Commonwealth of Australia Explanatory Memoranda Commonwealth of Australia Explanatory Memoranda[Index] [Search] [Download] [Bill] [Help]
1998
THE PARLIAMENT OF
THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
FISHERIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 1)
1998
EXPLANATORY
MEMORANDUM
(Circulated
by the authority of the
Minister for Resources and Energy,
Senator the Hon
Warwick Parer)
THIS MEMORANDUM TAKES ACCOUNT OF
AMENDMENTS
MADE BY THE SENATE TO THE BILL AS INTRODUCED
ISBN: 0644 52765X
FISHERIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 1) 1998
GENERAL OUTLINE
The Prawn Export Charge Act 1995
(Charge Act), Prawn Boat Levy Act 1995 (Levy Act) and Prawn Export
Promotion Act 1995 (Export Promotion Act) came into effect on 1 July 1995.
These Acts give legal force to a Government-industry scheme to promote
Australian sea-caught prawns in overseas markets using funds raised from
industry by means of the export charge and boat levy. The Charge Act and Levy
Act impose an export charge and boat levy under section 4 of each Act and the
Export Promotion Act provides for the collection, management and expenditure of
these funds.
The purpose of these proposed amendments is to complete the
implementation of a decision by the Minister for Resources and Energy to abolish
the prawn boat levy and prawn export charge as of 1 January 1998 and to repeal
the Acts.
The proposed amendments to the Levy Act set the final levy
period to begin on 1 July 1997 and end on 31 December 1997. The proposed
amendments to the Charge Act state that export charges only apply to prawns
exported on or before 31 December 1997.
The repeals are to take effect 3
years after Royal Assent to enable the collection of outstanding monies and to
ensure that funds collected can be used. The proposed amendments also contains
savings provisions that continue operation of the Acts after repeal in respect
of levies and charges that have already been imposed.
The proposed
amendment to the Fisheries Management Act 1991 inserts section 15A which
will prohibit the commercial taking of black marlin and blue marlin in the
Australian fishing zone (AFZ). Charter boat operators, recreational fishers and
holders of scientific permits will be exempt from the
prohibition.
Section 15A provides a defence to a prosecution so long as
any black marlin or blue marlin taken is returned to its natural environment
immediately, whether it is dead or alive.
Section 15B requires an
analysis to be commenced, within 12 months, of the estimated numbers of blue
marlin and black marlin in the AFZ and the effect that fishing permitted under
section 15A has on the species.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
The cessation of prawn levies and export charges will
reduce the future funding available for promotional activities by the Australian
Prawn Promotion Association.
There are no direct costs imposed on
commercial prawn operators as a result of the proposed amendments and in fact
the cessation of levies/charges will reduce administrative and financial costs
to small business operators. There should be minimal to no cost on commercial
longline operators of the marlin prohibition because there is already a
voluntary prohibition in place.
The administrative costs of administering
and enforcing the prohibition is estimated to be about $66,000 a year. The
analysis under section 15B will be funded through the Commonwealth’s
ongoing fisheries research program.
REGULATION IMPACT
STATEMENTS
Subject: Prawn Export Charge Act 1995
Prawn
Boat Levy Act 1995
Prawn Export Promotion Act 1995
PROBLEM OR ISSUE IDENTIFICATION
In 1989 the Australian Prawn Promotion Association Ltd (APPA) was formed
with the objective of increasing the awareness, profile and value of Australian
sea caught prawns and the Australian prawn industry on world markets. APPA
membership is not compulsory.
The prawn industry has approximately 480
operators, 28 of which are members of APPA.
In 1995, the previous
Government introduced the Prawn Boat Levy Act 1995 (the Levy Act), the
Prawn Export Charge Act 1995 (the Charge Act) and the Prawn Export
Promotion Act 1995 (the Export Promotion Act). This suite of legislation
imposes a compulsory prawn boat levy and a prawn export charge, to provide a
funding base for the prawn promotion activities of APPA
. the
current boat levy for a full levy period is $50 for a ship that is less than 10
metres long; $100 for a ship that is at least 10 metres but less than 15 metres;
$200 for a ship that is at least 15 metres but less than 18 metres long; $400
for a ship that is at least 18 metres but less than 20 metres; and $600 for a
ship that is at least 20 metres long
. for prawns exported on or before
31 December 1997, the export charge was 2 cents ($0.02) a kilogram net weight of
exports of sea-caught prawns, parts of sea-caught prawns and prawn components of
sea-caught prawn products, payable by an operator only after the operator
reaches a threshold of 5,000 kilograms of prawns.
