In the absence of established targets and routine monitoring, the ANAO

ANAO Report No.3 2015–16 Regulation of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Permits and Approvals 121 infringement notice fines. Overall, enforcement actions have been executed as intended by GBRMPA and the FMCU, including: for 33 of the 35 investigations that resulted in advisory letters being sent to offenders 139 ; and an offender’s payment of a permit-related infringement notice fine. Nevertheless, there were a small number of cases that indicate that GBRMPA’s implementation of enforcement activities may benefit from further attention, such as non-compliance investigations resulting in public education enforcement actions that were closed before the education of the offenderpermit holder occurred. As at April 2015, education action had yet to take place in respect of at least two cases some five to seven months after the enforcement decision. Conclusion

7.35 While GBRMPA is working to establish a suite of compliance policy,

strategy and guidance documentation, the material developed to date is generally in draft form and does not address all relevant considerations. Further, the established guidance for staff determining appropriate enforcement responses is limited. There is significant scope for GBRMPA to improve compliance and enforcement guidance materials to assist staff to effectively respond to non-compliance in a consistent and timely manner.

7.36 Many instances of non-compliance that were evident from GBRMPA’s

permit monitoring activities undertaken by the EAP Section were not reported to the FMCU and, as a result, were not recorded in CMIS to enable analysis and assessment to be completed. These weaknesses in documenting permit non-compliance adversely impact on GBRMPA’s ability to develop an informed view of risks posed and address non-compliance in a timely manner.

7.37 Where permit-related non-compliance incidents have been recorded,

procedures determining those matters to be investigated and their relative priority for investigation were generally not followed by the FMCU. In relation to the conduct of permit-related investigations, the evidence gathered generally supported the enforcement action that was pursued by the FMCU. Nevertheless, on many occasions, evidence was not retained by the FMCU to indicate that permit holders’ compliance histories were taken into account as part of the investigation process. 139 Advisory letters issued for permit-related breaches in two other investigations failed to mention the permit number and the condition that was breached.