by public inquiry

Decision on Approval

Action approved (with or without conditions) Action not approved

Post approval monitoring

Referral

Assessment

Approval

Post-approval

Figure 3.2 – Overview of the EIA process proposed under the national environmental law reform agenda, including the assessment approach options. The proposed new approval on referral information process is not shown above but is outlined in section 3.8.7 of the draft CRIS.

of 83

DRAFT

3.6 Description of activityProponents are required to refer proposed actions to the department where: A proposed action is likely to have a significant impact on one or more matters of NES; A proposed action is likely to have a significant impact on the environment of

Commonwealth land; or A proposed action is undertaken by a Commonwealth agency anywhere in the world, and

is likely to have a significant impact on the environment.

Proponents can refer a proposal to the department for a decision as to whether or not the action will have a significant impact on nationally protected matters. The statutory timeframe for the referral decision making process is 20 business days.

If a significant impact is considered likely by the Minister, this action is determined to be a ‘controlled action’, and further assessment will be required prior to the Minister deciding whether to approve the project under the EPBC Act and, if the Minister decides to approve the project, the conditions that may apply to such an approval.

If a significant impact is considered to be unlikely, then further assessment is not required and the proposal is either determined to be ‘not a controlled action’, and can proceed, or may be determined to be ‘not a controlled action’ and proceed provided it is undertaken in a ‘particular manner’. This ‘manner’ will be specified in the decision notice as well as associated requirements on the action5.

Under the national environment law reform agenda it is proposed that an assessment will be undertaken by one of six assessment options: approval on referral information6; assessment on preliminary documentation; assessment by EIS; assessment under bilateral agreement or accredited assessment; assessment by joint assessment panel; or assessment by public inquiry7. The assessment method is determined based on the complexity of the proposed activity, the information required to assess whether or not the action should be approved, and whether a parallel state or territory process is being undertaken that can satisfy Commonwealth assessment requirements.

In all cases, following the conclusion of the assessment process a decision is made on whether to approve the activity, and where an action is approved there may be conditions associated with this approval. Where there are conditions, there is likely to be monitoring required following the approval decision. Conditions may include the preparation and approval of management plans before all or certain parts of the action can proceed.

5 Under the national environment law reform agenda it is proposed that conditions can be imposed with respect to a particular manner decision, which may specify the ‘particular manner’. This will improve compliance with the requirements, and allow for the conditions on a proposal to be varied after the decision is made, subject to public transparency requirements.6 Details of the new approval on referral information assessment is outlined in section 3.8.7. of this chapter.7 Under the national environment law reform agenda it is proposed to repeal the Public Environment Report assessment approach. The ‘assessment on referral information’ is also proposed to be repealed, in favour of approval on referral information. This was a recommendation made by the Independent Review of the EPBC Act.

of 83

DRAFT

3.7 Cost componentsThe total cost of undertaking an EIA includes three types of costs:

base costs; complexity costs; and technical and operational costs.

The cost estimates for EIAs documented in this draft CRIS have been derived from an analysis of projects that are considered to be best practice, and also informed by discussion in focus groups comprising experienced case officers within the department in order to determine ‘efficient costs’. These focus groups examined projects that were considered to represent ‘best practice’ because they featured early engagement with proponents, timely assessment at each stage and regular liaison with the proponent throughout the assessment period, which resulted in meeting statutory timeframes.

3.7.1. Base CostsA base cost is applicable for all activities involved in EIAs including referrals, assessments, and the assessment of post approval management plans. The major component for base costs of EIAs is staff costs8. Staff costs include the base salary, superannuation and other on-costs for staff who are directly involved in the assessment process. The total cost also includes a component of accommodation and property expenses, information technology (IT) costs and human resources support that can be attributed to staff who are directly involved in the assessment process. EIAs involve staff members at a range of classifications. The calculation of base cost for these activities has been based on best practice and the most efficient time to complete the activity.

The calculation of the ‘base cost’ for an EIA has been based on the time required to assess a project of the lowest complexity; that is, the cost of assessing a project with a low level of complexity across all matters of NES, only one project component, a high level of certainty regarding impacts, management measures and limited links to other legislation that need to be managed throughout the assessment period.

Base costs for EIA activities which will have fees set out in regulations, are outlined in table 3.1. Further information on the calculation of base costs for a preliminary documentation assessment, an EIS assessment, an assessment under a bilateral agreement or accredited assessment, and an approval on referral information is provided in under the relevant sections in this chapter.

8 A guide to staffing levels in the Australian Public Service can be found at http://www.apsc.gov.au/

of 83

http://www.apsc.gov.au/

DRAFT

Table 3.1 - Summary table of base costs for EIA activities.Time (days) Total base

costs ($)Assessment Officer

Assistant Director Director Delegate of

the MinisterActivity Referral 8.9 3.6 1.0 0.2 $7,010

Assessment

preliminary documentation 12 3.5 0.8 0.2 $8,263

EIS 35 13 5 1.7 $28,754

Bilateral agreement / accredited

assessments31 11 4 1.4 $24,794

Joint assessment panel

Costs to be determined on a case-by-case basis (not included in this draft CRIS)

Public inquiry Costs to be determined on a case-by-case basis (not included in this draft CRIS)

Approval on referral information 33.5 60 18 6 $68,019Management plan assessment 5 1 0.25 0.03 $3,081

3.7.2. Complexity costsThe level of complexity of an assessment determines staff effort (time) required, and potentially the need for internal and/or external specialist expertise to ensure a fair and rigorous assessment. The major component of complexity costs for EIAs is staff costs, which includes base salary, superannuation and other on-costs for staff who are directly involved in providing the assessment. The total staff cost also includes a component of accommodation and property expenses, IT costs and human resources support. Complexity costs also include the procurement of specialist advice in high or very high complexity scenarios. Complexity may be driven by:

Number of controlling provisions

The number of controlling provisions triggered under the EPBC Act has a direct impact on the time and resources required to undertake the assessment, as each controlling provision requires separate assessment.

The risk to and extent of potential impacts on matters of NES

The higher the risk or level of impact that a proposal will have on individual matters of NES, the greater the amount of time required to undertake an assessment. For example a proposal that may result in temporary modification to the values of a National Heritage place will generally be less time consuming to assess than a proposal that will result in permanent damage to a value of a National Heritage place.

The requirement to undertake a ‘whole of environment’ assessment

While in most cases the assessment of a proposal focuses on the impact on defined matters, there are some cases where the assessment must consider the impact of the action on all aspects of the environment. This is relevant where an activity is proposed that may impact on Commonwealth land or the environment of the Commonwealth marine area, or where the proposed activity is a nuclear action. Such a broad assessment takes more staff time.

of 83

DRAFT

Number of project components

Projects referred under the EPBC Act vary in magnitude. The more ‘components’ to a project, the greater the magnitude of impacts and associated staff time to assess the project. For example the assessment of a rail line is likely to require less time to assess than the assessment of a rail line that is connected to a new mine and a new port facility.

Coordination with other legislation

The department has established bilateral agreements with all states and territories that allow an accredited state/territory process to be used for the Commonwealth’s purposes in taking an approval decision under the EPBC Act. Where a bilateral agreement cannot apply to an assessment, the department undertakes to streamline the assessment requirements under the EPBC Act with the state requirements (for example, using the same assessment guidelines, the same EIS, the same public comment periods, etc). While this provides a service to the proponent by reducing duplication and reducing the complexity of public engagement, it increases the level of engagement the department has with the state/territory, and therefore increases the department’s costs. The department undertakes similar coordination where a project is being assessed by the Commonwealth under another piece of legislation, such as the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, the Airports Act 1996 or the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975.

Adequacy of information and clarity of project scope

Assessing a project that has unclear or partially complete information requires additional staff time, and potentially the commissioning of specialist external consultants to ensure a rigorous assessment is undertaken. Complexity is driven by:

The availability of relevant environmental data for the project area; The certainty of likely impacts from the proposal on matters of NES, and

whether any management or mitigation strategies proposed are well defined and proven; and

The certainty around project scope at the outset of an assessment. Frequently projects are referred which are still in the design phase, and therefore there may be a number of options that a proponent is assessing. The more options that the department needs to assess, the more staff time is required to review documentation and provide feedback.

The additional activities undertaken by the department based on the level of complexity may include; detailed analysis of assessment documentation, research of impacts and management measures, consultation with experts, consultation with the proponent, sourcing advice from other departmental areas, review of responses from the proponent.

Complexity costs for individual proposals will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Complexity costs will only apply to assessments by: preliminary documentation; EIS; bilateral and accredited assessments. Further details of the proposed charges for complexity are described in a complexity matrix (page 20).

The proposed charging methodology for complexity will enable proponents to potentially reduce the overall cost of their assessment via several means:

activities that avoid or minimise the potential impacts on matters of NES (i.e. trigger fewer controlling provisions) will attract fees for fewer controlling provisions;

activities that have fewer project components or do not require coordination with other legislation will also reduce staff time, and hence costs, required to assess the project; and

of 83

DRAFT

where more adequate information or clarity around the project scope is provided, the assessment is less time consuming for the department to conduct.

Setting complexity fees / fee pointsIt is proposed that complexity fees will be set at the time of the controlled action or assessment approach decision9. Complexity fees are spread across four stages of the assessment process. Each fee installment reflects the proportion of cost and regulatory effort required at each stage of the assessment. The fee will be payable prior to the relevant stage of assessment commencing.

The following complexity fees will be paid across stages 1-410 of the assessment: the controlling provision fees (shown in rows A to I in complexity matrix); the number of project component fees (shown in row J in complexity matrix); the coordination with other legislation (shown in row K in complexity matrix); and the exceptional circumstance fee (shown in row O in complexity matrix).

The following complexity fees are paid across stages 3-4 of the assessment: the maximum adequacy of information and clarity of project scope fees (shown in rows

L, M, and N in complexity matrix).

The department acknowledges that sometimes not all information regarding a proposal is available at the time of the referral, and that more adequate information is provided in the draft assessment documentation. Therefore the maximum liability for complexity fees L, M, and N are set at the time of the controlled action or assessment approach decision, but may be reduced during the assessment, where proponents provide a high quality of information and clear definition of project scope and management measures in their draft assessment documentation. The final applicable fees are confirmed after the draft assessment documentation is received by the department, and are payable across the remaining stages of the assessment.

Examples provided later in the draft CRIS (refer examples 1-5 in chapter 3) demonstrate how different complexity costs may apply to projects under each assessment method. These examples also estimate the costs of departmental resources that are likely to be required to deliver these assessments. Examples are provided for illustrative purposes only, with the total costs for individual projects to be determined based on the complexity of those projects.

Should the proponent disagree with the complexity fees set by the department, it is proposed that the department will make an internal review available by a more senior officer to ensure fairness, where requested by a proponent. No charge for this service is proposed.

9 Refer figure 3.2 for overview of the EIA process10 Refer figure’s 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 for a breakdown of assessment process stages.

of 83

DRAFT

MODERATE COMPLEXITY HIGH COMPLEXITY VERY HIGH COMPLEXITY

DESCRIPTION AF AFCONTROLLING PROVISION: MATTER OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE (Fees set and confirmed at the assessment approach or controlled action decision)

CONTROLLING PROVISION: COMMONWEALTH LAND / COMMONWEALTH AGENCY / COMMONWEALTH HERITAGE PLACES OVERSEAS (Fees set and confirmed at the assessment approach or controlled action decision)

NUMBER OF PROJECT COMPONENTS (Fees set and confirmed at the assessment approach or controlled action decision)

ADEQUACY OF INFORMATION AND CLARITY OF PROJECT SCOPE(Fees set at the assessment approach or controlled action decision, and confirmed during stage 2 of the assessment process)

Listed threatened species and ecological communities

Listed migratory species

Wetlands of international importance

Environment of the Commonwealth marine area

World heritage properties

National heritage places

Nuclear actions

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Site surveys/Knowledge of environment

Management measures

Project scope

Site survey partially complete for all project components.

DESCRIPTION AF

$5,217

$5,217

$5,217

$5,217

$5,217

$5,217

$5,217

$2,742

$5,217

$13,597

BAC x 1

$13,597

$13,597

DESCRIPTION AF

$20,868

$20,868

$20,868

$20,868

$20,868

$20,868

$20,868

$10,967

$20,868

BAC x 2

$77,509

$87,509

$57,509

Management measures proposed, but clarification is required.

Project scope includes alternatives, but each alternative clearly defined

DESCRIPTION AF

$43,571

$43,571

$43,571

$43,571

$43,571

$43,571

$43,571

N/A

$43,571

$555,583

New scope of work/ activity/ process, and potential impacts are unclear; OR activity is understood, but environmental consequences are very high and carry the potential for severe/ irreversible/ long-term impacts

Site survey not complete for at least one of the project components.

Management strategies poorly defined, not proposed or untested. Technical review of information likely to be requiredProject scope is unclear; OR alternative options poorly defined

Two project components Three project components

Impacts on the environment are well understood, low in severity and temporary in nature.

Impacts on the environment are unclear or are of moderate severity and are temporary or permanent in nature.

Impacts on the environment are unclear or poorly defined, or are of high severity and are permanent in nature.

1 to 5 points* 6 to 14 points* ≥ 15 points*

One species category impacted* Two species categories impacted* ≥ Three species categories impacted*

Impacts on the ecological character of the wetland are well understood and are of low severity and temporary in nature.

Impacts on the ecological character of the wetland are unclear or are of moderate severity and are temporary or permanent in nature.

Impacts on the ecological character of the wetland are unclear or are of high severity and are permanent in nature.

The proposal is likely to impact the whole of the environment and the technology is proven, the impacts of the activity is well understood and comprehensively documented.

The proposal is likely to impact the whole of the environment and the technology in use is proven and/or the impacts of activity are unclear and/or poorly documented.

Impacts of the proposed action on the values of the GBRMP are well understood and are low severity and temporary in nature.

Impacts of the proposed action on the values of the GBRMP are uncertain and poorly defined, and are temporary or permanent in nature.

The impacts of the proposed action on values are well understood and comprehensively documented.

For controlled action assessments by preliminary documentation, environmental impact statement, bilateral and accredited assessments(Complexity fees from A to O maybe applicable) Note: Low complexity assessment charges are covered in base cost

COMPLEXITY FEE MATRIX

* Refer to complexity matrix attachment AF – additional fee BAC – Base costs

Impacts of proposed action on values are uncertain and poorly defined.