The amount of boat levy
collected is approximately $150,000 a year. The amount of export charge
collected is approximately $240,000 a year, which varies depending on the
quantity of prawns exported.
The Fisheries Research and Development
Corporation (FRDC) funds the collection of boat levies and export charges and
the amount is then recovered from the levies/charges collected. The Levies
Management Unit (LMU) in the Department of Primary Industries and Energy takes
action to recover outstanding levies/charges on a cost recovery
basis.
Government support for APPA and the compulsory levies/charges was
predicated on there being widespread industry support at the
time.
However, since late 1996 Senator the Hon Warwick Parer, the
Minister for Resources and Energy, (the Minister) has been receiving
representations from prawn operators, indicating a lack of support for the
levies/charges.
There was considerable resistance to paying the levies/charges by a number of operators, for the following reasons:
. APPA’s export promotion activities were considered to be ineffective;
. the boat levy was seen as double charging (ie exporters and fishers may be required to pay levies on the same prawns);
. the annual APPA membership fee was considered to be an impediment to
increased industry involvement because a levy/charge payer could not participate
in the decision making process unless the levy/charge payer was a member of
APPA.
As a result of this widespread industry dissatisfaction with
compulsory levies/charges, a plebiscite was undertaken to assess the level of
support within the prawn industry for their continuation
. 85 per cent of
those who participated in the plebiscite opposed the continuation of the
levies/charges. The response rate, 67%, was extremely high.
Following
consideration of the results of the plebiscite and discussions with prawn
industry operators and representatives of APPA, on 4 November 1997 the Minister
announced that the boat levy and export charge would be terminated as of 1
January 1998.
In announcing his decision the Minister stated that the
Government believed that compulsory primary industry levies should only be
imposed on an industry if the levies have substantial industry support, and
there is significant market failure, which was not the case in the prawn
industry. This reasoning is also consistent with the broader Government policy
statement titled “General Principles Applying to Proposals for new and
changed Primary Industry Levies for R&D, Promotion, Marketing or Fees for
Chemical Residue Testing and Animal Health Services”.
SPECIFICATION OF THE DESIRED OBJECTIVE
The objective is to implement the Minister’s decision to cancel
boat levies under the Levy Act and export charges under the Charge Act from 1
January 1998.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE OPTIONS
(REGULATORY AND
NON-REGULATORY)
There are two ways of implementing the decision.
(1) Amending
the Regulations and the Levy Act (Recommended option)
Amendment of
the Levy Act is necessary because the levy amount applies to a “levy
period” which the Levy Act defines as a financial year. A change to the
levy amount during a “levy period” therefore requires a change to
the definition of “levy period” in the Levy Act.
This option
was in fact adopted and the Regulations were amended to:
(a) prescribe a
nil charge from 1 January 1998; and
(b) divide levy payments into two
within the full levy period:
(i) half of the present prescribed amount
levy would be payable in the first half of the levy period - 1 July 1997 to 31
December 1997; and
(ii) the remainder of the levy would be payable in the
second half of the levy period - 1 January 1998 to 30 June 1998
The
option also required that in the Autumn 1998 session of Parliament, prior to the
end of the second half of the 1997/1998 levy period, an amendment to the Levy
Act would be proposed which would cancel the payment for the second half of the
levy period. The Acts would also be amended so that no levies/charges could be
imposed from 1 January 1998. No additional financial burden is
imposed on levy payers as a result of the proposed retrospective amendments to
the Acts.
The Acts are to be repealed after 3 years, to enable all
outstanding levies and charges to be either collected or written off and to
enable expenditure of monies collected. Repealing the Acts before this may
adversely affect recovery action.
(2) Repealing the Acts without
amending the Regulations
Repealing the Acts would have taken some
time and would not have been possible before 1 January 1998.
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS (COSTS AND BENEFITS)
Costs to prawn industry operators
Costs
The
termination of charge/levies will reduce the future funding available for APPA
activities such as promotional campaigns for Australian sea-caught prawns and
the Australian prawn industry overseas
Exporters dependent on APPA will
have to organise their own promotional activities and APPA will have to organise
its own funding sources.
