This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'National Environment Protection (National Pollutant Inventory) Measure submissions re: aquaculture reporting exemption'.

FOI 161108 - Document 1
Submission 
no: 

Ack: 3/8/06 
DRAFT VARIATION TO THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
(NATIONAL POLLUTANT INVENTORY) MEASURE 
SUBMISSION 
Title: S.47F
Name: S.47F
Position: Environment Officer 
Company: Horizon Power 
Postal Address: PO Box 79 
Suburb: Cloverdale 
State: WA 
Postcode: 6985 
Telephone: 08 9441 S.47F 
Facsimile: 08 9441 3409 
Email address: S.47F
@horizonpower.com.au 
DRAFT VARIATION 
GENERAL COMMENTS 
Part 1 - Preliminary 
Part 2 – National Environment Protection Goals 
Part 3 – National Environment Protection Protocols 
Part 4 – National Environment Protection Guidelines 
IMPACT STATEMENT 
GENERAL COMMENTS 
1.
Introduction
Page 1 

S.47F
- Horizon Power,  
2. 
Statement of the problem 
           
 
3. Transfers 
S.22
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
4. Greenhouse 
gases 
S.22
  
 
 
 
 
 
5. 
Other proposed NEPM amendments 
All sound reasonable.  I would especially like to comment on the inclusion of particulate matter 
2.5 (pm2.5) and aquaculture.  With recent research into the detrimental health effects of 
smaller particals, it would be irresponsible to exclude this new substance.  The sensitive 
nature of marine, estuarine and freshwater ecosystems is recognised by erasing the 
exemption of aquaculture farms from NPI reporting. 
 
6. NEPM 
implementation 
       
 
7. Consultation 
           
 
Page 2 

Submission 
FOI 161108 - Document 2
no: 

Ack 31/8
DRAFT VARIATION TO THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
(NATIONAL POLLUTANT INVENTORY) MEASURE 
SUBMISSION 
Title: S.47F 
Name: S.47F
 
Position: Director 
Company: EECO P/L 
Postal Address: PO Box 257 
Suburb: Indooroopilly 
State: Q 
Postcode: 4068 
Telephone: 073700S.47F 
Facsimile: 0733743703 
Email address: [email address] 
DRAFT VARIATION 
GENERAL COMMENTS 
S.22
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
Part 1 - Preliminary 
Part 2 – National Environment Protection Goals 
Part 3 – National Environment Protection Protocols 
Part 4 – National Environment Protection Guidelines 
Page 1 

S.47F
- EECO P/L,  
Part 4 – National Environment Protection Guidelines 
           
IMPACT STATEMENT 
GENERAL COMMENTS 
           
 
1. Introduction 
           
 
2. 
Statement of the problem 
           
 
3. Transfers 
S.22
   
 
 
4. Greenhouse 
gases 
           
 
5. 
Other proposed NEPM amendments 
s 22
 
 
   
Include aquaculture - agree. 
 
6. NEPM 
implementation 
S.22
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
7. Consultation 
           
Page 2 

Submission
FOI 161108 - Document 3
no:
15
12/9/06
DRAFT VARIATION TO THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
(NATIONAL POLLUTANT INVENTORY) MEASURE
SUBMISSION
Title: S.47F 
Name: S.47F
Position: Coast and Marine Facilitator 
Company: Conservation Council of SA 
Postal Address: 120 Wakefield St 
Suburb: Adelaide 
State: SA 
Postcode: 5000
Telephone: (08) 8223 S.47F
Facsimile: (08) 8232 4782
Email address: S.47F
@ccsa.asn.au
DRAFT VARIATION
GENERAL COMMENTS
Part 1 - Preliminary
Part 2 – National Environment Protection Goals
Part 3 – National Environment Protection Protocols
Clause 9(7)(e)(iii)  I fully support this clause that removes the exemption for Aquaculture
reporting
Part 4 – National Environment Protection Guidelines
IMPACT STATEMENT
GENERAL COMMENTS
1.
Introduction
Page 1 

S.47F
- Conservation Council of SA,
2.
Statement of the problem
3.
Transfers
4.
Greenhouse 
gases
5.
Other proposed NEPM amendments
6.
NEPM 
implementation
7.
Consultation
Page 2 

FOI 161108 - Document 4
Submission
no:
16
14/9/06
DRAFT VARIATION TO THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
(NATIONAL POLLUTANT INVENTORY) MEASURE
SUBMISSION
Title:S.47F 
Name: S.47F
 
Position: Conservation & Education Officer 
Company: Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society 
Postal Address: P.O. Box 720 Port Adelaide Business Centre
Suburb: Port Adelaide 
State: SA 
Postcode: 5015
Telephone: 08 8440 S.47F
Facsimile: 08 8447 4211
Email address: S.47F
@wdcs.org
DRAFT VARIATION
GENERAL COMMENTS
Part 1 - Preliminary
Part 2 – National Environment Protection Goals
Part 3 – National Environment Protection Protocols
Clause 9(7)(e)(iii)  I fully support this clause that removes the exemption for Aquaculture
reporting
Part 4 – National Environment Protection Guidelines
IMPACT STATEMENT
GENERAL COMMENTS
1.
Introduction
Page 1 