Impacts of action are not defined with a high risk of a long term or permanent impact on values.




Impacts on the environment of the Commonwealth marine area and conservation values are well understood, low in severity and temporary in nature.

Impacts on the environment of the Commonwealth marine area and conservation values are unclear or are of moderate severity and are temporary or permanent in nature.

Impacts on the environment of the Commonwealth marine area and conservation values are unclear or poorly defined, or are of high severity and are permanent in nature.

The proposal is likely to impact the whole of the environment and the technology in use is new and unproven or impacts of the activity are of high severity, permanent in nature and /or poorly documented.

N/A

$5,217

BAC x (Y-1)(Y) number of project components

COORDINATION WITH OTHER LEGISLATION (Fees set and confirmed at the assessment approach or controlled action decision)Coordination with Commonwealth legislation under s. 160 of the EPBC Act or links to other legislation

$7,431 $14,863Moderate level of complexity under s.160 or other legislation.

High level of complexity under s.160 or other legislation.

Very high level of complexity under s.160 or other legislation. $30,643

EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES (Fees set and confirmed at the assessment approach or controlled action decision)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

N/A (controlling provision not triggered under EPBC Act)









One project component

LOW COMPLEXITY

AF

-

-

-

-

DESCRIPTION

Management measures defined and proven in previous similar projects

Site surveys complete and adequate

Scope of project clearly defined

Low level of complexity under s.160 or other legislation.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

DRAFT

of 83

DRAFT

Attachment to complexity matrix

Controlling provision - listed threatened species and ecological communities

Points systemProponents will be charged a complexity fee based on the number of threatened species and ecological communities impacted by the proposed action. Points are allocated to each threatened species and ecological community that is likely to be impacted, or is determined to require further assessment. Points will also be allocated on the category of listing of the threatened species and ecological community.

Point valuesEPBC Act listed as endangered and vulnerable = 1 pointEPBC Act listed as critically endangered = 2 points


DESCRIPTION AF DESCRIPTION AF DESCRIPTION AF

$5,217 $20,868 $43,5711 to 5 points 6 to 14 points ≥ 15 points

Number of species or ecological communities x point value(impacted or requires further assessment)

AF = Additional fee

Controlling provision - Listed migratory species

Migratory species categories Proponents will be charged a complexity fee based on the number of migratory species categories that are likely to be impacted or that require further assessment.

Categories are defined as: Seabirds; Shorebirds; Reptiles;

Marine mammals; and Marine fish.


DESCRIPTION AF DESCRIPTION AF DESCRIPTION AF

Number of species categories (impacted or requires further assessment)

$5,217 $20,868 $43,571Two species categories impacted

≥ Three species categories impacted

One species categories impacted

Note: If a migratory species is also a listed threatened species proponents will only be charged fees for the threatened species category

of 83

DRAFT

3.7.3 Technical and operational costs Technical and operational costs are the costs of support functions which are essential to delivering the EIA service. These functions include:

maintenance of business systems specifically designed to manage project information, statutory requirements and the progress of EIA activities. These business systems support the streamlined and comprehensive assessment of individual projects;

appropriately qualified people to provide specialist legal services and advice on EIA activities. These legal services are essential to deliver robust, legally valid decisions for the proponent’s relevant EIA activity; and

the preparation of information, advice, and database management for matters of NES. These services ensure timely and accurate information to inform

The major component of these technical and operational costs are the costs of the support staff including base salary, superannuation and other on-costs for staff who are directly involved in providing a support role to the assessment process. The total cost also includes a component of accommodation and property expenses, IT costs and human resources support.

Technical and operational costs are apportioned across the relevant EIA activities (referrals/assessments). Costs are apportioned based on annual activity volume (e.g. number of referrals/assessments) determined from historical data. While some of the support areas provide broader services to other areas of the department, the technical and operational costs only relate to the departmental resources that are required to undertake the EIA work subject to cost recovery.

Technical and operational costs are the same for the following assessment methods: approval on referral information; preliminary documentation; EIS; and bilateral and accredited assessments. While the base costs for these different assessment methods vary, a consistent technical and operational cost applies. This is because the same level of support functions are required regardless of the assessment method, for example the level of business system support.

A summary of the technical and operational costs for EIA is outlined below: Referrals: $798 Assessments: $12,390 Post-approvals: $1,059

of 83

DRAFT

3.8 Schedule of fees and charges for EIATotal costs of EIAs will be recovered over the course of the assessment process through relevant fees paid by proponents prior to each stage of the assessment. If a proponent cancels the assessment at any stage, there will be no liability for the payment of fees for subsequent stages of the assessment.

The department will not keep individual timesheets on each EIA activity, to minimise administration costs and fees for all proponents. Therefore, if a proposed action is withdrawn after the payment of the relevant fee, there would be no refund payable.

An estimate of the maximum applicable fees for an assessment (including complexity fee components) as determined by the delegate of the Minister (the delegate) will be provided to a proponent at either the controlled action or assessment approach decision. This estimate will outline the maximum fees associated with each stage of the assessment. The following section provides an overview of the referrals and EIAs, which will have associated fees set out in the regulations, and fees which may be applicable at each stage of the assessment.

3.8.1 Referrals

Person proposing to take the action makes a referral to the

Minister via the department.

Action is clearly unacceptable

The Minister makes a decision within 20 business days on whether approval is required under the EPBC Act

Controlled Action


Not controlledaction ‘particular

manner’

Not controlledaction

Referral fee

Referrals will have a fixed fee based on the amount of work that is required to occur to meet the 20 day statutory timeframe. There will be no additional complexity fees. The referral costs are based on 8.9 equivalent person-days for an Assessment Officer and 3.5 equivalent person-days for an Assistant Director, along with Director oversight and a decision by the Delegate as outlined in table 3.1.

Activities involved in the referral process include: one optional pre-referral consultation/meeting with the proponent, research and validation of referral information, sourcing advice from other departmental areas, preparation of advice to the Minister or the delegate, consideration of advice and making the decision, decision notification and database input. The referral fee also includes an allocated share of the technical and operational costs as outlined in section 3.7.3. There will be no additional fee imposed for a pre-referral meeting as the related effort will be expended by the department regardless of whether the proponent opts to have a pre-referral meeting. A summary of the referral costs is outlined in table 3.2.

of 83

DRAFT

Table 3.2 - Summary of the referral costs

Activity Base costs (A)

Technical costs (B)

Additional complexity (C)

Total fee (A) + (B)+ (C)

Referral $7,010 $798 N/A $7,808

3.8.2 Assessment processes

Controlled Action


Preliminary documentation

Assessment

Environmental Impact Statement

Bilateral or Accredited

assessment

Joint assessment

panelPublic Inquiry

If the proposed action requires assessment under the EPBC Act, the proponent will be notified of the assessment approach decision. The department will provide the proponent with an estimate of maximum applicable assessment fees when the assessment decision or controlled action decision is made. Assessment fees will be payable prior to commencing each relevant stage of the assessment process and will be commensurate with the work required at that stage. If a proponent cancels or withdraws a proposed action at any stage of the assessment, there will be no liability for the payment of fees for subsequent stages.

Note: The above assessment process will not be applicable for the new faster Approval on Referral Information assessment, which is outlined in section 3.8.7.

3.8.3 Assessment on preliminary documentation Base preliminary documentation assessment fees (i.e. for low complexity projects) are based on 12 equivalent person-days for an Assessment Officer and 3.5 equivalent person-days for an Assistant Director, along with executive oversight (detailed below).

Activities involved in the preliminary documentation assessment for a low complexity project include: a comprehensive review of the project scope, consultation with the proponent, preparation of requests for information to inform the assessment, research and validation of assessment documentation, sourcing advice from other departmental areas, review of responses from the proponent, preparation of decision documentation for the Minister or delegate, consideration of advice and making the decision, decision notification and database input. The assessment fees also include an allocated share of the technical and operational costs as outlined in section 3.7.2.

A summary of the preliminary documentation assessment fees is outlined in table 3.3. A break-down of processes contributing to base costs for a preliminary documentation assessment is outlined in table 3.4.

of 83

DRAFT

Table 3.3 - Summary of the preliminary documentation fees


Technical and operational

costs (B)

Additional complexity costs (C)

Total fee

Assessment on preliminary

documentation$8,263 $12,390

To be determined on a case-by-case basis by reference to

complexity matrix(A) + (B) + (C)

Table 3.4 - Summary of Base costs (A) for preliminary documentationTime (days)

Stages of the assessment and approval process Assessment Officer

Assistant Director

Director Delegate

Stage 1: Determine information requirements 2 0.5 0.1 0.03Stage 2: Liaise with proponent and other regulators, and review documents throughout preparation of draft documentation

2 0.5 0.1 0.03

Stage 3: Review comments and supplementary information 2 0.5 0.1 0.03

Stage 4: Prepare recommendation report, draft and final decision 6 2 0.5 0.07

TOTAL BASE COST $8,263

The fees that maybe applicable at each stage of the preliminary documentation assessment process, are outlined in the preliminary documentation fee stages process flowchart (figure 3.3).

Complexity fees may be applicable to an assessment by preliminary documentation. Refer to ‘Example 1’ and ‘Example 2’ (p27 - 28) to see how complexity fees could be applied to a proposed action assessed by preliminary documentation under the EPBC Act, based on the complexity matrix. Example 2 demonstrates how the proponent was able to reduce their adequacy of information and clarity of project scope fees (shown in rows L, M, and N in complexity matrix), by providing a higher quality of information.

of 83

DRAFT

Preparation of assessment documentation request

Meeting/s with the proponent; Review referral documentation – identify information required for the assessment; Request internal advice as appropriate; Prepare information request for preliminary documentation; and Brief Minister/delegate.

Review of preliminary documentation provided and preparation of direction to publish

Review documentation for adequacy Review advertisement Meeting/s with the proponent Liaison with relevant state/territory agencies Brief Minister/delegate

Review comments and supplementary information

Review any public and state/territory comments on the proposed action Brief Minister/delegate Meeting/s with the proponent Liaison with relevant state/territory agencies

Stage 1 Assessment fee



Preparation of recommendation report, draft & final decision

Site visit and meetings Assess impacts of the project on controlled matter/s and consider environmental history, social and economic impacts Request internal advice as appropriate Prepare recommendation report and draft decision Review offsets and mitigation management measures Liaison with relevant state/territory agenciesBrief Minister/delegate Publish decision Update database


Controlled Action

Assessment by preliminary documentation

$1,964**

$1,964

$1,963

$6,499

(A) + (B) +(C)

(A) + (B) +(C)

(A) + (B) +(C)

(A) + (B) +(C)

Technical costs (B)

Additional Complexity (C)* Total

Preliminary documentation assessment process

Base costs (A)

$1,310**

$1,310

$1,310

$4,333

Fee for service

Minister makes final decision

Ass

essm

ent p

roce

ss

Fee for service

* It is proposed that the total complexity fee for a project is paid in installments across the various fee points based on the proportion of work (percentage) to be completed for each stage of the assessment. ** If no further information is required [as per section 95(1) of the EPBC Act] then the stage 1 Base (A), Technical and operational (B), and 16% of the complexity fees will not be applicable, as this stage in the process does not occur, therefore reducing the overall fee payable. *** If no further information is required [as per section 95(1) of the EPBC Act] then the total fees will be; Base (A) $6,953, Technical and operational (B) $10,426, and 84% of the total complexity fee.

Case by case basis using complexity

matrix

(16% of total complexity fee)

**


matrix



matrix



matrix


Total fees $8,263***

$12,390***


***(A) + (B) +(C)

Figure 3.3 – Fee stages flow chart for preliminary documentation

of 83

DRAFT

of 83

Example 1 — Residential development (preliminary documentation)

Project description: Building Homes Pty Ltd is proposing a residential development, which requires clearing and alteration of water courses in an area that provides important high quality habitat for a threatened species and ecological communities.

Total fee

Activity Base costs (A)Technical and operational

costs (B)

Additional complexity costs

(C)

Total fee(A) + (B)+ (C)

Residential development - (Preliminary documentation)

$8,263 $12,390 $55,493 $76,146

Additional complexity components

Fee Ref.* Project characteristics Additional resources required

during the assessment processComplexity

fee

A

Controlling provisions triggered: One Impacts are considered high complexity

based on 8 EPBC Act listed threatened species / ecological communities requiring further assessment – 10 points

Threatened species (high complexity): Assessment Officer—24 days Assistant Director—12 days Director—4 days

$20,868

JProject components: One Land clearing for residential

development No additional cost N/A

L

M

N

Adequacy of information and clarity of project scope:

Site surveys for threatened species are partially complete. Additional dry season surveys are required.

Clarification is required regarding the proposed management measures, avoidance and mitigation of important habitat.

The project scope is clearly defined.

Site surveys (moderate complexity): Assessment Officer—17.5 days Assistant Director—6.5 days Director—2.5 days

Management strategies (moderate complexity): Assessment Officer—17.5 days Assistant Director—6.5 days Director—2.5 days

No additional cost

$13,597

$13,597

K

Other legislation: Coordination not required under section

160 of the EPBC Act.

There is a moderate level of complexity under the state planning legislation. Liaison will be required to streamline approval conditions.

No coordination required

Other legislation (moderate complexity): Assessment Officer—8 days Assistant Director—4 days Director—2 days

N/A

$7,431

Estimated total complexity costs $55,493

* Please refer to complexity matrix

Example 2 — Residential development (preliminary documentation)

Project description: Building Homes Pty Ltd is proposing a residential development, which requires clearing and alteration of water courses in an area that provides important high quality habitat for a threatened species and ecological communities.

Total fee

Activity Base costs (A)Technical and operational

costs (B)

Additional complexity cost (C)

Total fee(A) + (B) + (C)

Residential development - (Preliminary documentation)

$8,263 $12,390 $28,299 $48,952

Additional complexity components

Fee Ref.* Project characteristics Additional resources required

during the assessment processComplexity

costs

A

Controlling provisions triggered: One Impacts are considered high complexity

based on 8 EPBC Act listed threatened species / ecological communities requiring further assessment - 10 points

Threatened species (high complexity): Assessment Officer—24

days Assistant Director—12 days Director—4 days

$20,868

J Project components: One Land clearing for residential development No additional cost N/A

L

M

N

Adequacy of information and clarity of project scope: Site surveys complete and adequate.