However, the benefits of APPA’s
promotional activities are problematic. The removal of the levies and charges
will have no impact on the demand and price for prawns on the export
market.
Benefits
There are no direct costs imposed on
commercial prawn operators as a result of the cessation of levies and
charges.
The amendments will terminate levies/charges, thus reducing
administrative and financial costs to small business operators.
As APPA
collects levies/charges, its work load will be reduced as it will no longer have
to carry out the task of reconciling data and payments received from levy and
charge payers with boat registration and prawn export data.
APPA will
continue as a private company governed by the decisions of its membership and
its Board, with the ability to obtain funds from other sources.
Removal
of levies/charges will have no impact on consumers, but there will be a direct
benefit on the prawn boat owners who will no longer have to pay the boat levy
and exporters will no longer have to pay the export charge.
Cost to
Government
Costs
Nil.
Benefits
Nil.
Restrictions
on competition
Nil.
Effects on small
business
The amendment will reduce paperwork and record keeping
required of businesses under the scheme.
Consultation
Those in the prawn industry who pay levies/charges were given the
opportunity to have a say as to whether levies and charges should be continued
via a plebiscite, which was undertaken to assess the level of support for
continuing the levies/charges
. the outcome of the plebiscite showed that
85 per cent of those who participated in the plebiscite opposed the
levies/charges. The response rate, 67%, was extremely high.
. the lack of
support was also evidenced by the number of direct representations to the
Minister by disaffected industry members and by representations from Members of
Parliament on behalf of their constituents.
Prior to announcing that the
levies/charges will be abolished, the Minister considered the results of the
plebiscite and had discussions with prawn industry operators and representatives
from APPA:
. the primary concern expressed by industry members and
Members of Parliament who support the continuation of levies/charges was
that termination may cut APPA’s activities “off at the
knees”
. a large number of direct representations by industry members that did
not support APPA or the activities of APPA highlighted considerable
resistance to paying the levies/charges by a number of operators.
There
was also consultation with APPA regarding the proposed amendments to the
Regulations. At its Annual General Meeting on 12 November 1997, APPA put forward
an alternative recommendation to the Minister. The Governor-General took
APPA’s recommendation into consideration when he made the Regulations in
accordance with subsection 9(2) of the Prawn Boat Levy Act 1995
and subsection 7(2) of the Prawn Export Charge Act 1995.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The provisions that set the amounts of levies and charges are contained
in the Prawn Export Promotion Levies and Charges Regulations. In December 1997
the Regulations were amended so that the export charge was reduced to nil. The
amendments to the Regulations also required half of the boat levy to be paid by
28 January 1998, even though under the Levy Act the relevant levy period was 1
July 1997 to 30 June 1998.
Amendments to the Acts are now required to
ensure that charges are only imposed on prawns exported on or before 31 December
1997 and to also ensure that the final levy period is from 1 July 1997 to 31
December 1997. These amendments are consistent with the Minister’s
announcement that export charges and boat levies would be abolished from
1 January 1998.
IMPLEMENTATION AND REVIEW
The amendments to the Acts, provide retrospectively that no levy can be
imposed from 1 January 1998 and that no charge can be imposed on prawns
exported after 31 December 1997. This will give final effect to the
Minister’s decision to abolish levies/charges from 1 January
1998.
Action to collect outstanding levies and charges will be taken by
the Levies Unit in the Department of Primary Industries and
Energy.
Subject: Fisheries Management Act 1991
PROBLEM OR ISSUE IDENTIFICATION
The proposed legislative amendment is in response to disputes between
recreational/charter operators who fish for black marlin and blue marlin and
commercial tuna longline operators who take those species as bycatch. The
proposed amendment will prohibit the taking, carrying and processing of black
marlin and blue marlin by commercial operators.
Although black marlin and
blue marlin have little commercial value for commercial operators, those species
are the basis for the viability of charter operators. Recreational/charter
operators maintain that the incidental take of black marlin and blue marlin by
commercial operators negatively impacts on their activities in that it reduces
their catches of marlin and strike rates*. Charter operators maintain that this
has a significant adverse impact on their profitability because it reduces the
number of their clients.