S.47F
- Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society,
2. 
Statement of the problem
         
3. Transfers
         
4. Greenhouse 
gases
         
5. 
Other proposed NEPM amendments
         
6. NEPM 
implementation
         
7. Consultation
         
Page 2 

FOI 161108 - Document 5
Submission
no:
18
14/9/06
DRAFT VARIATION TO THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
(NATIONAL POLLUTANT INVENTORY) MEASURE
SUBMISSION
Title: S.47F
Name: S.47F
Position: President
Company: Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand - Victoria / Tasmania Branch 
Postal Address: C/O EML Air Pty Ltd, 425 Canterbury Road, 
Suburb: Surrey Hills
State: Vic
Postcode: 3127
Telephone: (03) 9836S.47F
Facsimile: (03) 9836 0517
Email address: S.47F
@eml.com.au
DRAFT VARIATION
GENERAL COMMENTS
S.22
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Part 1 - Preliminary
Part 2 – National Environment Protection Goals
S.22
Part 3 – National Environment Protection Protocols
S.22
Part 4 – National Environment Protection Guidelines
Page 1

S.47F
- Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand - Victoria / Tasmania Branch ,
IMPACT STATEMENT
GENERAL COMMENTS
S.22
 
1.
Introduction
2.
Statement of the problem
3.
Transfers
S.22
4.
Greenhouse gases
S.22
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Page 2

S.47F
Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand - Victoria / Tasmania Branch ,
4.
Greenhouse gases
S.22
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.
Other proposed NEPM amendments
S.22
 
 
 
S.22
 
 
S.22
 
 
 
 
 
 
Page 3

S.47F
Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand - Victoria / Tasmania Branch ,
5.
Other proposed NEPM amendments
S.22
 
 
 
 
Removal of the Aquaculture Exemption: This is supported on the grounds of leading to water 
quality problems and impacts on water supplies and on aquatic species and organisms
gaining a more complete understanding of the nutrient loads being emitted into receiving 
water  by this industry and the  potential to harm waterway health  CASANZ supports the 
removal of the exemption  or aquaculture.
S.22
 
 
 
 
6.
NEPM implementation
S.22
 
S.22
 
 
 
S.22
 
 
 
 
 
S.22
 
 
 
S.22
 
Page 4

S.47F
Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand - Victoria / Tasmania Branch ,
6.
NEPM implementation
S.22
 
 
 
7.
Consultation
Page 5

FOI 161108 - Document 6
Submission
no:
21
14.9.06
DRAFT VARIATION TO THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
(NATIONAL POLLUTANT INVENTORY) MEASURE
SUBMISSION
Title:S.47F 
Name: S.47F
 
Position: Marine Biologist
Company: Aluna, Marine Education and Experience
Postal Address: PO Box 282
Suburb: American River 
State: SA 
Postcode: 5221
Telephone: 08 8553 S.47F
Facsimile:
*Email address S.47F @kin.net.au
DRAFT VARIATION
GENERAL COMMENTS
Part 1 - Preliminary
Part 2 – National Environment Protection Goals
Part 3 – National Environment Protection Protocols
Clause 9(7)(e)(iii)  I fully support this clause that removes the exemption for Aquaculture
reporting
Part 4 – National Environment Protection Guidelines
IMPACT STATEMENT
GENERAL COMMENTS
1.
Introduction
Page 1 

Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found.,
2.
Statement of the problem
3. Transfers
4. Greenhouse 
gases
5.
Other proposed NEPM amendments
6. NEPM 
implementation
7. Consultation
Page 2 

FOI 161108 - Document 7
Submission 
no: 
28 
15/9/06 
DRAFT VARIATION TO THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
(NATIONAL POLLUTANT INVENTORY) MEASURE 
SUBMISSION 
Title: s 22 
Name: s 22
 
Position: Senior Adviser, Environment Policy 
Company: Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA 
Postal Address: 6209 
Suburb: EAST PERTH 
State: WA 
Postcode: 6892 
Telephone: 08 9365 s 22 
Facsimile: 08 9365 7550 
Email address: s 22
@cciwa.com 
DRAFT VARIATION 
GENERAL COMMENTS 
s 22
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
s 22
 
  
 
 
 
 
Part 1 - Preliminary 
Page 1 

s 22
- Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA,  
 
Part 2 – National Environment Protection Goals 
s 22
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Part 3 – National Environment Protection Protocols 
           
 
Part 4 – National Environment Protection Guidelines 
           
IMPACT STATEMENT 
GENERAL COMMENTS 
           
 
1. Introduction 
           
 
2. 
Statement of the problem 
           
 
3. Transfers 
s 22
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. Greenhouse 
gases 
Page 2 

s 22
- Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA,  
4. Greenhouse 
gases 
s 22
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. 
Other proposed NEPM amendments 
CCI does not object in principle to other substantial amendments proposed in the draft variation: 
s 22
 
 
- removing exemption for aquaculture reporting 
s 22
 
 
6. NEPM 
implementation 
s 22
 
 
 
 
7. Consultation 
s 22
 
 
 
Page 3 



FOI 161108 - Document 8
Submission
no:
33
Aquaculture Licensee Ack 15/9/06 
Committee 
15 September 2006
s 22
 