Management measures are clearly defined and proven.

Project scope is clearly defined.

No additional cost

No additional cost

No additional cost

N/A

K

Other legislation: Coordination not required under section

160 of the EPBC Act. There is a moderate level of complexity

under the state planning legislation. Liaison will be required to streamline approval conditions.

No coordination required

Other legislation (moderate complexity): Assessment Officer—8 days Assistant Director—4 days Director—2 days

N/A

$7,431

Estimated total complexity costs $28,299


DRAFT

3.8.4 Environmental impact statement Base EIS fees (i.e. for low complexity projects) are based on 35 equivalent person-days for an Assessment Officer, 13 equivalent person-days for an Assistant Director, and five equivalent person-days for a Director, plus executive oversight.

Activities involved in a base EIS process include: a comprehensive review of project scope, consultation with the proponent, preparation of guidelines, research and validation of assessment documentation, sourcing of advice from other departmental areas responsible for specific aspects of the assessment, preparation of advice to the Minister, consideration of advice and making the decision, decision notification and database input.

A summary of the EIS costs is outlined in table 3.5, and a break-down of processes contributing to base costs for EIS assessment is outlined in table 3.6.

Table 3.5 - Summary of the EIS costs


Technical and

operational costs (B)


(C)

Total fee

EIS $28,754 $12,390 Refer to complexity matrix (A) + (B) + (C)

Table 3.6 - Summary of the Base costs (A) for EISTime (days)


Assistant Director

Director Delegate

Stage 1: Draft guidelines 5 2 0.5 0.03Stage 2: Liaise with proponent and other regulators and review documents throughout preparation of draft EIS

15 5 2 1

Stage 3: Review final EIS 5 2 0.5 0.27Stage 4: Prepare recommendation report, draft and final decision 10 4 2 0.4


The fees that are applicable at each stage of the EIS assessment process are outlined in the fee stages flowchart for EIAs (figure 3.4).

Complexity fees may be applicable to an assessment by EIS. Refer ‘Example 3’ to see how complexity fees could be applied to a proposed action assessed by EIS under the EPBC Act.

of 83

DRAFT

Preparation of guidelines

Review referral documentation – identify impacts on controlled matter/s Prepare draft guidelines Meeting/s with the proponent Liaison with relevant state/territory agencies Invite public comment on draft guidelines if applicable Brief Minister/delegate

Review of draft EIS and preparation of direction to publish

Review draft EIS to ensure that the guidelines have been adequately addressed Review advertisement for publication Request internal or external advice as appropriate Meeting/s with the proponent Brief Minister/delegate

Review of Final EIS

Review final EIS – ensure comments raised during the public comment period have been adequately addressed Review any new information provided in final EIS documentation Request internal or external advice as appropriate Meeting/s with the proponent Brief Minister/delegate




Preparation of recommendation report, draft & final decision

Site visit and meetings Assess impacts of the project on controlled matter/s Consider environmental history, social and economic impacts Request internal advice as appropriate Prepare recommendation report Develop draft decision Review offsets and mitigation management measures Liaison with relevant state/territory agencies Brief Minister/delegate


Controlled Action

Assessment by Environmental Impact Statement

$1,658

$5,229

$1,750

$3,753

(A) + (B) +(C)

Technical costs (B)


Environment Impact Statement assessment process

Base costs (A)

$3,847

$12,135

$4,060

$8,712

Fee for service

Minister/ Delegate of the Minister makes final decision

Ass

essm

ent p

roce

ss

Fee for service

* It is proposed that the total complexity fee for a project is paid in installments across the various fee points based on the proportion of work (percentage) To be completed for each stage of the assessment.

(A) + (B) +(C)

(A) + (B) +(C)

(A) + (B) +(C)


matrix



matrix



matrix



matrix


Total fees $28,754 $12,390 (100% of total complexity fee) (A) + (B) +(C)

Figure 3.4 – Fee stages flowchart for EIS process.

of 83

DRAFT

of 83

Example 3 - Mine, rail and port development (EIS)

Project description: Digging Down Under Pty Ltd is proposing the expansion of an existing mine that includes a widening of the mine’s footprint and a new rail line to a new onshore port facility. The development of the port facility also involves offshore dredging for the shipping channel and construction of a jetty for docking of ships.

Referral documentation does not provide alternative dredging footprints to reduce the impact on coral species within the Commonwealth marine area. Clarification is required as to whether the project timing can be altered to reduce impacts on migratory and threatened species.

A high level of complexity under state legislation is required, and therefore liaison with the state is necessary to align assessment documentation with both state and EPBC Act requirements.

Total fee


Technical and

operational costs (B)

Additional Complexity costs

(C)


Mine, port and rail development (EIS) $28,754 $12,390 $326,693 $367,837

Additional complexity components Fee

Ref.*Project characteristics Additional resources required during

the assessment processComplexity

costs

A

B

D

Controlling provisions triggered: Three

Impacts are considered high complexity based on 10 EPBC Act listed threatened species / ecological communities requiring further assessment - 12 points

Migratory species: The port infrastructure is proposed to be constructed over habitat that provides foraging habitat for migratory species (one species category).

Commonwealth marine area: This project will involve considerable dredging extending into the Commonwealth marine environment. The dredge plume is likely to impact on some coral communities in the Commonwealth marine environment.


Migratory species (moderate complexity): Assessment Officer—6 days Assistant Director—3 days Director—1 days

Commonwealth marine area (high complexity): Assessment Officer—24 days Assistant Director—12 days Director—4 days

$20,868

$5,217

$20,868


Example 3 (Continued) - Mine, Rail and Port development (EIS)

Fee Ref.*

Project characteristics Additional resources required during the assessment process

Complexity costs

JProject components: Four (very high complexity) mine rail line onshore infrastructure offshore dredging.

Each additional project component increases the department’s workload by the basic assessment cost (that is, the cost of assessing one project component). Base cost of assessment x 3

$86,262

L

M

N

Adequacy of information and clarity of project scope: No site surveys undertaken offshore,

some site surveys undertaken along the rail line, but impacts are not adequately identified and further work is required.

The proponent has proposed broad management measures, but without necessary detail. The avoidance and mitigation measures of important habitat are not enforceable.

The project scope includes alternative dredging footprints, but these alternatives are clearly defined.

Site surveys (high complexity): Assessment Officer—70 days Assistant Director—26 days Director—10 days Delegate of the Minister—3.4 days External expert—$20,000

Management strategies (high complexity): Assessment Officer—70 days Assistant Director—26 days Director—10 days Delegate of the Minister—3.4 days External expert—$30,000

Project scope (moderate complexity): Assessment officer—17.5 days Assistant Director—6.5 days Director—2.5 days

$77,509

$87,509

$13,597

KOther legislation: A high level of complexity under state

legislation. Liaison with the state will be required to align assessment documentation with both state and EPBC Act requirements.

Coordination with state legislation (high complexity): Assessment Officer—16 days Assistant Director—8 days Director—4 days

$14,863

Estimated total complexity cost $326,693


DRAFT

3.8.5 Bilateral agreement / Accredited assessment

The costs outlined in this section represent the historic costs for the Commonwealth for bilateral assessments. Following the COAG decision of 13 April 2012, the Commonwealth and states have agreed to greater cooperation for EIAs, including to establish new accreditation arrangements for assessments and approvals by the states under the EPBC Act.

The department is committed to a continuous improvement process and anticipates that costs for bilateral assessments under the new arrangements will reduce significantly. The costs in this CRIS will be amended as new bilateral arrangements are agreed and implemented by states and the Commonwealth.

A bilateral agreement or accredited assessment is an agreement between a state or territory and the Commonwealth to undertake a combined assessment of the same project. The proponent must refer the project under both the state legislation and the EPBC Act. Base bilateral agreement or accredited assessment costs (i.e. for low complexity projects) are based on 31 equivalent person-days for an Assessment Officer, 11 equivalent person-days for an Assistant Director, and four equivalent person-days for a Director.

Activities undertaken by the Commonwealth as part of a base bilateral assessment or accredited assessment process include: regular liaison with the state or territory departments, comprehensive review of project scope, consultation with the proponent, input into state or territory project assessment guidelines, research and validation of assessment documentation, sourcing of advice from other departmental areas, preparation of advice to the Minister, consideration of advice and making the decision, decision notification and database input. These costs are lower than those under the EIS assessments as the department does not prepare the recommendation report.

A summary of the bilateral agreement/accredited assessment fees is outlined in table 3.7, and a summary of the base costs summary for bilateral agreement/accredited assessments is outlined in Table 3.8.

Table 3.7 - Summary of bilateral agreement / accredited assessment fees



costs (B)

Additional complexity costs (C) Total fee

Bilateral agreement / Accredited assessments $24,794 $12,390

To be determined on a case-by-case basis by

reference to complexity matrix

(A) + (B) + (C)

of 83

DRAFT

Table 3.8 - Summary of Base costs (A) for bilateral agreement / accredited assessmentTime (days)


Assistant Director

Director Delegate

Stage 1: Input into guidelines 5 2 0.5 0.03Stage 2: Liaison with proponent and other regulators and review of documents throughout preparation of draft assessment documentation

15 5 2 1

Stage 3: Review final assessment documentation 5 2 0.5 0.27

Stage 4: Preparation of draft and final decision 6 2 1 0.13


The fees applicable at each stage of the bilateral agreement / accredited assessment process are outlined in the fee stages flowchart (figure 3.5). Complexity fees may be applicable to an assessment by bilateral agreement/accredited assessment. Refer ‘Example 4’ and ‘Example 5’ to see how complexity fees could be applied to a proposed action assessed by bilateral agreement/accredited assessment under the EPBC Act. Example 5 demonstrates how the proponent was able to reduce their adequacy of information and clarity of project scope fees (shown in rows L, M, and N in complexity matrix), by providing a higher quality of information.

of 83

DRAFT

Input into guidelines or scoping documentation

Review referral documentation – identify impacts on controlled matter/s Review draft guidelines and provide input to ensure protected matters are covered adequately in the assessment documentation Meeting/s with the proponent Liaison with relevant state/territory agencies Brief Minister/delegate

Review and provide comment on proponent’s draft assessment documentation

Review draft assessment to ensure that the guidelines have been adequately addressed Review advertisement for publication Request internal or external advice as appropriate Meeting/s with the proponent Brief Minister/delegate

Review and provide comment on proponent’s final assessment documentation

Review final assessment documentation ensure comments raised during the public comment period have been adequately addressed Review any new information provided in final documentation Request internal or external advice as appropriate Meeting/s with the proponent Brief Minister/delegate




Review State or Territories Assessment report and preparation of draft and final decision

Site visit and meetings Assess impacts of the project on controlled matter/s Consider environmental history, social and economic impacts Request internal advice as appropriate Prepare draft decision Review offsets and mitigation management measures Liaison with relevant state/territory agencies Brief Minister/delegate Publish decision Update database


Controlled Action

Assessment by Bilateral or Accredited Assessment

$1,922

$6,064

$2,029

$2,375

Technical costs (B)


Bilateral or Accredited assessment process

Base costs (A)

$3,847

$12,134

$4,061

$4,752

Fee for service

Minister/ Delegate of the Minister makes final decision

Ass

essm

ent p

roce

ss

Fee for service

* It is proposed that the total complexity fee for a project is paid in installments across the various fee points based on the proportion of work (percentage) to be completed for each stage of the assessment.

Total fees $24,794 $12,390 (100% of total complexity fee) (A) + (B) +(C)

(A) + (B) +(C)

(A) + (B) +(C)

(A) + (B) +(C)

(A) + (B) +(C)


matrix



matrix



matrix



matrix


Figure 3.5 – Fee stages flowchart for EIS process

of 83

Example 4 – Mine & Rail (bilateral assessment) Project description: Mining Pty Ltd is proposing the new development of a mine and rail line.

The project involves the clearing and fragmentation of habitat for a number of threatened and migratory species. Site surveys are partially complete for all project components however impacts are not adequately identified and further work is required. The proponent has proposed broad management measures however clarification is required.

There is a low level of complexity under the state planning legislation. Liaison with the state will be required during the bilateral assessment process.

DRAFT

3.8.6 Joint assessment panel and public inquiry The costs of an assessment by the new joint assessment panel and public inquiry will be determined on a case-by-case basis. The exact costs will be dependent on the specifics of a project and therefore fees cannot be determined and fixed in regulations in advance, as for other assessment methods.

The costs for assessment by public inquiry or the new joint assessment panel arrangement would be directly related to the size and scope of the project that is being assessed. Considerations that could influence costs include the number of staff resources necessary to undertake the assessments, the size and expertise of the panel, the extent of independent expert advice required, the role and number of hearings during the assessment process and potentially the related travel to conduct and support these hearings. The division of costs between the jurisdictions involved in the joint assessment panel would also need to be determined.

Costs and associated revenue (fee for service) for assessments by joint assessment panel and public inquiry, as well as appropriate payment methods, will be determined in consultation with a project proponent and subject to agreement by Government. An estimate of maximum fees applicable will be provided by the Minister to the project proponent prior to the assessment commencing, similar to other assessment methods.

Assessment fees will be based on a full recovery of relevant costs, consistent with the Cost Recovery Guidelines. Total costs may include direct costs (such as salary and on-costs for staff directly involved in the assessment) and indirect costs (an appropriate share of overheads and technical and operational costs). Costing methodology will be similar to that used for other assessment methods. However, an additional potential cost for joint assessment panel and public inquiry will be related to remuneration payable to an external head of a joint assessment panel or inquiry panel and relevant experts. The fee specified by the Minister may also include a requirement to make specified payments at particular points in the assessment, similar to that of other assessment processes.

The department does not expect that assessments by joint assessment panel and public inquiry will occur on a regular basis. In the past the department has not conducted such assessments. Therefore, the costs and associated revenue for assessments by joint assessment panel and public inquiry are not included in the total costs and revenue documented in this draft CRIS.

Joint assessment panelCosts and fee revenue to be determined

on a case by case basis, with final funding model subject to government’s agreement

Public inquiryCosts and fee revenue to be determined

on a case by case basis, with final funding model subject to government’s agreement

of 83

Example 4 – Mine & Rail (bilateral assessment) Project description: Mining Pty Ltd is proposing the new development of a mine and rail line.

