Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document


Previous Fragment    Next Fragment

Notice given 9 December 2002

1001  Senator Bartlett: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage—

(1) What is the total quantity of untreated sewage discharged from vessels into the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park each year.

(2) What is the amount of sewage treated to a standard less than tertiary treatment that is discharged into the marine park.

(3) Are there any plans for eliminating the discharge of untreated waste into the marine park.

(4) What is the status of the plan to require tertiary treatment for all sewerage treatment plants that discharge into the marine park.

(5) Are there requirements for pump out facilities to be installed in marinas, harbours and/or ports along the Great Barrier Reef coast.

(6) Is there a requirement that new facilities contain pump-out facilities.

(7) With reference to page 34 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s report 2001-02, which indicates both a reduction in the number of trawlers and an increased profitability of remaining trawlers: Are there any figures on: (a) the relative levels of catch; and (b) catch per unit effort in the 18 months since the trawl plan took effect.

(8) When are the results of the seabed recovery work being done by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation expected to be available.

(9) With reference to page 35 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s report 2001-02, which notes that agreement has been reached with the Queensland Government regarding management of the take of pipefish and seahorses by trawlers, and given that the report also indicates that agreement was reached on measures that need to be introduced to monitor the impact of trawling on these species: What is the current level of: (a) pipefish; and (b) seahorse take by trawlers.

(10) What are the current estimated population levels in the marine park of those species listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 .

(11) What are the agreed measures for monitoring pipefish and/or seahorse take.

(12) What are potential measures to reduce the take of those threatened species.

(13) (a) Is it true that prohibitions on spawning aggregations are no longer in the Reef Line Fishing Plan; (b) was it in earlier drafts of the plan; (c) did the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority support its earlier inclusion; and (d) does the authority support the targeting of spawning aggregations under this plan.

(14) Given that the Government has indicated it will reintroduce regulations relating to commercial netting in Princess Charlotte Bay, and given that approximately 16 fishers that have a history of regularly using the bay: (a) how many of those 16 had other endorsements; and (b) what were the other endorsements.

(15) Of the total commercial netting effort in the bay, historically, how much of the effort occurred outside the conservation zone, including intertidal and estuarine netting.

(16) What is the total bill that the authority has submitted to the Queensland Government for monitoring and other work at Nelly Bay Harbour.

(17) (a) Has the authority inspected the ferry landing area; (b) is it the case that the concrete at the ferry landing is cracking; and (c) has the authority signed off on the landing facilities.

(18) Given that at the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee estimate hearings on 20 November 2002, the authority indicated there were concerns with sediment at Nelly Bay: Can details be provided of the nature, status and proposed solutions to those concerns.

(19) Given that at the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee estimate hearings on 20 November 2002, the authority indicated that there was an ‘excision’ issue in relation to Nelly Bay: Is it correct that this relates to the need for water to be permanently present between the breakwater and the mainland of Magnetic Island

(20) Is it correct that the authority is recommending a re-profiling of areas inside the harbour in order to ensure that separation is maintained; if so, can a description of the authority requirements be provided.

(21) Is this issue the subject of any dispute with the state government.

(22) Based on current design, depths and sedimentation rates and the changes in beach profile requested by the authority, how frequently is dredging expected to be required inside Nelly Bay harbour or in the access channel.

(23) Has the authority had any discussions with the state, the contractor or others in relation to a proposed groyne at Nelly Bay; if so, can details be provided of: (a) the nature and status of the proposal; and (b) any discussions that have been held.

(24) With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 525 (Senate Hansard , 17 September 2002, p. 4323) in which the authority provided a summary of pending coastal development applications to the Senate: How many additional staged developments are there along the Queensland coast for which there are no current Commonwealth applications, but which have indicated an intent to move to a subsequent development stage.

(25) How many coastal development approvals issued by local or state governments are currently on the books that have not yet been acted upon but are still valid.

(26) With reference to page 30 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s report 2001-02, which indicates that the authority acted as advisory agency on a number of occasions under the Integrated Planning Act: (a) How many advices were provided; and (b) for which development proposals.

(27) To what extent have the recommendations contained in advices been followed by the relevant state authority.

(28) With reference to page 28 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s report 2001-02 which lists one of the outputs of the authority as the ‘pollution status of Cleveland Bay’: Can an outline of the pollution issues relating to Cleveland Bay be provided.

(29) (a) Is the Queensland nickel outfall discharge pipe still operational; and (b) are there plans to cease discharge from that pipe.

1005  Senator O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—

(1) (a) What discussions has the Minister undertaken with Japanese officials during 2002 in relation to Australian beef imports to Japan known as ‘Aussie Beef’; (b) who attended each meeting; (c) when did each meeting occur; (d) what was discussed at each meeting; and (e) what records were kept of each meeting.

(2) (a) What discussions has the Minister had with Japanese officials specifically in relation to the import restrictions known as the ‘snap-back’; (b) who attended each meeting; (c) when did each meeting occur; (d) what was discussed at each meeting; and (e) what records were kept of each meeting.

(3) Is the ‘snap-back’ calculated on total beef imports into Japan, or on a country-by-country basis.

(4) Will the ‘snap-back’ be invoked on Australian beef imports to Japan during the 2002-03 and 2003-04 financial years.