The commercial and recreational/charter
industries recognise that conflict is harmful to them. The commercial tuna
longline industry instituted a voluntary code that required black marlin and
blue marlin to be returned to the sea if taken. However, a small number of
commercial operators ignored the voluntary ban.
* strike rate is the
ratio of the number of times a marlin is caught, compared to the number of times
a hook is put into the water.
SPECIFICATION OF THE DESIRED OBJECTIVE
The objective of the amendment is to enforce the current voluntary code
as it applies to the taking of black marlin and blue marlin by commercial
operators, so as to provide for a viable recreational/charter industry and
minimise resource use conflicts. A legislative base to the current voluntary
code will provide a regulatory framework that will help resolve the resource
allocation issue and define respective property rights.
In the longer
term, the resource allocation issue will be fully addressed by transferring
jurisdiction for recreational and charter fishing management to the States/NT.
In order to achieve this goal, on 12 May 1997 the Commonwealth Minister for
Resources and Energy, Senator the Hon Warwick Parer, approved the release of a
draft policy paper on the management of recreational and charter fishing. The
Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture (MCFFA) then agreed
to develop a policy to resolve this issue and is committed to implementing the
transfer as soon as possible
The Government believes that the
formalisation of an agreement for day-to-day management of recreational and
charter fishing predominantly by State and NT Governments is the most desirable
outcome for the Commonwealth and the prohibitions in respect of black marlin and
blue marlin will support this longer term initiative.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE OPTIONS
(REGULATORY AND
NON-REGULATORY)
Self-regulation
• Most commercial operators try to
avoid taking black marlin and blue marlin by setting their hooks and lines at
particular depths and certain times of the day. As there is no established
domestic market for black marlin or blue marlin in Australia, there is little
financial incentive for commercial operators to target them. Commercial
operators report that they actively try and avoid hooking black marlin and blue
marlin because they tangle the fishing lines.
• The Australian
Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) advises that logbook records show only a
small number of operators, very occasionally, have retained black marlin and
blue marlin, in some cases for personal consumption or as a trophy fish, while a
few are sold.
Quasi-regulation
• The current
arrangements in the commercial tuna longline fishery are quasi-regulatory.
Since 1988, they have operated under a voluntary code of conduct that requires
the release of all black marlin and blue marlin taken. However, a small number
of operators have ignored the code.
Non-market - transferable permits
or property rights
• Creation of stronger property rights is
the longer term objective. The eventual transfer of day-to-day management to
the States/NT will provide a stronger property right for the
recreational/charter industry. The prohibition in respect of black marlin and
blue marlin is an important precursor to that step.
Legislative
amendment
• An amendment to the Act is the simplest and best
method of reducing conflict in the fishery.
• There is a perception
that the code of conduct has not worked, resulting in continued calls from
recreational/charter operators for a “formal” prohibition on the
taking of game fish by commercial operators. The recommendations by the House
of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries, Resources and Rural
and Regional Affairs highlight the problems with the current code of conduct.
In particular, Recommendation 37 of their report urges AFMA to impose a ban on
the take, possession and landing of blue and black marlin in the Australian
fishing zone by commercial operators.
• The objectives contained in
the Fisheries Management Act 1991 do not allow AFMA to resolve this
situation by administrative means.
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS (COSTS AND BENEFITS)
Self regulation/quasi-regulation
• commercial fishing
industry
Costs
The cost to commercial operators for both
self regulation and quasi-regulation is the cost of avoiding taking black marlin
and blue marlin
Benefits
There are no direct benefits to
commercial operators from either self regulation or quasi-regulation. Calls
continue from the recreational/charter industry for the total exclusion of
commercial operators from game fishing areas such as Area E as a result of a
perception that they do not avoid taking game
fish.
• recreational/charter fishing
industry
Costs
There are no direct costs to the
recreational/charter fishing industry from self regulation by the commercial
industry. However, the viability of the recreational/charter fishing industry
could be threatened if tuna longline operators ignored the code of conduct and
landed black marlin and blue marlin.
Recreational/charter operators
maintain that the incidental take of black marlin and blue marlin by commercial
operators reduces their catches of marlin and strike rates. Charter operators
maintain that this also has a significant adverse impact on their profitability
because it reduces the number of their
clients.