Dear s 22

Draft Variation to the National Environment Protection (National Pollutant 
Inventory) Measure: Removal of Exemption for Aquaculture Reporting 
The Aquaculture Committee of the Northern Territory Seafood Council has a number 
of objections to the inclusion of aquaculture in the National Pollutant Inventory. These 
are as follows;
1.
Aquaculture in the Northern Territory is an industry in the very early stages of its
development. Businesses wishing to establish aquaculture operations undergo
severe scrutiny by various government departments and by the public to ensure
that the proposed venture is environmentally sound. After passing over this
expensive and time consuming series of hurdles, aquaculture enterprises are also
obliged to provide updated environmental management plans on a regular basis.
Further checks on environmental performance include various licences such as
waste discharge licences which must be applied for on a regular basis (usually
annually). These licences also carry obligations, including regular monitoring and
analysis of a large range of water quality parameters, the costs of which are borne
by the businesses.
2.
A further time impost in the form of yet another set of reporting requirements as
proposed under the draft variation to the National Environment Protection
(National Pollutant Inventory) Measure is seen as counterproductive for an
industry whose  businesses quite frankly have almost no capacity to comply with
much more regulation.
3.
It is commonly recognised within the aquaculture industry that we are highly
regulated and under the continuing spotlight of public and government scrutiny.
Much of this scrutiny is a result of bad publicity from the rapid expansion of
aquaculture in developing countries such as Thailand, Indonesia, Venezuela and
so on.
Supported by the
 ABN  85  918  271 276
Located on Fishermans Wharf, Frances Bay, Darwin
GPO Box 618 Darwin NT 0801~ Telephone 08 8981 S.47F ~ Facsimile 08 8981 5063 ~ Email S.47F
@ntsc.com.au


There is almost nothing in common between the aquaculture industries in these 
countries and in Australia. Ever since Australia began its modern aquaculture in 
the 1980's there have been stringent controls a world away from the laissez faire 
development in many other countries. 
4.
The proposed annual discharge level of 15 tonnes of nitrogen and/or 4 tonnes
phosphorous into the environment would be reached by a farm whose size would 
require the employment of as few as two or three people to operate it. This is a 
small business enterprise which does not have the resources of larger businesses to 
be able to comply with further regulatory imposts. Before imposing further 
regulation on and scrutiny of the aquaculture industry in the Northern Territory,
we believe that the Environmental Protection Heritage Council should consult 
with industry to gain a greater appreciation of the effects on these small businesses
of the proposed regulation.
5.
There is very little information about the fate of nitrogen and phosphorus released
from farms. From a scientific perspective, the fate of nitrogen and phosphorus in 
the receiving waters in tropical estuaries is unknown. For this reason alone, 
inclusion of aquaculture would seem premature and inappropriate.
Committee members are adamant in their conviction that the degree of monitoring, 
scrutiny and regulation imposed on the aquaculture industry generally is often totally 
disproportionate to the reality of aquaculture in Australia. The proposed regulation
governing nitrogen discharge into the environment is one such example and we
strongly recommend that it is not proceeded with. 
Kind Regards, 
Adam Body 
Chairman


FOI 161108 - Document 9
Submission
no:
46
15/9/06
A. P. F. A. 
15th September 2006 
To whom it may concern: 
SUBMISSION ON THE PROPOSAL TO REMOVE THE REPORTING 
EXEMPTION OF AQUACULTURE FROM THE NPI 
Recently the Association attended a meeting held in Brisbane on the NPI proposal to 
remove aquaculture from exemption from reporting. This has been the only 
consultation we have received. We believe that with such a serious, and what appears 
to be misinformed proposal, direct consultation with the Association should occur. 
We endorse the submission of the National Aquaculture Council, and share the 
concerns raised within it. 
Most importantly we are concerned that this proposal is in direct conflict with the 
Australian Governments commitment to reduce the currently costly red tape imposed
on the aquaculture industry as outlined in the Aquaculture Action Agenda.
The Australian prawn farming industry already undertakes a detailed reporting 
process on our emissions to the relevant State and Territory Governments and in some 
cases the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Adding the NPI to this is just 
unnecessary duplication.
Justification for the removal of the current exemption has also been of concern. “Why
not?” is not good enough. Reporting in Government documents that aquaculture 
facilities are similar to sewerage treatment plants is completely unjustified and 
potentially damaging to our industries reputation.
The Association has a very strong relationship with the Department through our eco-
efficiency agreement, and has had extremely successful outcomes in the project we 
are undertaking as a part of that agreement. One prawn farm is undertaking 
accreditation for their EMS to ISO14001 next week, with another four to follow. The 
industry is also currently exploring the possibilities of rolling this level of EMS out 
across the entire industry. 
This proposal has the potential to undo much of the good work that has been achieved 
by both industry and the Australian Government and the Australian Prawn Farmers
Association strongly opposes it. We request that the current exemption be maintained.
Yours Faithfully, 
Scott Walter
EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
AUSTRALIAN PRAWN FARMERS ASSOCIATION
PO Box 12009, George Street, BRISBANE  QLD  4003
Phone: 07 3837 4777
Facsimile: (07) 3236 4100