The project involves the clearing and fragmentation of habitat for a number of threatened and migratory species. Site surveys are partially complete for all project components however impacts are not adequately identified and further work is required. The proponent has proposed broad management measures however clarification is required.

There is a low level of complexity under the state planning legislation. Liaison with the state will be required during the bilateral assessment process.

Example 5 - Mine & Rail (bilateral assessment)

Project description: Mining Pty Ltd is proposing the new development of a mine and rail line.

The project involves the clearing and fragmentation of habitat for a number of threatened and migratory species. Site surveys complete and are adequate. Management measures are clearly defined and proven. There is a low level of complexity under the state planning legislation. Liaison with the state will be required during the bilateral assessment process.

Total fee

Activity Basic costs (A) Technical costs (B)



Mine and rail development (bilateral assessment) $24,794 $12,390 $50,879 $88,063

Additional complexity components Fee

Ref.* Project characteristics Additional resources required during the assessment process

Complexity costs

A

B

Controlling provisions triggered: Two

Impacts are considered high complexity based on 10 EPBC Act listed threatened species / ecological communities requiring further assessment - 12 points

Migratory species: The rail infrastructure is proposed to be constructed over foraging habitat for migratory birds (one species category).


Migratory species (moderate complexity): Assessment Officer—6 days Assistant Director—3 days Director—1 days

$20,868

$5,217

JProject components: Two mine rail line

Each additional project component increases the department’s workload by the base cost assessment (that is, the cost of assessing one project component). Base cost of assessment x 1

$24,794

L

M

Adequacy of information and clarity of project scope: Site surveys complete and adequate. Management measures are clearly

defined and proven.

No additional cost

No additional cost

$0

K

Other legislation:

A low level of complexity under the state legislation. Liaison will be required to align the bilateral assessment process with the state.

N/A $0

Estimated complexity costs $50,879


DRAFT

3.8.7 Approval on referral information Approval on referral information (ARI) is a proposed new faster assessment process. It will replace the current assessment method of ‘assessment on referral information’. The new ARI process requires early engagement at the pre-referral stage between the department and a proponent to understand the scope of the project, certainty of impacts on matters of NES and appropriate avoidance and mitigation strategies to reduce impacts on matters of NES. An ARI will only be applicable where the complexity of the assessment is low to medium and the impact is restricted to a limited number of controlling provisions and individual places/species.

ARI fees are primarily based on an experienced Assistant Director working on the project full time in order to deliver a fast, robust and legally valid decision within the statutory timeframe. The fees are based on 60 equivalent person-days for an Assistant Director, with support from an Assessment Officer and executive oversight.

Activities involved in the ARI process include pre-referral engagement with the proponent and review of documentation prior to the commencement of the statutory timeframe to ensure the project meets the requirements for a valid ARI process. The process also requires substantial executive oversight and direction to ensure that appropriate early guidance is provided to the proponent in the pre-referral stage in order to achieve an acceptable outcome.

If during the ARI assessment it is identified that the proposed action does not qualify for this approach, then the proponent will receive a refund, less the standard referral fee. The proposed action will then be assessed by the relevant assessment method, subject to applicable fees.

A summary of the ARI fee is outlined in table 3.9, and a break-down of processes contributing to base costs for ARI is outlined in the table 3.10.

Table 3.9 - Summary of ARI fees



costs (B)


(C)


ARI $68,019 $12,390 N/A $80,409

Table 3.10 - Summary of Base costs (A) for ARITime (days)


Assistant Director

Director Delegate

Stage 1: Pre-referral consultation 15 15 7 3

Stage 2: Referral, assessment and approval 18.5 45 11 3


of 83

DRAFT

3.8.8 Management plan (post approval) The assessment of a management plan requires on average five equivalent person-days for an Assessment Officer and one equivalent person-day for an Assistant Director, along with oversight by the Director and Assistant Secretary.

Activities included in the assessment of a management plan include: review of a proposed management plan to ensure that it adequately meets the requirement(s) of the condition that triggers preparation of the plan, consultation with the proponent, legal checking of decision documentation, research and validation, sourcing of advice from other departmental areas, preparation of advice to the Minister, consideration of advice and making the decision, decision notification. Should there be a requirement for further information that relates to a management plan, the proponent can provide this information during the assessment process (at no cost) or elect to provide it following any approval as a post approval management plan (fees apply).

A summary of the management plan assessment fee is outlined in table 3.11.

Table 3.11 - Summary of management plan assessment fees


Technical costs (B)


Total fee(A) + (B)+ (C)

Management plan assessment fee* $3,081 $1,059 N/A $4,140

* A management plan assessment fee is applicable when the proponent has elected to provide a management plan for the consideration of the Minister.

3.8.9 Contingent activities There are additional costs that may arise during a referral or assessment, for example where information quality provided by a proponent is not adequate to assess the project, or where the proponent requests a variation to the proposed action. In these cases additional departmental staff time is required to review and address these issues, resulting in additional costs. The department is considering the appropriateness of charging contingent fees (additional fees associated with information quality and project changes), which were outlined on page 31 of the EPBC Act cost recovery consultation paper. Should these fees be determined appropriate, they will be set out in regulations (and reflected in the final CRIS), and will have to be paid prior to the commencement of the related contingent activities. These fees will not be included in the estimate at the time of a controlled action or assessment approach decision, as the occasion for them arises relatively infrequently and cannot be determined in advance.

The department is also currently considering the appropriateness of introducing a number of additional contingent fees, further to those outlined in the EPBC Act cost recovery consultation paper. Should such fees be determined appropriate, they will be determined on a cost recovery basis, set out in regulations (and reflected in the final CRIS) and will have to be paid prior to the commencement of the related contingent activities. The department anticipates that these further contingent fees would total less than $3,600 and would relate to activities that would occur infrequently (for example a request to extend the period of an approval).

of 83

DRAFT

3.9 Changes in cost baseIt is proposed that fees set out in regulations will increase on 1 July each year in accordance with appropriate government indexation rate, to ensure that fee revenue matches the increase in costs as accounted for in the annual appropriation provided to the department. A fee schedule for future years is provided at appendix A.

3.10 Volume and/or demand assumptionsThe regulatory process of EIAs under the EPBC Act has been operating for 12 years. Over this period the number of referrals received by the department has increased from 309 in 2001-02 to 428 in 2010-11. While more recently the number of referrals received has remained fairly static, the complexity of referred projects has increased.

To provide a conservative estimate of demand for the forward years, the department assumed that the expected number of referrals, assessments and approvals/post-approvals under the EPBC Act for the period of December 2012 to June 2017 (the period of duration of this draft CRIS) will be similar to the historic period of 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2011 (extrapolated to account for seven months of cost recovery arrangements operating in 2012-13), based on the number of activities that would have been paid for at specific statutory decision points if the fees were to apply during that period.

EIAs are usually not concluded within one financial year. Therefore, the volume of activities in any year would include both new activities and those that continue from previous year(s), which may result in progressive increases each year as more projects move through the various stages of assessment. Similarly, the number of post-approval management plan assessments increases each year as more projects are approved as presented in the below table. The historical activity represented in tables 3.12, 3.13, 3.14 forms the basis of the forecast revenue and expenses outlined in tables 3.15, 3.16, and 3.17.

Table 3.12 – Referrals volumeActivity Activity volume11

2008-09(2012-13 &

2013-14)

2009-10(2014-15)

2010-11(2015-16)

Referrals (NCA/NCA-PM/clearly unacceptable/ withdrawn/stop clock) 310 278 282Referrals (CA decisions) 128 144 146

Total referrals 438 422 428

11 Demand for 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 is based on the actual activity volumes from 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively (refer tables 3.12, 3.13, and 3.14).

of 83

DRAFT

Table 3.13 - Assessments activity volume

Activity

Activity volume2008-09

(2012-13 &2013-2014)

2009-10(2014-15)

2010-11(2015-16)

Assessment on referral information12 5 14 10Preliminary documentation

Stage 1Preparation of additional information request 51 65 80

Stage 2Review of preliminary documentation and preparation of direction to publish 46 60 68

Stage 3Review comments and supplementary information 18 39 57

Stage 4Preparation of recommendation report, draft and final decision 18 39 57

Environmental impact statementStage 1 Preparation of guidelines 21 16 20

Stage 2Review of draft EIS and preparation of direction to publish 17 18 11

Stage 3 Review of final EIS 0 13 8

Stage 4Preparation of recommendation report, draft and final decision 0 10 9

Bilateral agreement / Accredited assessmentStage 1 Input into guidelines 28 44 30

Stage 2

Review and provide comment on proponent's draft assessment documentation 0 3 14

Stage 3

Review and provide comment on proponent's final assessment documentation 0 3 14

Stage 4

Review state or territory’s assessment report and preparation of draft and final decision 0 3 14

Table 3.14 - Approved actions - activity volume Activity Activity volume

2008-09(2012-13 &2013-2014)

2009-10(2014-15)

2010-11(2015-16)

Assessment on referral information 3 7 14Preliminary documentation 8 27 49Environmental impact statement 0 4 8Bilateral agreement / Accredited assessment 0 3 11

3.9.1 Projected revenue and expenses

12 These volumes have been used to estimate the expected number of approvals on referral information.

of 83

DRAFT

Projected revenue and expenses are based on the cost/fee of each activity being applied to the forecast demand for relevant activity when statutory decision points (fee points) fall within a corresponding financial year.

For 2012-13, demand is based on 28 weeks of 2008-09 activity, assuming that cost recovery commences on 1 December 2012. Demand for 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 is based on the actual activity volumes from 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. For years 2016-17, activity in each year is based on an average of activity in 2009-10 and 2010-11.

Based on historical data, the forecast assumes 50% of the assessments comprise only base and technical/operation costs (no additional complexity charge), and 50% of the assessments comprise base, technical/operational, and complexity costs. The level of complexity is likely to correlate to the assessment approach, and therefore 50% of preliminary documentation assessments were determined to be of moderate complexity, and 50% of EIS/bilateral agreement/accredited assessment were determined to be of high complexity. However, the department has seen a recent increase in high and very high complexity for EIS and bilateral agreement/accredited assessment which are not accounted for in these estimates of expenses and revenue, to ensure that they are not overestimated based on what may be a short-term fluctuation. To account for significant demand fluctuations, the ‘pay as you go’ fee points will allow the department to ensure that the appropriate resources are allocated for such projects.

The volumes of post-approval management plans relating to various types of assessment methods have been estimated based on the historical numbers of post-approval management plans which were included in approval conditions:

o ARI - 1o Preliminary documentation - 2o EIS - 5o Bilateral agreement/Accredited assessment - 5

As outlined in section 3.8.9 the department is currently considering the appropriateness of introducing additional fees for a number of contingent activities, such as requests for additional information, reconsiderations and variations. Should such fees be determined appropriate, they will be determined on a cost recovery basis, set out in regulations (and reflected in the final CRIS) and will have to be paid prior to the commencement of the related activities. The expenses and revenue presented in this draft CRIS do not include expenses and revenue for the potential contingent activities. Following the introduction of cost recovery, the department expects to receive documentation of higher quality due to streamlined regulatory processes and provision of additional guidance to proponents. This means that the need for contingency activities is likely to be minimised.

Tables 3.15, 3.16, and 3.17 outline forecast expenses and revenue for EIAs.

of 83

DRAFT

Expenses and revenue summary tables for EIAs ($ mil)

Table 3.15 – Referrals (expenses and revenue summary)

Referrals 2012-13*(08 -09)

$ mil

2013-14(08 -09)

$ mil

2014-15(09 -10)

$ mil

2015-16(10-11)

$ mil

2016-17$ mil

Expense 1.820 3.452 3.321 3.470 3.463

Revenue 1.673 3.173 3.126 3.254 3.254

Balance +/-** -0.147 -0.279 -0.195 -0.216 -0.210

Table 3.16 – Assessment process (expenses and revenue summary)

Approval on referral information 2012-13*(08 -09)

$ mil

2013-14(08 -09)

$ mil

2014-15(09 -10)

$ mil

2015-16(10-11)

$ mil

2016-17$ mil

Expense 0.216 0.410 1.174 0.855 1.035

Revenue 0.130 0.246 1.006 0.769 0.905

Balance +/-** -0.087 -0.164 -0.168 -0.085 -0.129

Preliminary documentation 2012-13*(08 -09)

$ mil

2013-14(08 -09)

$ mil

2014-15(09 -10)

$ mil

2015-16(10-11)

$ mil

2016-17$ mil

Stage 1 Preparation of additional information request

Expense 0.211 0.399 0.520 0.652 0.598

Revenue 0.182 0.345 0.472 0.595 0.544

Balance +/-** -0.029 -0.055 -0.048 -0.057 -0.054

Stage 2 Review of preliminary documentation and preparation of direction to publish

Expense 0.190 0.360 0.480 0.555 0.527

Revenue 0.161 0.305 0.440 0.506 0.482

Balance +/-** -0.029 -0.055 -0.040 -0.049 -0.045

Stage 3 Review comments and supplementary information

Expense 0.074 0.141 0.312 0.465 0.396

Revenue 0.058 0.110 0.272 0.440 0.363

Balance +/-** -0.017 -0.031 -0.040 -0.024 -0.033

Stage 4 Preparation of recommendation report, draft and final decision

Expense 0.246 0.467 1.032 1.539 1.311

Revenue 0.191 0.363 0.900 1.458 1.202

Balance +/-** -0.055 -0.104 -0.132 -0.081 -0.109

of 83

DRAFT

Environmental impact statement 2012-13*(08 -09)

$ mil

2013-14(08 -09)

$ mil

2014-15(09 -10)

$ mil

2015-16(10-11)

$ mil

2016-17$ mil

Stage 1 Preparation of guidelines

Expense 0.321 0.608 0.473 0.603 0.549

Revenue 0.321 0.608 0.473 0.603 0.549

Balance +/-** 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Stage 2 Review of draft EIS and preparation of direction to publish

Expense 0.819 1.552 1.678 1.046 1.389

Revenue 0.819 1.552 1.678 1.046 1.389

Balance +/-** 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Stage 3 Review of final EIS

Expense 0.000 0.000 0.406 0.255 0.337

Revenue 0.000 0.000 0.406 0.255 0.337

Balance +/-** 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Stage 4 Preparation of recommendation report & draft and final decision

Expense 0.000 0.000 0.669 0.614 0.655

Revenue 0.000 0.000 0.669 0.614 0.655

Balance +/-** 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Bilateral agreement / Accredited assessment

