Investigations that did not proceed directly to an enforcement response

ANAO Report No.3 2015–16 Regulation of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Permits and Approvals 120 and when the decision was made. 136 The ANAO found that the officer making the enforcement decision and the date when the decision was made was unclear in 21 cases 41.2 per cent and 18 cases 35.3 per cent, respectively.

7.32 In general, the reasons for the enforcement action applied for permit

non-compliance have been poorly documented. For the 51 completed permit-related investigations examined by the ANAO, the FMCU had retained documentation to sufficiently explain the reasons underpinning the enforcement decision in only seven cases 13.7 per cent. In the case of 30 permit-related investigations 58.8 per cent, no documentation has been retained to explain the reasons underpinning enforcement decisions with partially complete documentation retained for the remaining 14 investigations. 137 The absence of reasons for enforcement decisions makes it difficult for GBRMPA to demonstrate the appropriateness and consistency of its decisions, including issuing advisory letters to offenders with a history of poor compliance 138 and pursuing different enforcement outcomes for prima-facie similar offences.

7.33 Given the identified weaknesses in enforcement decision-making, there

is considerable scope for GBRMPA to deliver more consistent decision-making by improving the documentation of its enforcement actions by: • explicitly considering all relevant factors, including aggravating and mitigating circumstances, when determining an appropriate response; and • examining how the proposed enforcement action compares to recent decisions for relevant past cases. Implementation of enforcement actions

7.34 Enforcement decisions, once taken, are required to be executed

effectively to achieve the intended purpose of addressing non-compliance. In relation to permit-related non-compliance, this commonly involves the provision of advisory notices to, or public education of, offenders and the receipt of 136 The officer making the enforcement decision may be different to the investigating officer who may recommend a course of action, the officer who informs the offenderpermit holder of the decision or the officer who records the case information in the CMIS database. 137 The type of enforcement action taken such as advisory letter or prosecution had little or no bearing on the extent to which reasons for decisions were documented. 138 A poor compliance history is an aggravating factor to consider when determining an appropriate enforcement response. In those circumstances where a permit holder has a poor compliance history, a more punitive measure may be necessary to discourage future non-compliance.