Submission
FOI 161108 - Document 10
no:
47
15/9/06
14th September 2006 
s 22
 
Senior Project Officer 
National Pollution Inventory 
DEH
GPO Box 787 
Canberra ACT 2601 
[email address]
s 22
@dddeh.gov.au
[email address]
To whom it may concern
The National Aquaculture Council is the peak body representing the industry in Australia. It 
represents at least 98% of the gross value of production. 
The comments below follow broad consultation with the aquaculture industry and some government 
agencies across Australia. 
Consultation
At no stage has the industry been consulted in understanding the implications of transfers especially
the costs. It is very clear that those responsible for the documentation have absolutely no idea how 
the various production systems operate in their respective sectors and environments and associated 
cost structure in measuring transfers and other parameters.
Not only have they miscalculated the cost structure but hey have no understanding of the variability 
within the industry and this is also reflected in their quoted figure of around 60 aquaculture licences 
that will be affected by this process. 
It has been made clear by the NPI panel members at the public meetings that there is no onus on the 
NPI to demonstrate why the aquaculture industry should not be exempt. In fact it is up to industry to 
demonstrate why it should be excluded. This letter provides that rationale. It should also be 
remembered that through the Aquaculture Industry Action Agenda and the Prime Ministers Science 
Engineering and Innovation Council on aquaculture there was an imperative to reduce the 
regulative burden and red tape that was imposed on the aquaculture industry. The industry is one of 
the most regulated in Australia and this has been identified as a serious financial impost on 
producers and also a deterrent to investment in the industry. 
The Federal and State Governments and industry produced the Best Practice Framework of 
Regulatory Arrangements for Aquaculture in Australia (Primary Industries Ministerial Council) 
February 2005 
that highlighted the need to refine reporting processes and reduce the cost to 
industry.
The Productivity Commission in their inquiry into the Australian aquaculture industry also 
emphasized the need to reduce red tape and reporting burdens on the industry. 
The comment by members of the NPI road show that prawn farms in Australia are similar to 
sewerage farms is nothing short of showing a complete lack of understanding of Australian prawn 
farming production technology and aquaculture in general. To actually put these types of references 
to print without qualifying such statements demonstrates the level of arrogance by this group and 
their lack of credibility. No distinction is made between Australian practices and those of some
international counterparts.

It is clear there will be significant duplication in industry having to report to various agencies as 
well as the NPI. Industry is of the view that access to any data must be through the relevant state 
agency to which industry must report and comply concerning appropriate agreed key environmental 
indicators as per their licences. 
There is a strong view from industry that it would not be too long before the list was expanded to 
incorporate other parameters that need to be measured. Such creep is being observed in other 
sectors.
It is a pity that the TAP of this process has used one or two submissions from the 2005 review to 
push the inclusion of aquaculture in the NPI. These submissions have demonstrated their lack of 
understanding of the industry and consequently the process has adopted misinformation on which to 
base its decision of inclusion. 
Data Interpretation 
People accessing data will not be able to understand the context in which it is provided. This will 
lead to certain groups using their own interpretation that in turn could easily misrepresent the 
industry and its sustainable approach to production of seafood. 
The industry is seriously concerned that the Government is now going back on its commitment of 
reducing the impost of these bureaucratic processes on industry and does not fit with the spirit and 
intent of the Action Agenda and its key outcomes. 
The industry has in good faith and in partnership with Government developed an EMS based 
reporting process to State agencies based on the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation 
ESD framework for aquaculture. This is a cost effective mechanism to industry and Government. 
Transfers
Estimating and reporting transfers is a complicated and expensive exercise when dealing with an 
aquatic environment as there are numerous influences concerning seasonal change and natural 
organic and inorganic loadings in the various aquatic systems. It must be understood that nitrogen 
and phosphorous reactions in salt and freshwater environments are quite different. 
It is clear to the industry that there is lack of any science or risk assessment that underpins decisions 
and this is completely unprofessional given the circumstances. Decisions to include aquaculture 
have been based on anecdotal information and an attitude from the NPI of “why not include it?” 
Compliance 
There is limited detail available from those jurisdictions that will be responsible for enforcement 
costs or processes. To believe you have an understanding of impacts on industry without taking this 
into consideration is ludicrous. What is even more unbelievable is the expectation that local 
jurisdictions will enforce compliance at the rates calculated. A number of the State jurisdictions 
consulted have indicated that they have no intention of following through on this duplicated 
process.
At the public forums the panel has argued that: 
x
this information will lead to better Government decisions. As it applies to aquaculture, 
particularly the prawn and finfish sectors, this is nonsense and is not demonstrated. 
x
the public have a right to know. Again without understanding the circumstances, knowing 
the context in which data is collected and how it should be interpreted, this information will 
be meaningless to the public. 

