Permit assessment templates are not used for the assessment of permit

ANAO Report No.3 2015–16 Regulation of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Permits and Approvals 54 Table 3.1: Common mandatory considerations when assessing permit applications Mandatory Considerations Matters Considered a Impact of proposed conduct on the environment and on the social, cultural and heritage values of the Marine Park • Specifying approved or allowed: − zone locations − accessactivitypassengervessel limits − permit periods − research collection methods • Native title notifications • Consideration of GBR heritage values • Known historic sites protected by legislation b Options for monitoring, managing and mitigating the potential impacts of the proposed conduct • Risk assessment • Permit conditions • Compliance monitoring c The objectives of the zone as set out in the zoning plan where the proposed conduct will take place • Assessment of conduct allowednot allowed in the different zones d Any relevant assessment documentation and conditions attached to any approval or permit granted under the EPBC Act • Considered where applicable but not usually relevant for routine applications e Written comments received about the application in response to public advertisements • Considered where applicable f Any other matters relevant to the orderly and proper management of the Marine Park • Permit conditions that aid GBRMPA, such as: retention of permit; extending permit conditions to cover permit holders’ staff; and vessel exchange requirements Source: GBRMP Regulation 88Q and GBRMPA’s permit assessment templates.

3.8 Of the seven customised permit assessments involving major facilities or

structures, two satisfactorily considered all common mandatory considerations. However, five assessments that were approved by the delegate did not contain evidence to demonstrate that all mandatory considerations had been fully addressed in respect of: • three assessments involving existing facilitiesstructures that did not ascertain the condition of all facilitiesstructures at the time of the ANAO Report No.3 2015–16 Regulation of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Permits and Approvals 55 assessment or comment on the significance to the assessment of not having done so 64 ; • one of the three assessments above recommended that GBRMPA approve an environmental management plan a key management document that only partially covered the operation of 18 of the 20 existing facilities so as to address the then unlawful operation of these facilities due to the expiry of the previous permit 65 ; • one assessment that justified the setting of the bond amount solely on the minimum bond amount for Level 4 projects provided as a guide in GBRMPA’s permit assessment policy—without reference to the likely costs to restore the environment and remove the facilities should the development fail or the proponent become insolvent; and • one assessment that did not specify the proposed permit conditions to be put in place to monitor, manage and mitigate potential impacts Reg.88Qb and to orderly and properly manage the Marine Park Reg.88Qf. In this case, the reasons for the decision documented by the delegate outlined the relevant permit conditions to varying degrees of specificity.

3.9 The evidence retained by GBRMPA to demonstrate that it has

appropriately assessed permit applications involving the take of protected species a specific mandatory consideration under Reg.88S has also been variable. Two of the five affected applications examined by the ANAO met all assessment requirements, while the remaining three were either partially assessed against requirements one or were not assessed against any of the requirements two. 64 Including one assessment report that mentioned that ‘several of the [maintenance] certificates state the facilities are fit for purpose subject to the completion of works’, but did not indicate that one of the facilities was found to be in such a poor state that it was closed to the public until remedial works were undertaken. The assessing officer did not obtain independent evidence to supplement the representations of the permit holder that the required remedial works had been completed. 65 Although the assessing officer also considered that the environmental management plan should be revised within six months of the approval, no permit condition was attached to the approval to make this a requirement, nor had GBRMPA requested the permit holder to update the plan in the seven months since the permit was approved.