Benefits
The benefit to the
recreational/charter fishing industry of self regulation or quasi-regulation is
enhanced viability.
Self regulation and quasi-regulation have not worked
to resolve the market failure, consequently a legislative amendment is the most
effective solution.
In the longer term, the transfer of day-to-day
management to the States/NT in conjunction with the prohibition on commercial
operators will provide a strong system of property rights for the
recreational/charter fishing industry and deal with the market failure and
resource allocation problems.
Amendment to the
Act
• commercial fishing industry
Costs
There
should be minimal to no cost on commercial longline operators because there is
already a voluntary prohibition in place, which commercial operators and AFMA
claim is being complied with.
The administrative costs of administering
and enforcing the prohibition is estimated by AFMA to be about $66,000 a year.
The question of whether industry will be required to contribute to these costs,
or the extent of their contributions, has not yet been decided. It is expected
that the commercial industry will not be required to fund the analysis under
section 15B.
Benefits
There are no direct financial benefits to
the commercial fishing industry, but the amendment will provide economic
benefits by reducing the potential for conflict and allowing stability for
planning and further development of the industry.
A legislative
prohibition should reduce complaints about commercial operators from the
recreational/charter fishing industry, reduce pressure to exclude tuna
longliners from game fishing areas and address the perception that commercial
operators do not avoid taking black marlin and blue
marlin.
• recreational/charter fishing
industry
Costs
If there is no restrictions on the
recreational/charter industry through the legislative amendment then there will
be no costs imposed on that sector of
industry.
Benefits
Recreational/charter operators have been the
main proponents for a prohibition on the taking of black marlin and blue marlin
by commercial operators. They argue that the taking of game fish by commercial
operators is reducing the charter industry’s capacity to attract tourists,
and that greater economic benefits are obtained through tourism and game fishing
than through the sale of game fish taken by commercial
operators.
• regional economies
Costs
Both the
commercial fishing industry and the recreational/charter fishing industry are
important to regional economies, particularly in the Cairns/Far North Queensland
region. Area E, for example, currently generates an estimated $5 million
directly through game fishing, with a significantly higher flow on effect
claimed, and nearly $6 million through commercial tuna fishing. Based on these
figures, clearly both sectors are very important to the local economy.
As
demonstrated above, the proposed amendment should have minimal to no costs for
regional economies.
Benefits
There are benefits to regional
economies in resolving this contentious issue between the commercial fishing
industry and the recreational/charter fishing industry, particularly in Area E.
Since both industries are an important part of some regional economies, the
proposed amendment should give more stability by providing economic
sustainability for both the recreational and charter fishing industries, which
are important parts of the tourist industry, as well as for the commercial
fishing industry.
Cost to Government
The administrative
costs of administering and enforcing the prohibition should be relatively small
if it was limited to commercial operators. AFMA estimates that an enforcement
program would cost about $66,000 a year. AFMA also advises that there would be
considerable industry opposition if it was proposed that the program be industry
funded. The analysis under section 15B will be funded through the
Commonwealth’s ongoing fisheries research program.
If the marlin
catch by the recreational/charter industry was regulated, then costs would
increase. However if regulation of the recreational/charter industry is
deferred until the transfer of day-to-day management to the States/NT, then
additional costs are likely to be minimal.
Restrictions on
competition
The amendment will not lead to any restrictions on
competition because it is in effect providing legislative force to the voluntary
code.
Effects on small business
There should be minimal to
no effect on small business as the amendment will mean no real difference in
practice for small business in either the commercial fishing industry or the
recreational/charter fishing industry.
Consultation
There has been extensive consultation through input for the Australian
National Audit Office (ANAO) report, Audit Report No. 32 1995-96,
Commonwealth Fisheries Management - Australian Fisheries Management Authority
and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries,
Resources and Rural and Regional Affairs report Managing Commonwealth
Fisheries: The Last Frontier, which was in response to the ANAO report.
The main parties affected by the amendment are the commercial fishing
industry, the recreational fishing industry, the charter fishing industry and
the relevant regional economies. All of these parties have had input to the
reports from the ANAO and the House of Representatives Standing Committee. In
addition, there has been significant consultation at the Ministerial
level.