The industry has developed other public reporting processes. These are done in conjunction with 
State and Federal jurisdictions. Compliance with the EPBC guidelines for aquaculture through the 
Department of Environment and Heritage is a case in point.  
The industry is vehemently opposed to the inclusion of aquaculture into the NPI process and 
requests continued exemption. 
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 
Yours faithfully 
Simon Bennison 
Chief Executive Officer 
CC 
Senator the Hon. Eric Abetz,  
Senator the Hon. Ian Macdonald 
Senator the Hon. Nigel Scullion 
Senator the Hon Ron Boswell 
Joanna Hewitt 



FOI 161108 - Document 11
Submission
54
18/9/06
15 September 2006 
National Environmental Protection Council 
Level 5 
81 Flinders Street 
Adelaide SA 5000 
Australia 
To whom it may concern 
Re: Submission on the draft variation to the National Environmental Protection Measure. 
The Aquaculture Council of Western Australia (ACWA), the State’s peak industry body, would like to thank 
National Environmental Protection Council on its invitation to comment on the draft variation to the National
Environmental Protection Measure 

It is ACWA position that the aquaculture industry should remain exempt.  The rationale for this position is as 
follows: 

All the risks, reporting methods and the community benefits are managed already by the State agencies;
as such there is no need to duplicate these processes.  Business exists to make a profit; part of this 
process is ensuring costs are controlled through minimizing duplication.  The proposed NPI duplicates 
reporting requirements of the states (both to DEC & Fisheries),  

There have been no breaches of the current arrangements.

All of the industry environmental monitoring reporting is publicly available.

The reporting of gross N & P has no value, as it has no regional context to make an informed evaluation.
This is what the State regulations provided. 

Aquaculture is fundamentally different to other intensive industries, in that its business objectives cannot
be achieved without maintaining high water and environmental quality.  Given this innate connection with 
the environment evolves a deep commitment to developing the industry responsibly.   
Added to the above specific comments, ACWA would like to make a general comment of quality of the public 
policy.  The document, as promulgated, constitutes one of the laziest pieces of public policy that ACWA has 
dealt with, and does reflect the standing the National Environmental Protection Council.  The claims made 
against aquaculture are unsubstantiated.  If the council had bothered to undertake some basic research it would 
had proved the statements untrue eg. Sewage equivalence of aquaculture discharge.  It is on this basis, the 
document needs to be retracted, revised, and an apology made to the aquaculture industry. 
We look forward to your earliest favorable response. 
Yours sincerely 
Dan Machin 
CEO
PO Box 55, Mt Hawthorn WA 6915 
Suite 7 41 Walters Drive Osborne Park WA 6016 
t 9492 S.47F   f 9244 2934  e [email address]
www.AquacultureCouncilWA.com

FOI 161108 - Document 12
Submission
no:
55
18/9/06
DRAFT VARIATION TO THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
(NATIONAL POLLUTANT INVENTORY) MEASURE
SUBMISSION
Title: Ms 
Name: Megan Kessler 
Position: Fisheries and Marine Networker 
Company: Nature Conservation Council of NSW
Postal Address: Level 2, 301 Kent St 
Suburb: Sydney 
State: NSW 
Postcode: 2000
Telephone: 02 9279 S.47F
Facsimile: 02 9279 2499
Email address: S.47F
@nccnsw.org.au
DRAFT VARIATION
GENERAL COMMENTS
Part 1 - Preliminary
Part 2 – National Environment Protection Goals
Part 3 – National Environment Protection Protocols
Clause 9(7)(e)(iii)  I fully support this clause that removes the exemption for Aquaculture
reporting
Part 4 – National Environment Protection Guidelines
IMPACT STATEMENT
GENERAL COMMENTS
1.
Introduction
Page 1 

Megan Kessler- Nature Conservation Council of NSW,
2. 
Statement of the problem
         
3. Transfers
         
4. Greenhouse 
gases
         
5. 
Other proposed NEPM amendments
         
6. NEPM 
implementation
         
7. Consultation
         
Page 2 


FOI 161108 - Document 13 
Submission
no:
59
19/9/06
s 22
 
Project Officer
NEPC Service Corporation 
Level 5, 81 Flinders Street
ADELAIDE  SA  5000 
Dear s 22
 
I refer to the draft variation to the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) National Environment
Protection Measure that has been released for public consultation. I am writing in relation to the
variation proposal to remove the NPI reporting exemption for aquaculture. 
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) stresses that a variation to the NPI 
relating to aquaculture must be pursued consistent with the Government’s existing policy on 
aquaculture industry development and regulation. It should be commensurate with the level of 
environmental risk posed by the aquaculture industry and not impose additional, overlapping 
regulatory burden. 
The Australian aquaculture industry is diverse and each sector has different potential environmental
impacts of varying degrees of significance. The industry is subject to a comprehensive regulatory 
framework to ensure sustainable development and sound environment management across the 
industry.
The Australian Government has legislation and regulations to protect matters of national 
environmental significance, promote ecologically sustainable development and ensure standards are 
maintained in food safety, aquatic animal health, quarantine, trade and taxation. Aquaculture 
activities that are likely to have a significant impact on matters of national significance are assessed 
and subject to approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
State and territory governments are responsible for the day-to-day management of aquaculture. 
They have legislation and controls in place covering environment management, marine and coastal
management, land use planning, land tenure, native title and quarantine and translocation. The 
states and territories attach strict regulations and reporting requirements to aquaculture licenses, 
including reporting on emissions from aquaculture operations. It is my understanding that data on 
emissions from aquaculture operations is already available from state and territory agencies at an 
aggregated level. 
This regulation comes at a cost to industry and the Productivity Commission has suggested it has 
gone too far. The Commission reviewed regulatory arrangements for aquaculture in 2004. A copy 
of its research paper on Assessing Environmental Regulatory Arrangements for Aquaculture is 
available online at www.pc.gov.au/research/crp/aquaculture/aquaculture.pdf. The research covered
both marine and land-based aquaculture production in Australia. 
Edmund Barton Building   Barton ACT
GPO Box 858  Canberra ACT   2601
  ph +61 2 6272 3933 
www.daff.gov.au
ABN 24 113 085 695
D E P A R T M E N T   O F   A G R I C U L T U R E ,   F I S H E R I E S   A N D   F O R E S T R Y