2012-13*(08 -09)

$ mil

2013-14(08 -09)

$ mil

2014-15(09 -10)

$ mil

2015-16(10-11)

$ mil

2016-17$ mil

Stage 1 Input into guidelines

Expense 0.486 0.922 1.480 1.029 1.280

Revenue 0.486 0.922 1.446 1.029 1.262

Balance +/-** 0.000 0.000 -0.034 0.000 -0.017

Stage 2 Review and provide comment on proponent's draft assessment documentation

Expense 0.000 0.000 0.318 1.515 0.935

Revenue 0.000 0.000 0.318 1.515 0.935

Balance +/-** 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Stage 3 Review and provide comment on proponent's final assessment documentation

Expense 0.000 0.000 0.107 0.507 0.313

Revenue 0.000 0.000 0.107 0.507 0.313

Balance +/-** 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Stage 4 Review state or territory assessment report and preparation of final decision

Expense 0.000 0.000 0.125 0.593 0.366

Revenue 0.000 0.000 0.125 0.593 0.366

Balance +/-** 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

of 83

DRAFT

Table 3.17 – Post approval management plans (expenses and revenue summary)

Post approval management plans2012-13*(08 -09)

$ mil

2013-14(08 -09)

$ mil

2014-15(09 -10)

$ mil

2015-16(10-11)

$ mil

2016-17$ mil

Approval on referral information

Expense 0.000 0.013 0.030 0.062 0.081 Revenue 0.000 0.004 0.026 0.057 0.076 Balance +/-** 0.000 -0.008 -0.004 -0.004 -0.004Preliminary documentation

Expense 0.000 0.068 0.233 0.431 0.557 Revenue 0.000 0.025 0.224 0.396 0.530 Balance +/-** 0.000 -0.042 -0.009 -0.035 -0.027Environmental impact statement

Expense 0.000 0.000 0.086 0.176 0.225 Revenue 0.000 0.000 0.086 0.176 0.225 Balance +/-** 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000Bilateral agreement / Accredited assessment

Expense 0.000 0.000 0.065 0.242 0.292

Revenue 0.000 0.000 0.065 0.242 0.292

Balance +/-** 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Total expenses*** 4.384 8.392 12.507 14.610 14.308

Total projected revenue*** 4.021 7.654 11.838 14.057 13.680Appropriation for exemptions / waivers** 0.363 0.739 0.670 0.552 0.628

Balance +/-** 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

* Assumes cost recovery commences on 1 December 2012.** The difference between the expenses and revenue represents the cost of exemptions and waivers. The cost of exemptions and waivers, including the cost of administering the scheme, will be funded by Government. ***Total expenses and revenue do not include assessments by Joint Assessment Panel and Public Inquiry as expenses and revenue for these assessments will be determined on a case-by-case basis, with the final funding model subject to government’s approval.

Note: Projected indexation of approximately 2% applied in the out years.

of 83

DRAFT

3.11 Exemptions and waivers (EIAs)This section documents the proposed design of exemptions and waivers, with the final design subject to government’s approval prior to the introduction of cost recovery. Importantly, the costs for EIA exemptions and waivers will be funded by the government and will not be cross subsidised across stakeholder groups.

Exemptions

There are limited occasions where a proposed action referred under the EPBC Act will be exempt from the payment of fees. The government has determined that it is appropriate to consider exempting small businesses from EIA fees under the EPBC Act, subject to the final agreement to the design of exemptions prior to the introduction of cost recovery.

The proposed definition of a small business is as specified in subdivision 328C of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA).

At the time this draft CRIS was prepared, the definition under subdivision 328C of the ITAA was:- an individual (such as a sole trader), partnership, trust or company with aggregated

turnover for the previous income year less than $2 million; or - estimated aggregated turnover for the current year of less than $2 million (if turnover for

one of the previous two years was less that $2 million).

This definition may be updated from time to time in line with amendments to the ITAA.

At the time of writing this CRIS, exemption provisions are still to be drafted. The department proposes the following conditions to apply to exemptions for EIAs:

- Applicants claiming a small business exemption will be required to sign a declaration on their referral form that they are a small business or an individual. The department may require proof from a proponent in the form of a tax return for operation as a small business for the previous two financial years.

- Where a transfer of an action occurs, the transferee may be required to pay the full fee of the assessment before the transfer can be consented to.

- If a person obtains a fee exemption, however was subsequently found not to qualify for the exemption, the full fee remains recoverable as a debt due to the Commonwealth. The approval decision or work on the assessment would be suspended until relevant fees were paid.

- Commonwealth offence provisions will apply to persons found to provide false or misleading information to the Commonwealth.

As stated above, the final design of exemptions and related conditions is subject to the government’s approval prior to the introduction of cost recovery.

Waivers

In exceptional circumstances the Minister may use discretionary power to waive fees under the EPBC Act. Decisions on waiving fees will be made on a case by case basis. There will be no provisions for partial waivers.

of 83

DRAFT

The department considers the following fee waiver criteria may be appropriate:

1) The Minister must be satisfied that the primary objective of the proposed action is to protect or conserve the environment (including heritage) consistent with the objectives of the EPBC Act; or

2) There are exceptional circumstances that warrant a waiver of a fee.

The Minister will have the right to refuse a fee waiver application at his or her discretion.

Waiver application process

Application for a fee waiver must be submitted at the same time as the referral of the proposed action under the EPBC Act. The Minister will have 20 business days to make a decision on whether the fee should be waived. The department will not commence work on the referral until the referral has been validated, which under cost recovery will include whether a fee waiver application has been processed and approved, or until relevant fees have been paid. Referrals submitted without a fee waiver approval will be subject to standard fees.

of 83

DRAFT

4 WILDLIFE TRADE PERMITS

Cost recovery arrangements documents in this chapter relate to selected activities associated with regulation of international movement of wildlife specimens under Part 13A of the EPBC Act.

4.1 Policy authorityThe Australian Government has agreed to continue with partial cost recovery for wildlife trade regulation, as announced on 8 May 2012 in the 2012-13 Budget.

4.2 Legal requirements for the imposition of chargesThe EPBC Act provides the legal authority to charge fees for permit applications, with detailed fee arrangements set out in the regulations. Wildlife trade fees are collected in a departmental administered account and funds are returned into the Official Public Account. Legislative amendments expected to be introduced into Parliament in 2012 will also provide the legislative authority cost recovery of additional wildlife trade regulatory activities.

4.3 Commencement of revised and new wildlife trade fees Existing fees will apply until changes to the regulations take effect, which is anticipated to occur on 1 December 2012. Permit applicants will be liable for any relevant fee increases that occur on or after 1 December 2012 (subject to the amending bill being passed by Parliament and the making of regulations). Once the revised and new fees take effect, the department will provide advice to existing applicants of fee changes that may apply after 1 December 2012.

4.4 Users and stakeholdersThe main users of permits are individuals and entities involved in the international trade in wildlife and wildlife products. Applicants can range from individuals and small family businesses, to medium sized retailers and large multinational enterprises. Stakeholders also include a range of government entities. Currently, costs relating to wildlife trade permits issued to government entities are not recovered and are met through annual appropriation received by the department.

4.5 Existing fees for wildlife trade permits Currently, fees are imposed for the following types of wildlife trade permits:

Single use permits Multiple use permits Testing permits Facility assessments Import/export of domesticated species (s303 FG – ‘Household pet permits’) Personal baggage permits Exceptional circumstances permits

of 83

DRAFT

Under the existing charging regime, the fees for wildlife trade regulatory activities do not fully recover the cost of delivering the service. An interim CRIS is currently in place for these activities, pending finalisation of this draft CRIS.

Fees for most of the wildlife trade activities have not increased since the Wildlife Protection Act was subsumed by the EPBC Act in 2001, and in some cases have not increased since 1993. The original fees were set prior to the development of the Cost Recovery Guidelines, and may not have been designed to recover the full cost of the individual activities at the time.

The department’s consultation paper outlined the full cost of delivering the range of wildlife trade regulatory functions under the EPBC Act and sought stakeholder feedback on the impact of full cost recovery for these activities. Several stakeholders noted in their submissions that full cost recovery would have ‘catastrophic’ impacts across the board for industries that rely on these regulatory activities. Key comments made in the stakeholder submissions included:

Most industries already operate at small profit margins and any increase will have the potential of reducing and/or prohibiting sales. Lesser value items would be withdrawn from sale, or in some cases production, sale and possible export of products would cease due to prohibitive permit fees.

Industry already has significant cost pressures from other Commonwealth and state/territory regulatory fees. In some cases businesses noted the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) Biosecurity) fess already take up to 20% of export earnings.

Some charges proposed under full cost recovery would result in an increase of over 500% and would make some businesses unviable.

The department gave thorough consideration to the range of verbal and written stakeholder feedback received during the consultation period. As a result of this feedback, full cost recovery of most wildlife trade regulatory activities is no longer being investigated at this stage. The department considers full cost recovery for these activities may not meet the requirements of the Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines, as it would stifle industry and innovation, be inconsistent with policy objectives, and not be an efficient or effective charging arrangement.

Continuation of partial cost recoveryAuthority for partial cost recovery of wildlife trade related regulatory activities was confirmed by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation during the development of the cost recovery arrangements proposed in this CRIS. The proposed cost recovery arrangements for some of the wildlife trade regulatory activities will continue to operate on a partial cost recovery basis, and the department will continue to meet the unrecovered costs through its annual appropriation.

Wildlife trade fee increasesA number of wildlife trade permit holders are commercial businesses, and it is appropriate that they meet the costs of services they are using. The department proposes to increase current fees so that they reflect the cost of the related activities to a greater extent, making them more consistent with the Cost Recovery Guidelines.

of 83

DRAFT

The fees for wildlife trade permits documented in this draft CRIS are proposed to increase to double the current levels. This is considered to be the maximum fee increase that will not result in significant financial impacts on the relevant stakeholders.

While fee increases may appear to be large as a percentage, the actual fee increase is quite modest. Existing fees are quite low as they were set on a nominal basis, rather than reflecting the actual cost of providing the service. Fees have not been reviewed in at least 10 years, and the continuation of partial cost recovery, even with modest fee increases, is consistent with policy goals and is not expected to result in a disincentive to comply with the requirements of the EPBC Act.

4.6 Description of activityThe services provided by the department relate to regulating the international trade in wildlife and wildlife products, including Australian native species and species listed on the Appendices to Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Fees are currently charged for applications to obtain a permit related to international trade in wildlife and wildlife products.

The department also conducts regulatory activities which are not proposed to be subject to cost recovery, including assessment of programs for the sustainable management of species regulated by the wildlife trade provisions of the EPBC Act, and monitoring and compliance activities and investigation and enforcement activities related to the regulation of wildlife trade. These activities contribute towards the protection of wildlife that may be adversely affected by trade and ensure that any commercial utilisation of Australian native wildlife for export purposes is managed in an ecologically sustainable way.

The key steps in the application, assessment and decision-making process for wildlife trade permits is shown in figure 4.1.

Application received (with payment)

Copy of permit returned for acquittal

Application assessed

Permit granted and applicant notified

Permit refused and applicant notified

Audit

Figure 4.1 – Wildlife trade permit assessment process

of 83

DRAFT

4.7 Cost componentsAlthough costs for wildlife trade permits are proposed to continue to be partially recovered, the following information is provided to demonstrate the full cost of delivering the services which consists of direct costs and indirect costs, such as technical and operational costs.

Base costsBase costs are those costs that can directly and unequivocally be attributed to a product. For wildlife trade permit assessments, this ‘product’ is the assessment of a specific wildlife trade permit application. These costs include the staff time required to assess and process permit applications, including that of permit officers, permit managers, and permit team managers. The staff costs also include a component of accommodation and property expenses, IT costs and human resources support costs.

Technical and operational costs essential to delivering permit assessment servicesTechnical and operational costs (indirect costs) are those costs that relate to support functions essential to delivering wildlife trade related services that provide a benefit to the proponent. Technical and operational costs include:

maintenance of business systems to manage permit information and statutory reporting requirements of wildlife trade activities. These business systems ensure stakeholders can undertake wildlife trade activities that are managed sustainably and meet legal and/or international obligations; and

salary and on-costs of departmental employees that provide specialist legal services and advice on wildlife trade activities that are required to deliver robust and legally valid decisions on the wildlife trade permit applications.

4.8 Costs and fees for activities proposed for cost recovery Single use permitsA permit is required under the EPBC Act to:

import or export a CITES-listed specimen; export a regulated Australian native specimen; or import live animals and plants that are listed on the live import list as requiring a permit

before being permitted for import into Australia.

Single use permits are valid for a single, specified consignment for a period of up to six months (in the case of CITES specimens) or twelve months (in the case of native specimens).

Activities and costs involved in assessing a single use permit applicationA single use permit is estimated to take a minimum of one hour of staff time to assess and process. The single use permit assessment includes a proportionate contribution from staff to deliver the following services:

- permit officer - data entry, processing permit fee, prepare permit recommendation and mail out permit;

- permit manager - undertake quality assurance of the process/data checking; and - permit team manger - approve the permit.

of 83

DRAFT

This corresponds to a base cost of $60. Executive oversight costs are not included in the cost of the service.

Additional time may be required to assess the application depending on the complexity of the permit application. The complexity of a permit application is partly due to the number of species that are required to be included on the permit but, more importantly, due to the differences in sources of the specimens and differences in supporting documentation that must be reviewed and verified. This process may involve the need to seek clarification from other government agencies or other areas of the department, and/or the applicant regarding sourcing of specimens. The cost of assessing the permit application does not vary based on the outcome of the application assessment (that is, if the permit is issued or refused), because the same regulatory effort must be expended to make a legally valid decision.

As for EIAs, the department dedicates resources to managing the information associated with assessing and issuing permit applications, as well as delivering ongoing legislative support to ensure robust decision making. Each permit requires to be printed on security water-marked paper, which costs $6 per permit. The total technical and operational costs allocated to a single use permit amount to $135.

Proposed fee: The department proposes to recover only the minimum base cost of the permit assessment ($60). The remainder of costs will be met by government through the annual appropriation to the department.

Proposed fee point: The $60 application fee must be paid at the time of making an application.