In summary, the view of each of the main parties affected by the
amendment are as follows:
• commercial fishing industry
The
commercial fishing industry has stated that it does not have a problem with a
prohibition, so long as it applies only to the taking of black marlin and blue
marlin in the Australian fishing zone, since the industry does not target those
species of marlin and any catch is incidental. The commercial fishing industry
would strongly oppose the extension of the ban to other species, such as striped
marlin. The industry code of practice introduced in 1988 to require the release
of all black and blue marlin reflects that
position.
• recreational/charter fishing industry
The
recreational/charter fishing industry has long been pushing for a prohibition on
the taking of black marlin and blue marlin by commercial tuna operators. The
proposed amendment has been initiated in response to their concerns, without
imposing any additional major impediments to their
industry.
• regional economies
The Far North Queensland
Network, representing Cairns and the local region, which is the area most
affected by the proposed amendments, have argued for the need to protect both
the commercial and recreational/charter fishing industries as both are equally
important to the local economy.
Recommendation
The
preferred option is to accept a legislative amendment to the Fisheries
Management Act 1991 to prohibit the commercial taking of black marlin and
blue marlin in the Australian fishing zone.
IMPLEMENTATION AND REVIEW
• The amendment will be administered by
AFMA.
• Enforcement will be undertaken by AFMA. The penalty for
breaching the prohibition will be 125 penalty units.
• Fisheries
legislation is to be reviewed in 1998-99 for the purposes of the National
Competition Policy. This amendment will be reviewed along with the other
fisheries legislation.
• AFMA will report on the impact of this
amendment through its annual reporting process. In addition MCFFA will progress
the transfer of day-to-day management to the States/NT and assess the impact and
implications of the prohibition in this context.
• The amendment is
very simple to implement and enforce. The impact on small business will be
minimal.
NOTES ON INDIVIDUAL CLAUSES
Clause 1: Short
title.
This clause provides for the Act to be called the Fisheries
Legislation Amendment Act (No.1) 1998.
Clause 2:
Commencement
This clause provides for the Act to commence 28 days
after the day it receives Royal Assent, except for specified provisions which
are taken to have commenced on 1 July 1997 and other specified provisions which
commence 3 years after day the Act receives Royal Assent.
Clause 3:
Schedule(s)
This clause provides that the Charge Act, the Levy Act
and the Export Promotion Act are to be amended and repealed as set out in the
Schedules.
Clause 4: Saving - levy and charge
collection
This clause provides that the Acts to be repealed,
including Regulations and agreements made under the Acts, will continue to apply
after the repeal in relation to a levy or charge imposed before the repeal as if
the repeal had not happened.
Schedule 1 - Amendment of the
Fisheries Management Act 1991
Item 1: At the end of Part
2
This item inserts a prohibition against taking black marlin and
blue marlin in the Australian Fishing Zone. Exempt from the prohibition are
holders of scientific permits that authorise taking of the fish and persons
taking the fish in the course of recreational fishing or using a charter boat
for fishing. The item also provides a defence to a prosecution if the person
charged satisfies the court that he or she took steps to return the fish to its
natural environment immediately and for an analysis to be commenced, within 12
months, of the numbers of the species in the AFZ including the impact of fishing
permitted under section 15A. A report of the completed analysis has to be
tabled before each House of Parliament as soon as practicable and, in any case,
within 2 years.
Schedule 2 - Amendment and repeal of the Prawn Boat
Levy Act 1995
Part 1 - Amendment that is taken to have
commenced on 1 July 1997
Item 1: Subsection 5(2)
This
item substitutes a new subsection which defines each of the three levy periods
under the Levy Act. The final levy period ended on 31 December
1997.
Part 2 - Repeal that commences 3 years after the day on which
this Act receives the Royal Assent
Item 2: The whole of the
Act
This item repeals the Levy Act.
Schedule 3 - Amendment
and repeal of the Prawn Export Charge Act 1995
Part 1 -
Amendment that is taken to have commenced on 1 July 1997
Item 1:
At the end of section 4
This item amends the section so that charges
are only imposed on prawns exported from Australia on or before 31 December
1997.
Part 2 - Repeal that commences 3 years after the day on which
this Act receives the Royal Assent
Item 2: The whole of the
Act
This item repeals the Charge Act.
Schedule 4 - Repeal
of the Prawn Export Promotion Act 1995
Item 1: The whole of
the Act
This item repeals the Export Promotion Act.