The Productivity Commission review concluded that aquaculture production is subject to an 
unnecessarily complex array of legislation and agencies. On environmental regulation in particular, 
the Commission agreed that some environmental regulation is clearly required given the potential 
for significant environmental impacts from some aquaculture operations. However, the report also 
stresses that environmental regulatory arrangements that are unwarranted or poorly developed and 
implemented can impose unnecessary costs on aquaculture producers, consumers and the 
community, and adversely affect competitiveness and the environment. The Commission suggested 
that more efficient and effective regulation of the aquaculture industry could be achieved through 
greater use of environmental risk assessments. 
The Productivity Commission also noted problems with comparing aquaculture with other 
agricultural operations. It found that point source water pollution from land-based aquaculture, such 
as prawn or trout farms, is often more heavily regulated than diffuse sources of pollution from other 
land uses, such as pastoral or horticultural farming. This has implications for the efficient and 
effective management of environmental impacts and the development of the aquaculture industry. 
The Commission concluded there is a need for further research to assess if the level of regulation 
and control is consistent with the environmental risk posed. 
The Australian Government has made a number of commitments to help streamline and reduce 
regulation of the aquaculture industry and encourage its development.  
In 2002, the Aquaculture Industry Action Agenda (AIAA) was launched in partnership between 
industry and governments to increase the growth prospects of the industry. The Australian 
Government provided $3.5 million to support its implementation. The AIAA includes a 
commitment to promote a regulatory and business environment that supports aquaculture. In 
particular, DAFF and the Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH) agreed to work with 
state and territory governments to streamline aquaculture regulation and management in Australia 
with the aim of ensuring an efficient and certain regulatory and planning environment for investors 
and industry. 
The AIAA led to the development of a National Aquaculture Policy Statement in 2003. The Policy 
includes a commitment to develop an investment, policy and regulatory framework that encourages 
industry growth. Australian governments also worked together to develop a Best Practice 
Framework of Regulatory Arrangements for Aquaculture in Australia
 in 2005 to reduce and 
harmonise regulation of the aquaculture industry. The best practice framework captures the findings 
of the Productivity Commission review and is currently being implemented. 
I strongly encourage the National Environment Protection Council to consider these issues and 
existing government commitments in finalising the NPI variation. Of particular concern is creating 
additional and potentially unnecessary regulatory burden for the industry.
I suggest working closely with the state and territory aquaculture managers, who best understand 
the industry and are the most likely to utilise NPI-type data. It may be possible to establish an 
agreed standard or protocol for reporting with the states and territories to meet NPI needs without 
indiscriminately imposing another layer of reporting and regulation. There is a precedent for this 
between DEH, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Mark Authority and the Queensland government 
where an accreditation arrangement was developed to ensure environmental risks of Queensland-
based aquaculture operations are managed consistent with national objectives. 

The Australian aquaculture industry through its peak body the National Aquaculture Council should 
also be closely engaged. Mr Simon Bennison, Chief Executive Officer, can be contacted on mobile 
S.47F
 or email [email address].
The draft NPI variation relating to aquaculture represents new regulation for the industry, not just a 
minor variation or amendment. Such a change calls for more rigorous consultation than has been 
conducted to date. While I understand there have been public meetings, this consultation is largely 
passive and not suitable in these circumstances. Many state and territory aquaculture agencies were 
not aware of the proposed variation or public meetings until contacted by DAFF. The meetings 
covered all stakeholders potentially affected by the NPI variation, from farmers through to the 
manufacturing sector. Further discussions are required with states and territory agencies and the 
aquaculture industry that is specifically about the potential impacts of the NPI variation for the 
aquaculture industry and alternative arrangements.  
Given the potential impacts for the Australian aquaculture industry, DAFF would like to remain 
involved and informed of the NPI variation process. The Departmental contact for aquaculture 
issues is s 22
, telephone 02 6272 s 22 , email s 22
@daff.gov.au. We would 
be pleased to discuss these issues further. 
Thank you for your consideration of this submission. 
Yours sincerely 
Glenn Hurry 
Executive Manager 
Fisheries and Forestry 
15 September 2006 


FOI 161108 - Document 14
Submission
no:
60
21/9/06
australian network of
environmental defender’s offices
Submission on the 
National Pollutant Inventory 
NEPM Variation 
15th September 2006 
The Australian Network of Environmental 
EDO ACT (tel. 02 6247 9420) 
[email address]
Defender’s Offices (ANEDO) consists of nine 
independently constituted and managed community 
EDO NSW (tel. 02 9262 6989) 
[email address]
environmental law centres located in each State and
Territory of Australia.
EDO NQ (tel. 07 4031 4766) 
[email address]
Each EDO is dedicated to protecting the 
environment in the public interest. EDOs provide 
EDO NT (tel. 08 8982 1182) 
[email address]
legal representation and advice, take an active role in 
environmental law reform and policy formulation, 
EDO QLD (tel. 07 3210 0275) 
[email address]
and offer a significant education program designed to 
facilitate public participation in environmental 
EDO SA (tel. 08 8410 3833) 
[email address]
decision making.
EDO TAS (tel. 03 6223 2770) 
[email address]
EDOVIC (tel. 03 9328 4811)
[email address]
EDO WA (tel. 08 9221 3030) 
[email address]
1