Multiple use permitsMultiple use permits are an alternative to single use permits. Multiple use permits authorise a number of consignments of a particular specimen or specimens for a period of up to six months (in the case of CITES specimens) or three years (in the case of native specimens). There are significant benefits to industry in obtaining longer term permits, such as lower costs compared to single use permits, however longer term permits do result in ongoing administrative costs for the department associated with acquittals and monitoring of the permit. It is at the applicant’s discretion as to which type of permit they choose. Comparative costs are known to the applicant at the time they submit their application.

Activities and costs involved in assessing a multiple use permit applicationThere are two cost components to the multiple use permit assessment:

A. the cost of assessing the permit application; andB. the cost associated with ongoing administration of the specimen export records over the

period of the permit.

A. Assessment of the permit application

A multiple use permit is estimated to take a minimum of one hour of staff time to assess and process. The multiples use permit assessment includes a proportionate contribution from staff to deliver the following services:

of 83

DRAFT

- permit officers - data entry, processing the permit fee, preparing permit recommendation and mailing out the permit;

- permit mangers - undertake quality assurance of the process / data checking; and- permit team managers - approve the permit.


Additional time may be required to assess the application depending on the number of species that are required to be included on the permit and the complexity of the permit application. Complexity is primarily driven by whether there are precedents to the application, for example, a repeat applicant with a wildlife trade business that is known to the department, and the applicant and/or a species or specimen are frequently imported/exported.

The cost of assessing the permit application does not vary based on the outcome of the application assessment (that is, if the permit is issued or refused), because the same regulatory effort must be expended to make a legally valid decision.

As for EIAs, the department dedicates resources to manage the information associated with assessing and issuing permit applications, as well as delivering ongoing legislative support to ensure robust decision making. Each permit also requires to be printed on security water-marked paper, which costs $6 per permit. The total technical and operational costs for a multiple use permit mount to $135.

B. Ongoing administration of the issued permit

Multiple use permits allow the permit holder to export consignments at any time during the period for which the permit is issued. Unlike single use permits, where the timing and content of the consignment is known by the department when the permit is issued, multiple use permits require the permit holder to notify the department of each consignment. This notification is essential to enable the department to track the export of relevant species and specimens, which is a fundamental component of wildlife trade regulation under the EPBC Act.

Once a permit is issued, the applicant is required to provide the department with a copy of a specimen export record (SER) for each consignment that the applicant exports. The department must review each SER and enter them into the department’s database. SERs can vary in detail depending on the volume and content of the consignment. On average, each SER takes approximately 50 minutes to quality check against the permit and enter into the database. This corresponds to a cost of $50 per SER.

The number of consignments, and corresponding SERs, that a proponent undertakes varies greatly. Based on departmental experience, multiple use permit holders generally require at least three SERs every six months during the lifespan of a multiple use permit. This correlates to a minimum base cost to the department of $150 per six months. This costing is

of 83

DRAFT

conservative however, as many multiple use permit holders can require a much higher number of SERs.

The department also notes that at least three separate consignments within a six month period are required in order for the permit holder to benefit financially from having a multiple use permit rather than a single use permit (i.e.: three single use permits would cost $180 in application fees, rather than the proposed multiple use permit application fee of $150).

The technical and operational costs associated with ongoing administration of the issued multiple use permits are limited to database maintenance. However, the permit holder is a considered to already have contributed to these costs as part of the original permit application fee. As such, there are no separate technical and operational costs attributable to the ongoing administration of the issued permit.

Proposed fee: The department proposes the following fees for multiple use permits depending on the permit duration outlined in table 4.1 below. The initial application fee is charged for all multiple use permits regardless of duration, and includes the first six months of permit duration. The ongoing administration fee only applies to permits of greater than six months duration. The fee increases are based on monitoring requirements over the relevant permit duration period. Each fee includes a base cost component and technical and operational costs. The fees represent a doubling of the current multiple use permit fee, and is considered the maximum fee increase that can be levied without resulting in significant financial impacts to relevant stakeholders.

Table 4.1 – Proposed fees for multiple use permits

Duration of the multiple use permit

6 months 1 year 18 months 2 years 30 months 3 years

Fee

Com

pone

nts Application fee $150 $150 $150 $150 $150 $150

Ongoing administration fee

$0 $150 $300 $450 $600 $750

Total permit fee $150 $300 $450 $600 $750 $900

Based on the assumption that a person submits three SERs per six month period as a minimum, the proposed fees represent near full cost recovery of this service. However, if a person submits more than three SERs per six month period the fee represents a greater proportion of partial cost recovery with each additional SER beyond the third - i.e. five SERs submitted in a permit period would cost the department $250 (five SERs at $50 each) but the fee would remain $150.

Proposed fee point: The total fee is payable at the time the applicant submits the permit application. If the permit application is refused, the ongoing administration fee component, if applicable, will be refunded to the applicant. The application fee is not refunded.

of 83

DRAFT

Testing permitsTesting permits allow the importation of specimens into quarantine-approved facilities for conducting tests to assess potential impacts of the species on the Australian environment. A testing permit is only issued if it can be demonstrated that the information cannot be obtained without conducting the tests in Australia. A single testing permit will allow multiple consignments of the species to be imported for testing over a period of six months.

A separate application to amend the live import list, and a report addressing the standard terms of reference, must be submitted for each proposed species before a testing permit can be issued. Applicants also need an import permit from the DAFF prior to bringing the species into Australia.

The cost of amending the live import list is not considered to be appropriate for cost recovery because an amendment to this list creates a ‘free ride’ to other applicants who subsequently may want to import the relevant species. This issue was discussed in more detail in the department’s consultation paper. The costs of any additional import permits issued by DAFF are also not considered here, as these services are not provided by this department.

Activities and costs involved in assessing a testing permit applicationA testing permit is estimated to take a minimum of one hour of staff time to assess and process. The testing permit assessment includes a proportionate contribution from staff to deliver the following services:

- permit officers - data entry, processing permit fee, prepare permit recommendation, mail out permit; and

- permit manager - undertake quality assurance of the process and approve the permit.


Additional time may be required to assess the application depending on the complexity of the permit application. Complexity is primarily driven by the information available about the species, the biological control mechanisms within the quarantine facility and the tests that will be undertaken (to demonstrate that the testing can only be performed in Australia).

The cost of assessing the testing permit application does not vary based on the outcome of the application assessment (that is, if the permit is issued or refused), because the same regulatory effort must be expended to make a legally valid decision.

As for EIAs, the department dedicates resources to manage the information associated with assessing and issuing permits, as well as delivering ongoing legislative support to ensure robust decision making. As with single and multiple use permits, each testing permit also requires to be printed on security water-marked paper. The technical and operational costs for testing permits are the same as for single and multiple use permits and amount to $135.

Proposed fee: Testing permits are similar to multiple use permits in that they allow multiple consignments to be imported over a six month period. As such, the existing fee of $150 for a testing permit (which is the same as the proposed new fee for a six month multiple use permit), is considered appropriate and equitable, although charged on a partial cost recovery basis. This

of 83

DRAFT

fee comprises the minimum base cost ($60) and a share of the technical and operational costs ($90 of the total $135). The remainder of the costs will be met by government through the annual appropriation to the department.

The applicants for testing permits are typically government entities. Government entities are typically exempt from testing permit fees as per provisions in the regulations. In the period from 2008/09 to 2010/11, there have been no applications for testing permits from non-government entities.


Facility assessments Facility assessments are required where the department determines that an animal welfare assessment is required prior to issuing a permit for the live import/export of the species. Where the receiving facility has been the subject of a facility assessment by the department for the same species within the last five years, a new facility assessment may not be required.

Activities and costs involved in facility assessmentsIt is estimated that one day of staff time is required to undertake a facility assessment. The facility assessment includes a proportionate contribution from staff to deliver the following services:

- permit managers - prepare feedback on the application, liaise with the applicant, assess information against standards and codes relevant to the application, seek expert advice (where necessary), prepare an assessment report for decision, and notify the applicant of the outcome of assessment.

- permit team managers - assist with applicant liaison, management and quality assurance, and sign permit approvals.

This corresponds to a base cost of $507 per assessment. Executive oversight costs are not included in the cost of the service.

A facility assessment is only undertaken in conjunction with an application for a permit. There are no additional technical and operational costs associated with undertaking a facility assessment beyond those incurred by the permit applicant. The technical and operational costs associated with permits are described in the previous sections.

Proposed fee: The department proposes to continue partial cost recovery of facility assessments and recover $300 of the total cost of $507. This represents a doubling of the current facility assessment fee, and is considered the maximum fee increase that can be charged without resulting in significant financial impacts to relevant stakeholders. The remainder of the costs will be met by government through annual appropriation to the department.

Proposed fee point: The $300 facility assessment fee should be paid at the time of making an application based on the applicant’s self-assessment, to determine whether an assessment by the department is required. If the department determines that a facility assessment is not required after this fee has been paid by the applicant, the facility assessment fee will be

of 83

DRAFT

refunded. If the fee is not paid at the time of making the associated permit application and the department determines during the permit application assessment that a facility assessment is required, the statutory clock on the permit assessment will stop pending receipt of the payment and the information required to undertake the corresponding facility assessment.

Permits for import and export of certain domestic species (section 303FG ‘import and export of household pets’) Note: Permits for the import and export of general household or domestic pet permits (e.g. for dogs and cats) is the responsibility of the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service.

Under the EPBC Act, a limited number of native and exotic birds and domestic rabbit species require household pet permits for non-commercial import or export. Exports and imports of live native wildlife as household pets regulated under the EPBC Act are currently limited to:

- Sulphur-crested Cockatoo- Galah- Little Corella- Long-billed Corella

- Cockatiel- Budgerigar- Domestic rabbits

Imports of these species can only occur if the bird or rabbit is imported directly from New Zealand. The application is assessed prior to the granting of the permit and considers specific legislative criteria including species eligibility, location, legal source, residency criteria, welfare, length of time and evidence of pet ownership.

Activities and costs involved in assessing a permit application for the import/export of domesticated species (s303 FG)Household pet permit applications vary in complexity, however it is estimated that one day of staff time on average is required to undertake this assessment (similar to the cost and regulatory effort required for a facility assessment). The household pet permits include a proportionate contribution from staff to deliver the following services:

- permit officers - prepare feedback on the application, liaise with the applicant, and assess information against standards and codes relevant to the application.

- permit team managers - assist with applicant liaison, management and quality assurance, and sign permit approvals.

This corresponds to a base cost of $507 per assessment. Executive oversight costs are not included in the cost of the service. The technical and operational costs for household pet permit applications are the same as for single and multiple use permits and amount to $135 per permit.

Proposed fee: The department proposes to continue partial cost recovery of household pet permit applications and recover $300 of the total cost of $642. This represents a doubling of the current household pet permit fee, and is considered the maximum fee increase that can be levied without resulting in significant financial impacts to relevant stakeholders. The remainder of the costs will be met by government through the annual appropriation to the department.


of 83

DRAFT

Personal baggage permitsPersonal baggage permits are most commonly obtained by manufacturers and wholesalers of CITES-listed wildlife products to include with products at the point of sale. The possession of a personal baggage permit allows an individual to travel to a foreign country with the relevant product without concern that their goods will be seized by border control personnel. Personal baggage permits are not applicable to items that are not personally accompanied (e.g.: if the item is exported via mail or freight). In these instances a valid single use permit is required.

Activities and costs involved in assessing personal baggage permitsPersonal baggage permits are usually applied for in bulk, and take approximately 10 minutes per permit to process. This corresponds to $10 per permit.

As for EIAs, the department dedicates significant resources to manage the information databases associated with assessing and issuing permit applications, as well as delivering ongoing legislative support to ensure robust decision making. The technical and operational cost per personal baggage permit is estimated to be $1.13.

Proposed fee: The department proposes to continue partial cost recovery for assessment of personal baggage permit applications and recover $2 of the total cost of $11.13 per permit. This represents a doubling of the current personal baggage permit fee, and is considered the maximum fee increase that can be charged without resulting in significant financial impacts on relevant stakeholders. The remainder of the costs will be met by government through the annual appropriation to the department.

Proposed fee point: The application fee ($2 per permit) must be paid at the time of making an application.

Exceptional circumstances permitsThe EPBC Act restricts the circumstances in which the Minister can issue a permit. However, the EPBC Act provides that the Minister can issue a permit in exceptional circumstances where:

- the applicant fails to meet prescribed conditions in the legislation; - the export or import would not be contrary to the legislation; and - the export or import of the specimen would not be contrary to CITES requirements.

In approving the issue of exceptional circumstances permits, the Minister must be satisfied that the export or import would not adversely affect biodiversity, or would not be contrary to the objects of the relevant Part of the EPBC Act. The circumstances that justify the issue of exceptional circumstances permits must not be merely used to evade compliance with relevant legislative requirements. The Minister must also undertake public consultation on the proposal to issue exceptional circumstances permit before making a final decision.

Activities and costs involved in assessing an exceptional circumstances permit applicationExceptional circumstances permit applications vary in complexity, however a minimum of one day is required for an assessment officer to assess such a permit. An exceptional circumstances permit includes a proportionate contribution from staff to deliver the following services:

of 83

DRAFT

- permit managers - prepare feedback on the application, liaise with the applicant, assess information against standards and codes relevant to the application, prepare an assessment report for decision, and notify the applicant of the outcome of assessment;

- permit team managers - assist with applicant liaison, management of website publishing if necessary during public consultation, quality assurance, and sign permit approvals.

This corresponds to a base cost of $507. Executive oversight costs are not included in the cost for this service.

As for EIAs, the department dedicates resources to manage the information associated with assessing and issuing permits, as well as delivering ongoing legal support to ensure robust decision making. As with single and multiple use permits, an exceptional circumstances permit also requires to be printed on security water-marked paper. The technical and operational costs for exceptional circumstances permits are the same as for single and multiple use permits and amount to $135 per permit.

Proposed fee: The department proposes to continue partial cost recovery of exceptional circumstances permits assessment and recover $300 of the total cost of $642 per permit. This represents a doubling of the current exceptional circumstances permit fee, and is considered the maximum fee increase that can be levied without resulting in significant financial impacts on relevant stakeholders. The remainder of the costs will be met by government through the annual appropriation to the department.


Contingent activities and associated feesThe department is currently considering the appropriateness of introducing new contingent fees for wildlife trade activities. An example of a contingent fee may be where additional costs arise because a permit holder requests a variation of their permit. Contingent fees for wildlife trade do not currently exist, and if introduced, they will not apply for all permit applications. Please refer to the consultation paper (p43 and 44) for further information on contingent fees.