This submission is on behalf of the Australian Network of Environmental Defender’s 
Offices (ANEDO).
For further information on this submission, please contact Rachel Walmsley, Policy 
Director at EDO (NSW) on 02 9262 6989 or [email address]. 
Submitted to:
s 22
Project Officer
NEPC Service Corporation
Level 5, 81 Flinders Street
Adelaide SA 5000
Telephone (08) 8419 s 22
Facsimile (08) 8224 0912
Email s 22 @ephc.gov.au
15th September 2006
2

s 22
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.
3

Introduction
s 22
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Major changes to the NPI proposed in the documentation include:
x
s 22
x
removing the exemption for aquaculture reporting; and
x
s 22
s 22
 
s 22
 
 
s 22
 
 
 
 
 
s 22
 
 
 
 
 
s 22
 
 
 
s 22
4

s 22
5

s 22
6

s 22
7

s 22
8

s 22
9

s 22
10

s 22
11

s 22
12

s 22
13

 
s 22
 
6.
Reporting of aquaculture activities
ANEDO is fully supportive of the proposal to include aquaculture in the list of reporting 
industries. The known environmental impacts of aquaculture and the resultant emissions
from aquaculture operations do not justify its continuing exclusion as a reporting 
industry.
The potential impacts of aquaculture are wide-ranging, from aesthetic aspects to direct 
pollution problems.40 The National Oceans Office has recognised these potential
environmental consequences.41 In particular, aquaculture operations lead to the release of 
nutrients into the water column and the accumulation of waste. This additional input 
leads to an accumulation of organic matter, which has a marked effect on water quality 
and benthic biota.42 Furthermore, there are concerns about the use of 
s 22
.
40  Fernandes, Eleftheriou, Ackefors, Eleftheriou, Ervik, Sanchez Mata, Scanlon, White, Cochrane,
Pearson, Read (2001), ‘The scientific principles underlying the monitoring of the environmental impacts of 
aquaculture’. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 17.
41 National Oceans Office, ‘Impact of aquaculture’
http://www.oceans.gov.au/impacts aquaculture/page 004.jsp  (23 August 2006).
42 State of the Environment Report, South Australia 2003 at 64. 
14


chemotherapeutants, the outbreak of disease, the impact of marine mammals and genetic 
disturbance from exotic species.
Table 4 Current environmental concerns arising from marine aquaculture operations
(Fernandes 
et al., 2001)
As indicated in the NPI Review Report, a diffuse source manual already exists for 
aquaculture. Therefore, the practical implications stemming from the inclusion of 
aquaculture as a reporting industry are straightforward and do not impose an onerous 
regulatory burden. It is a small price to pay when the environmental consequences of 
aquaculture operations can be quite significant. Requiring the aquaculture industry to 
report its emissions enables the public and government to quantify the environmental
impact of these emissions. This is in line with the environmental management and public 
participation goals of the NEPM. 
s 22
15

s 22
16

s 22
17

s 22
9.
Conclusion: Do these amendments further the goals of NEPM?
 
s 22
s 22
 
 
 
 Moreover, the addition of 
aquaculture as a reporting industry, the inclusion of transfers, the attempts to improve
data quality and the updating and consolidation of the diffuse source register will also 
provide the potential to further realise the goals of the NPI. s 22
 
 
s 22
 
18

FOI 161108 - Document 15
Submission
no:
66
21/9/06
WA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION
(DEC)
Draft Variation to National Environment Protection (National Pollutant 
Inventory) Measure 
SUBMISSION
s 22
T:\NEPM\NPI Variation 2005\Submissions\Sub 66_s 22
_CED WA.doc 22/09/2006 2:41:34 PM
1

s 22
T:\NEPM\NPI Variation 2005\Submissions\Sub 66_s 22
_CED WA.doc 22/09/2006 2:41:34 PM
2

s 22
T:\NEPM\NPI Variation 2005\Submissions\Sub 66_s 22
_CED WA.doc 22/09/2006 2:41:34 PM
3

s 22
6.
Removal of exemption for aquaculture 
DEC supports the removal of the exemption from reporting for aquaculture, as this 
industry is capable of contributing significant nutrient loads to the environment. WA 
has a growing aquaculture industry. 
s 22
T:\NEPM\NPI Variation 2005\Submissions\Sub 66_s 22
_CED WA.doc 22/09/2006 2:41:34 PM
4

s 22
T:\NEPM\NPI Variation 2005\Submissions\Sub 66_s 22
CED WA.doc 22/09/2006 2:41:34 PM
5

s 22
T:\NEPM\NPI Variation 2005\Submissions\Sub 66_s 22
_CED WA.doc 22/09/2006 2:41:34 PM
6