Summary of wildlife trade fees

Table 4.2 - Summary of wildlife trade fees

Regulatory activity Current feeProposed new fee

(2012-13)2

Single use permits $30 $60Multiple use permits $75 per six months $150 per six months1

Facility assessment $150 $300Import/export of domesticated species (s303 FG) $150 $300Personal baggage permits $1 $2 Testing permits $150 $150Exceptional circumstances permits $150 $300

1 Comprises an application fee and an ongoing administration fee

of 83

DRAFT

4.9 Changes in cost baseCosts are determined at a level commensurate with the costs to be incurred by the department to deliver wildlife trade services. It is proposed that fees set out in the regulations will increase on 1 July each year in accordance with an appropriate government indexation rate, to ensure that fee revenue matches the increase in costs as accounted for in the annual appropriation provided to the department. A fee schedule for future years is provided at appendix A.

4.10 Volume and/or demand assumptionsHistorical demandWhile the fees for wildlife trade activities have remained unchanged since their regulation was brought under the EPBC Act, there have been legislative and regulatory amendments that have changed the way in which fees are collected and the specific activities that are subject to the fees. Specifically, legislative changes were introduced in 2009-10 to streamline some permits from single use to multiple use permits. This resulted in a sharp fall in demand over the period 2008-09 to 2010-11. Revenue and demand has stabilised from 2010-11, and only demand in 2010-11 (refer table 4.3) has been used to project future demand.

Table 4.3 – Historical volume / demand

Activity 2010-111

$’000

Wildlife trade permits (includes facility

assessments)

Wildlife trade permits in 2010-11 1578Total Expenses 9462

* Base Expenses 732* Technical and Operational Expenses 214Revenue 62Balance +/- -884

Personal baggage permits

Personal baggage permits in 2010-11 15324Total Expenses 43* Base Expenses 25* Technical and Operational Expenses 17Revenue 17Balance +/- -26

Total expenses 988Total fee revenue 78Total appropriation funding -910

1 Only the demand in 2010-11 for wildlife trade permits has been used to project future demand. 2 Includes costs to the department for wildlife trade activities that are exempt from fees.

Total expenses for wildlife trade activities have decreased over time, and the share of under-recovered revenue has increased. This resulted in increased appropriation (budget funding)

of 83

DRAFT

being required to facilitate these activities, which became one of the key drivers to increase fees for these activities although not to the full cost recovery levels.

Projected demandFuture demand has been assumed to be similar to the 2010-11 volume of activities only (refer table 4.3), due to the potential distortion as a result of legislative changes introduced in 2009-10, as discussed earlier. Assuming the doubling of most fees and the same volume of activities as in 2010-11, the forecast expenses and revenue are represented in table 4.4.

Table 4.4 – Projected volume / demand

Activity 2012-131 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 '000 '000 '000 '000 '000

Wildlife trade permits

(includes facilities

assessments)

Total expenses2 946 966 986 1006 1026* Base expenses 732 748 763 778 794* Technical and operational expenses 214 218 223 227 232

Revenue 95 126 129 131 134Balance +/- -851 -839 -857 -874 -892

Personal baggage permits

Total expenses 43 44 45 45 46* Base expenses 25 26 26 27 28* Technical and operational expenses 17 18 18 18 19

Revenue 26 34 35 35 36Balance +/- -17 -10 -10 -10 -10

Total expenses 988 1009 1030 1051 1072Total fees revenue 121 160 163 167 170Total appropriation funding -868 -849 -867 -884 -902

1 For 2012-13 the expenses and revenue is based on 24 weeks at the current fee levels, and 28 weeks at the new fee levels, which assumes the introduction of new cost recovery fees on 1 December 2012. 2 Includes costs to the department for wildlife trade activities that are exempt from fees.

of 83

DRAFT

4.11 Exemptions and waivers (wildlife trade)

ExemptionsExisting fee exemptions will continue to apply for wildlife trade permits as already prescribed in section 18.04 of the EPBC regulations. The costs for wildlife trade exemptions are met by government through the annual appropriation to the department and therefore are not being cross subsidised across stakeholder groups.

Exemptions from permit fees apply where: The applicant is the Commonwealth, a Commonwealth agency, a state or territory

government or an authority or agency of a state or territory, and the activity to be carried out is primarily for a non-commercial purpose;

The applicant is an overseas CITES authority, and has agreed to accept seized wildlife specimens for repatriation;

The applicant is a traditional owner of the indigenous people’s land where the activity is to be undertaken (excludes business entities that are not under the direct control of the applicant).

Permits sought by government entities are typically exempt from fees as they are consistent with the EPBC Act’s policy objectives. In the preceding three years from 2008-09 to 2010-11, 512 fee exemptions were issued for government agencies. These fee exemptions related to exhibitions (including travelling exhibitions), conservation breeding, research, testing and one instance of exceptional circumstances.

Any repatriation of CITES products is also consistent with the EPBC Act’s policy objectives, and the department intends to retain this fee exemption.

WaiversThere are no waiver provisions for wildlife trade permits.

of 83

DRAFT

5 STRATEGIC ASSESSMENTS

Strategic assessments are covered under s146 (Part 10) of the EPBC Act.

5.1 Policy authorityThe Australian Government has granted policy authority for cost recovery of strategic assessments where considered appropriate, as announced on 8 May 2012 as part of the 2012-13 Budget process. Strategic assessment provisions related to Commonwealth managed fisheries (s147 to s154) are not included in this CRIS, as this function has been determined not appropriate for cost recovery.

The expenses and revenue presented in this draft CRIS do not include strategic assessments. Should there be a need to conduct a strategic assessment in the future that would be appropriate for cost recovery, the expenses and revenue would be determined in consultation with the proponent on a case-by-case basis prior to the commencement of the strategic assessment.

5.2 Legal requirements for the imposition of chargesAmendment of the EPBC Act is required to provide legal authority for cost recovery of strategic assessments. Draft legislative amendments are expected to be introduced into Parliament in 2012. The actual fees for strategic assessments are not expected to be specified in the regulations, as they will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

5.3 Commencement of fees Suitability of strategic assessments for cost recovery, including determination of associated expenses and revenue, will be determined on a case-by-case basis. The department will provide advice to proponents on charges specific to projects that may apply after 1 December 2012 on a case by case basis.

5.4 Users and stakeholdersStrategic assessments to date have mainly been done in partnership with state and territory governments, however, there is potential for some strategic assessments to be cost recovered from private proponents. The appropriateness of proceeding with cost recovery would be determined on a case-by-case basis. Potential proponents could include mining and resource companies and urban development companies.

5.5 Policy rationale for strategic assessmentsThe Australian Government has a policy to promote the use of strategic assessments in partnership with state, territory, and local governments where there are opportunities to facilitate development, reduce administrative burden and deliver improved environmental benefits to the community above those that would arise from individual project approvals.

of 83

DRAFT

Strategic assessments can be funded through budget appropriation or, where considered appropriate, through cost recovery.

Budget funded strategic assessmentsStrategic assessments that provide benefits principally to the general public and community, rather than to an identifiable proponent or proponents, will continue to be funded by the government, subject to funding availability. As the size and cost of strategic assessments varies, so does the number of assessments that can be undertaken within any given year within the limit of funding.

Budget funded strategic assessments will be prioritised to ensure the proper use of public funds so that spending is efficient, effective, economical and ethical. The Minister will make the final determination as to which strategic assessments should be prioritised for being budget funded, having regard to the objects of the EPBC Act.

Potential for cost recovery of strategic assessmentsIt is recognised that stakeholders may view strategic assessments as a favourable tool that should be utilised more frequently where appropriate, including for strategic assessments that deliver a private benefit. The budget funding available to deliver strategic assessments is limited, against a backdrop of increasing levels of development across Australia. For the department to meet increasing demand and deliver more strategic assessments, the government has agreed to explore the viability of cost recovering strategic assessments where considered appropriate.

The department anticipates that cost recovered strategic assessments would be considered appropriate where the outcome of the strategic assessment delivers a clear private benefit to an identifiable beneficiary (or identifiable group of beneficiaries), and charging would be efficient and effective.

5.6 Description of activityThe strategic assessment provisions (s146) of the EPBC Act allow for the assessment and endorsement of a plan, policy or program and the subsequent approval of actions or classes of actions if they are taken in accordance with the endorsed plan, policy or program. A request to undertake a strategic assessment may be made by or on behalf of any person responsible for the adoption or implementation of a plan, policy or program. The department provides advice and guidance to proponents throughout key stages of strategic assessment. The strategic assessment process is outlined in figure 5.1 below, and can also be accessed at:http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/pubs/guide-to-strategic-assessments.pdf.

Should it be considered appropriate to cost recover a specific strategic assessment, the charging model would be determined in accordance with the Cost Recovery Guidelines. The department anticipates that a fee for service would be the most appropriate model, in accordance with the Cost Recovery Guidelines.

of 83

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/pubs/guide-to-strategic-assessments.pdf

DRAFT

Minister enters into an agreement with another person to undertake a strategic assessment of the impacts of actions under a policy,

plan or program

Terms of Reference (ToR) are prepared for a report on the impacts relating to the agreement

Draft report prepared

Draft report open for public comment for at least 28 days

Minister may recommend modifying the policy, plan or program

Minister may endorse policy, plan or program if appropriate

Minister may approve actions under the policy, plan or program if appropriate (approval may include conditions)

SEWPaC provides advice on the

development of the policy, plan or program

to ensure that significant impacts on matters of NES are avoided or

mitigated

Figure 5.1 – Strategic assessments process

5.7 Cost componentsExperience to date indicates that costs from one strategic assessment to another vary significantly, and there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ cost model. The resourcing required to complete a strategic assessment may depend on a number of cost drivers, including the complexity or uncertainty of management planning arrangements and the size, scale, and environmental impacts (for example, matters of NES impacted) of the plan, policy or program.

Duration of strategic assessments and associated costs are highly dependent on the proponent’s responsiveness to requests for information from the department, and the quality of information provided meeting legislative requirements for a robust assessment process.

The types of costs likely to be incurred in undertaking a strategic assessment include base costs and technical and operations costs. Where it is appropriate to do so, previous strategic assessments will be used as a guide to costing strategic assessments that are considered appropriate for cost recovery.

of 83

DRAFT

Base costsThe current approach to delivering strategic assessments involves base costs comprising salary and salary on-costs, and an allocated share of accommodation and property expenses, staff IT costs and human resources support costs.

The approach for delivering strategic assessments involves a small team of dedicated staff working on a single strategic assessment. The team includes Project/Policy Officers to research and analyse reports, review and write briefing material, manage procurement processes, and visit project sites. An Assistant Director is required to lead each team of Project/Policy Officers and manage components of the assessment. A Director is required to manage a section comprising several teams, and provides strategic oversight. An Assistant Secretary is required to lead industry and government negotiations, facilitate stakeholder meetings and brief the Minister.

In some cases, strategic assessments require advice from specialist areas within the department on issues relevant to the assessment, such as marine and heritage matters. These direct costs vary and depend on the requirements of the plan, policy or program. The cost of advice from specialist areas uses a similar methodology as for the rest of the base costs attributable to a strategic assessment.

The department also uses external experts where necessary to obtain advice on specialist matters. Additional expenses are associated with visiting the project site, proponent and/or other regulators involved in the strategic assessment of the project. These costs are commensurate with the size and complexity of a project, and are subject to departmental procurement policies to obtain best value for money in line with the broader Commonwealth procurement policy.

Technical and operational costsThe current approach to delivering strategic assessments can involve technical and operational costs, which are those costs that cover support functions which are essential to delivering services. For strategic assessments, these technical and operational costs can include the costs of business systems; specialist legal services and advice; and the preparation of information, advice, and database management for matters of NES.

of 83

DRAFT

Case studies: The case studies below demonstrate variations between costs of small scale and large scale examples of strategic assessments. These examples are provided to give context and illustrate the potential range of costs.

*Note: these assessments are provided as a guide for potential costs. Even when legislative amendments allowing cost recovery of strategic assessments will be in place, these type of projects would be expected to continue to be eligible for budget funding due to the public benefit they provide (subject to availability of budget funding) and would therefore not be subject to cost recovery.

of 83

Strategic assessment of Tasmania’s midlands water scheme*Project description: The strategic assessment assesses the impacts of the Tasmanian Government's Water Access Program for the Midlands Water Scheme on nationally protected matters, including World Heritage properties, National Heritage places and listed migratory species. The scope of the strategic assessment includes infrastructure construction, water extraction and delivery, and farm property management systems.

Timeframe and cost of the service: The Tasmania Midlands Water Scheme strategic assessment commenced in January 2009 and will finish in June 2012. The project timeframe is 3.5 years, including scoping discussions prior to the commencement of the assessment and the approval period. The cost to the department for the strategic assessment is $400,000. The cost includes:

- proportionate contribution from Assessment Officers, Assistant Director, Director, and Assistant Secretary;

- technical and operational costs, and overheads allocated to the strategic assessment in proportion to staff numbers; and

- minor travel (under $10,000).

Strategic assessment of Melbourne’s urban growth boundary*Project description: The Victorian Government, in partnership with the Australian Government, has recently completed a strategic assessment of plans to provide for Melbourne’s population growth to 2030. Four new growth precincts will be established within a 24,615 hectare area to the west, north and south-east of the city, providing for 284,000 new houses.

Timeframe and cost of the service: The Melbourne Urban Growth Boundary strategic assessment commenced in March 2009 and will finish in July 2012. The total project timeframe is just over 3 years including scoping discussions prior to the commencement of the assessment and the approval period. Costs to the department for the Melbourne strategic assessment are $1,000,000. The cost includes:

- proportionate contribution from Assessment Officers, Assistant Director, Director, and Assistant Secretary;

- technical and operational costs, and overheads allocated to the strategic assessment in proportion to staff numbers;

- peer review consultancy ($30,000); and- travel costs (approximately $15,000-$20,000).

DRAFT

5.8 Schedule of fees and chargesWhere cost recovery of strategic assessments is considered appropriate, the total quantum of fees and payment schedule will be determined on a case by case basis and agreed with a proponent prior to commencement of the strategic assessment. Fees will be based on the level of departmental resourcing required to assess the plan, policy or program. Both parties must agree the level of resourcing before the strategic assessment can commence. Department costing estimates will be based on projected staff time and resource allocation for the length of the assessment.

5.9 Changes in cost baseCosts are determined at a level commensurate with the costs to be incurred by the department to deliver the service. Costs will be determined at the time of the agreement commencing, taking into account any expense changes due to appropriate indexation projected to occur over the course of the assessment for those assessments that span multiple financial years.

5.10 Volume and/or demand assumptionsDemand for cost recovered strategic assessments under a ‘fee for service’ model is difficult to predict. The department communicates with regular proponents to gauge the level of interest for opportunities to undertake more strategic assessments. Based on the department’s understanding of stakeholder demand, it is estimated that strategic assessments may increase when cost recovery is also introduced for other environmental assessment methods under the EPBC Act. However, only after introduction of the cost recovery system will the department be able to measure the level of uptake of cost recovered strategic assessments.

The department and Minister will be able to manage demand levels by communicating the capacity to undertake additional assessments with stakeholders as proposals come forward. Given the tendency for proponents of strategic assessments to engage early with the department to negotiate a strategic assessment, this provides sufficient lead time for the department to manage demand for projects on the horizon.

5.11 Exemptions and waivers (strategic assessments)There are no exemptions or fee waivers available for strategic assessments.

of 83

DRAFT

6 PROJECTED EXPENSES AND REVENUE FOR DURATION OF CRIS

This draft CRIS is based on the assumption that cost recovery under the EPBC Act will commence from 1 December 2012. The start date for cost recovery is subject to the passing of amending legislation by Parliament. Amending legislation is anticipated to be introduced to Parliament in 2012. Delay in the passage of the legislation would result in delayed commencement of cost recovery. This may alter some of the volume and demand assumptions made for the 2012-13 financial year in this draft CRIS. Indexation of approximately 2% per annum has been applied to each final year from 2013-14, noting that appropriate indexation will be applied on 1 July each year, and revised costs will be published accordingly.

Table 6.1 – Projected revenue for EPBC Act cost recovered activities

Activity 2012-13*$ 000

2013-14**$ 000

2014-15**$ 000

2015-16**$ 000

2016-17**$ 000

Environmental impact assessment

Expenses 4,384 8,392 12,507 14,610 14,308Revenue 4,021 7,654 11,838 14,057 13,680Balance +/- -363 -739 -670 -552 -628

Strategic assessments

Expenses *** *** *** *** ***Revenue *** *** *** *** ***Balance +/- *** *** *** *** ***

Wildlife tradeExpenses 532 1,009 1,030 1,051 1,072Revenue 84 160 163 167 170Balance +/- -448 -666 -680 -693 -707

Total

Expenses 4,916 9,401 13,537 15,661 15,380Revenue 4,105 7,814 12,001 14,224 13,850Appropriation# 811 1,587 1,536 1,437 1,530Balance +/- 0 0 0 0 0

* Assumes cost recovery arrangements commencing on 1 December 2012.** Projected indexation of approximately 2% applied annually from 2013-14.*** Costs and revenue for cost recovered strategic assessments will be determined on a case-by-case basis and hence are not included in the costs and revenue presented in this draft CRIS # The difference between revenue and expenses represents the cost of exemptions/waivers as well as only partial cost recovery of some wildlife trade functions, which are met through appropriation funding. Costs are based on the best practice delivery of services informed by past experience and the proposed cost recovery models under the EPBC Act have been designed to avoid cross-subsidisation between cost recovered and non-cost recovered activities under the EPBC Act and across stakeholder groups.

of 83

DRAFT

7 ONGOING MONITORING

7.1 Monitoring mechanismsAs outlined in the Cost Recovery Guidelines the department will engage in the ongoing monitoring of cost recovery revenue and expenses to ensure that the department is not over or under recovering costs. The department will report relevant information in its Annual Report and Portfolio Budget Statement.

7.2 Periodic reviewCost recovery arrangements are subject to periodic review no less frequently than every five years in accordance with the Cost Recovery Guidelines. Government has determined that any cost recovery arrangements introduced under the EPBC Act must be subject to an evaluation in 2017–18; five years after the anticipated date for the introduction of any cost recovery arrangements (which are proposed for 1 December 2012). The review process will:

measure efficiencies to the system that have been gained by the reform of the EPBC Act; review the costs of providing regulatory services to determine the efficiency, cost

effectiveness and appropriateness of cost recovery; and determine whether fees, or administrative aspects of cost recovery, require re-

evaluation.

It should also be noted that a CRIS is a living document. Any material fee changes (for example, an increase or decrease greater than annual indexation) or any material redesign of the cost recovery model may also require preparation of a new or amended CRIS regardless of the scheduled reviews.

The department is committed to reviewing fees as significant improvements are made to the assessment process, to ensure the costs reflect the benefits of increased efficiency. The department will involve stakeholders in any significant review of cost recovery arrangements.

of 83

DRAFT

8 COST RECOVERY LINKS

Cost recoveryThe Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines and the accompanying Finance Circular can be found at:

http://www.finance.gov.au/financial-framework/financial-management-policy-guidance/cost-recovery.html

EPBC Act cost recovery consultation paperThe EPBC Act cost recovery consultation paper can be founds at:

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/consultation-draft-cost-recovery.html

of 83

http://www.finance.gov.au/financial-framework/financial-management-policy-guidance/cost-recovery.htmlhttp:/www.finance.gov.au/financial-framework/financial-management-policy-guidance/cost-recovery.html

http://www.finance.gov.au/financial-framework/financial-management-policy-guidance/cost-recovery.htmlhttp:/www.finance.gov.au/financial-framework/financial-management-policy-guidance/cost-recovery.html

DRAFT

APPENDIX A: SCHEDULE OF FEES

Fee schedule 2012-13

Referrals

Activity

Basic costs (A)

Technical and operational cost

(B)

Additional complexity costs (C) Total

Referral decision $7,010 $798 N/A $7,808

Assessment process

Approval on referral information Basic costs (A)


(B)


Approval on referral information (35 business days) $68,019 $12,390 N/A $80,409

Preliminary documentation Basic costs (A)


(B)


Stage 1 $1,310 $1,964 16% (A) + (B) + (C) Stage 2 $1,310 $1,964 16% (A) + (B) + (C) Stage 3 $1,310 $1,963 16% (A) + (B) + (C) Stage 4 $4,333 $6,499 52% (A) + (B) + (C)

$8,263 $12,390 100%

Environmental impact statement Basic costs (A)


(B)



$28,754 $12,390 100%


Basic costs (A)


(B)



$24,794 $12,390 100%

Joint assessment panel Costs determined on a case-by-case basisPublic inquiry Costs determined on a case-by-case basis

Strategic assessments Costs determined on a case-by-case basis

of 83

DRAFT

Fee schedule 2012-13 (continued)

Post approval fees

Activity Basic costs (A)Technical and

operational cost (B)


Management plan assessment fee (per management plan) $3,081 $1,059 N/A $4,140

Wildlife trade permit feesRegulatory activity FeeSingle use permits $60Multiple use permits (per 6 months) $150Facility assessment $300Import/Export of domesticated species (s303 FG) $300Personal baggage permits (per permit) $2Testing permits $150Exceptional circumstances permits $300

of 83

DRAFT












Nuclear actions



Management measures

Project scope


DESCRIPTION AF

$5,217

$5,217

$5,217

$5,217

$5,217

$5,217

$5,217

$2,742

$5,217

$13,597

BAC x 1

$13,597

$13,597

DESCRIPTION AF

$20,868

$20,868

$20,868

$20,868

$20,868

$20,868

$20,868

$10,967

$20,868

BAC x 2

$77,509

$87,509

$57,509



DESCRIPTION AF

$43,571

$43,571

$43,571

$43,571

$43,571

$43,571

$43,571

N/A

$43,571

$555,583






























N/A

$5,217







-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-











LOW COMPLEXITY

AF

-

-

-

-

DESCRIPTION





A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

(2012-13) DRAFT

of 83

DRAFT

Fee schedule 2013-14This is an indicative fee schedule only based on approximately 2% indexation. Final fees will be subject to changes based on appropriate government indexation rates.

Referrals

Activity

Basic costs (A)


(B)


(C)Total


Assessment process



(B)


(C)Total




(B)


(C)Total

Stage 1 $1,338 $2,005 16% (A) + (B) + (C)Stage 2 $1,338 $2,005 16% (A) + (B) + (C)Stage 3 $1,338 $2,004 16% (A) + (B) + (C)Stage 4 $4,424 $6,635 52% (A) + (B) + (C)

$8,437 $12,650 100%



(B)


(C)Total


$29,358 $12,650 100%


Basic costs (A)


(B)


(C)Total


$25,315 $12,650 100%



of 83

DRAFT

Fee schedule 2013-14 (continued)This is an indicative fee schedule only based on approximately 2% indexation. Final fees will be subject to changes based on appropriate government indexation rates.

Post approval fees





Wildlife trade permit feesRegulatory activity Fee

Single use permits $61

Multiple use permits (per 6 months) $153

Facility assessment $306

Import/Export of domesticated species (s303 FG) $306

Personal baggage permits (per permit) $2

Testing permits $153

Exceptional circumstances permits $306

of 83

DRAFT












Nuclear actions



Management measures

Project scope


DESCRIPTION AF

$5,327

$5,327

$5,327

$5,327

$5,327

$5,217

$5,327

$2,799

$5,327

$13,883

BAC x 1

$13,883

$13,883

DESCRIPTION AF

$21,306

$21,306

$21,306

$21,306

$21,306

$21,306

$21,306

$11,197

$21,306

BAC x 2

$79,136

$89,346

$58,716



DESCRIPTION AF

$44,486

$44,486

$44,486

$44,486

$44,486

$44,486

$44,486

N/A

$44,486

$567,250






























N/A

$5,327







-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-











LOW COMPLEXITY

AF

-

-

-

-

DESCRIPTION





A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

This is an indicative fee schedule only, and will be subject to changes based on appropriate government indexation rates.

(2013-14) DRAFT

of 83

DRAFT

Fee schedule 2014-15 This is an indicative fee schedule only based on approximately 2% indexation. Final fees will be subject to changes based on appropriate government indexation rates.

Referrals

Activity

Basic costs (A)


(B)


(C)Total


Assessment process



(B)


(C)Total




(B)


(C)Total


$8,614 $12,916 100%



(B)


(C)Total


$29,974 $12,916 100%


Basic costs (A)


(B)


(C)Total


$25,846 $12,916 100%



of 83

DRAFT


Post approval fees




(C)Total


Wildlife trade permit feesRegulatory activity FeeSingle use permits $63







of 83

DRAFT












Nuclear actions



Management measures

Project scope


DESCRIPTION AF

$5,438

$5,438

$5,438

$5,438

$5,438

$5,217

$5,438

$2,858

$5,438

$14,175

BAC x 1

$14,175

$14,175

DESCRIPTION AF

$21,754

$21,754

$21,754

$21,754

$21,754

$21,754

$21,754

$11,432

$21,754

BAC x 2

$80,798

$91,223

$59,949



DESCRIPTION AF

$45,420

$45,420

$45,420

$45,420

$45,420

$45,420

$45,420

N/A

$45,420

$579,162






























N/A

$5,438







-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-











LOW COMPLEXITY

AF

-

-

-

-

DESCRIPTION





A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O


(2014-15) DRAFT

of 83

DRAFT

Fee schedule 2015-16 This is an indicative fee schedule only based on approximately 2% indexation. Final fees will be subject to changes based on appropriate government indexation rates.

Referrals

Activity

Basic costs (A)

Technical and operational cost (B)


(C)Total


Assessment process




(C)Total





(C)Total


$8,786 $13,174 100%




(C)Total


$30,574 $13,174 100%


Basic costs (A)



(C)Total


$26,363 $13,174 100%



of 83

DRAFT


Post approval fees












of 83

DRAFT












Nuclear actions



Management measures

Project scope


DESCRIPTION AF

$5,547

$5,547

$5,547

$5,547

$5,547

$5,217

$5,547

$2,915

$5,547

$14,458

BAC x 1

$14,458

$14,458

DESCRIPTION AF

$22,189

$22,189

$22,189

$22,189

$22,189

$22,189

$22,189

$11,661

$22,189

BAC x 2

$82,414

$93,047

$61,148



DESCRIPTION AF

$46,328

$46,328

$46,328

$46,328

$46,328

$46,328

$46,328

N/A

$46,328

$590,745






























N/A

$5,547







-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-











LOW COMPLEXITY

AF

-

-

-

-

DESCRIPTION





A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O


(2015-16) DRAFT

of 83

DRAFT

Proposed fee schedule 2016-17This is an indicative fee schedule only based on approximately 2% indexation. Final fees will be subject to changes based on appropriate government indexation rates

Referrals

Activity

Basic costs (A)


(B)


(C)Total

Completion of referral decision $7,603 $865 N/A $8,468

Assessment process



(B)


(C)Total

Complete approval on referral information

(35 business days)$73,770 $13,438 N/A $87,208

Preliminary documentation Basic Costs (A)


(B)


(C)Total


$8,962 $13,438 100%



(B)


(C)Total


$31,185 $13,438 100%


Basic costs (A)


(B)


(C)Total


$26,890 $13,438 100%



of 83

DRAFT

Proposed fee schedule 2016-17 (continued)This is an indicative fee schedule only based on approximately 2% indexation. Final fees will be subject to changes based on appropriate government indexation rates Post approval fees




(C)Total









of 83

GOVERNMENT-IN-CONFIDENCE












Nuclear actions



Management measures

Project scope


DESCRIPTION AF

$5,658

$5,658

$5,658

$5,658

$5,658

$5,217

$5,658

$2,974

$5,658

$14,747

BAC x 1

$14,747

$14,747

DESCRIPTION AF

$22,633

$22,633

$22,633

$22,633

$22,633

$22,633

$22,633

$11,894

$22,633

BAC x 2

$84,062

$94,908

$62,371



DESCRIPTION AF

$47,255

$47,255

$47,255

$47,255

$47,255

$47,255

$47,255

N/A

$47,255

$602,560






























N/A

$5,658







-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-











LOW COMPLEXITY

AF

-

-

-

-

DESCRIPTION





A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O


(2016-17) DRAFT

of 83

cost recovery under the environment protection and ...€¦ · web viewon 16 september 2011, a...

Documents