s 22
T:\NEPM\NPI Variation 2005\Submissions\Sub 66_s 22
_CED WA.doc 22/09/2006 2:41:34 PM
7

s 22
T:\NEPM\NPI Variation 2005\Submissions\Sub 66_s 22
CED WA.doc 22/09/2006 2:41:34 PM
8

s 22
T:\NEPM\NPI Variation 2005\Submissions\Sub 66_s 22
CED WA.doc 22/09/2006 2:41:34 PM
9

s 22
T:\NEPM\NPI Variation 2005\Submissions\Sub 66_s 22
CED WA.doc 22/09/2006 2:41:34 PM
10

s 22
T:\NEPM\NPI Variation 2005\Submissions\Sub 66_s 22
CED WA.doc 22/09/2006 2:41:34 PM
11

s 22
T:\NEPM\NPI Variation 2005\Submissions\Sub 66_s 22
CED WA.doc 22/09/2006 2:41:34 PM
12

FOI 161108 - Document 16
Submission
no:
67
21/9/06
19 September 2006 
s 22
 
Project Officer
NEPC Service Corporation 
Level 5, 81 Flinders Street
ADELAIDE SA 5000 
Dear s 22
 
s 22
Of the main issues covered in the NPI variation including: 
s 22
 
 
 
x
removing the exemption for aquaculture reporting 
s 22
s 22
 
  We have not made comment on the substance and threshold changes, 
removing the exemption for aquaculture reporting and changes to publication 
requirements.  s 22
 
s 22
 
AEBN’s Submission on the National Pollutant Inventory NEPM Variation, September 2006 
page 1 

s 22
AEBN’s Submission on the National Pollutant Inventory NEPM Variation, September 2006 
page 2 

s 22
AEBN’s Submission on the National Pollutant Inventory NEPM Variation, September 2006 
page 3 

s 22
Yours Sincerely 
ANDREW DOIG 
Director
AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENT BUSINESS NETWORK
AEBN’s Submission on the National Pollutant Inventory NEPM Variation, September 2006 
page 4 


Submission:
FOI 161108 - Document 17
72
25/9/06
ACN 44 000 292 713 
21 September, 2006  
HEAD OFFICE 
GPO BOX 2201 
CANBERRA ACT 2601 
s 22
  
Project Officer  
LEVEL 3 
NEPC Service Corporation  
24 MARCUS CLARKE STREET 
Level 5, 81 Flinders Street  
CANBERRA ACT 2600 
PHONE  61 2 6247 0960 
Adelaide SA 5000 
FAX        61 2 6247 0548 
Dear s 22
,  
PERTH OFFICE 
PO BOX 7039 
Draft Variation to the National Environmental Protection 
CLOISTERS SQUARE 
PERTH WA 6850 
(National Pollutant Inventory) Measure 
LEVEL 1 
s 22
 
190 ST GEORGES TERRACE 
 
PERTH WA 6000 
PHONE  61 8 9321 9775 
 
FAX        61 8 9321 9778 
 
 
INTERNET 
http://www.appea.com.au 
 
EMAIL 
 
[email address] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
s 22
 
  APPEA 
also supports the inclusion of aquaculture reporting on the basis that all 
significant sources of emissions, whether natural, diffuse or industrial should 
be included to ensure the integrity of reporting system, and provide the 
most accurate information and context to the community.  To this end, 
APPEA would encourage further measures to provide the community and 
regulators with a full picture of emissions to the environment and ensure 
emissions beyond those of industry are accurately reflected in the NPI. 
s 22
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

s 22
2


s 22
Yours sincerely, 
BELINDA ROBINSON
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
3









FOI 161108 - Document 18
Submission:
74
25/9/06
s 22
s 22
s 22







FOI 161108 - Document 19
Submission
no:
ExxonMobil Australia Submission to the EPHC re the Draft NPI NEPM - September 2006
75
E
26/9/06
XXONMOBIL SUBMISSION RE THE DRAFT VARIATION TO THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT
PROTECTION (NATIONAL POLLUTANT INVENTORY) MEASURE
OVERVIEW:
s 22
ExxonMobil's responses to the key issues raised in the June 26th Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) 
and Draft Variation to the National Environment Protection (National Pollutant Inventory) Measure
can be summarised as follows.
s 22
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
i ExxonMobil supports the removal of the exemption for aquaculture reporting, on the basis that all
significant sources of emissions should be included to ensure the integrity of reporting system.
s 22
 
Sub 75 Geoff Davis Exxon Mobil
  22 September 2006 
1

s 22
ExxonMobil Contact: 
Geoff Davis 
Global Environmental Advisor
ExxonMobil Australia Pty Ltd 
PO Box 484
Altona
Victoria 3018 
Telephone: 03 
9286S.47F
Fax:
03 9286 5233
Email:
S.47F
@exxonmobil.com
Sub 75 s 22, S.47F
Exxon Mobil
  22 September 2006 
2

ExxonMobil Australia Submission to the EPHC re the Draft NPI NEPM - September 2006
s 22
Sub 75 S.47F
Exxon Mobil
  22 September 2006 
3

ExxonMobil Australia Submission to the EPHC re the Draft NPI NEPM - September 2006
s 22
Sub 75 S.47F
Exxon Mobil
  22 September 2006 
4