Web viewResponse to public consultation on proposed changes. Improving the . Great Barrier Reef Marine Park . permission system. March 2016. Contents. Introduction3. About

Response to public consultation on proposed changes

Improving the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

permission system

March 2016

Contents

Introduction.............................................................................................................................3

About the consultation............................................................................................................3

Overall response.....................................................................................................................4

Out of scope............................................................................................................................5

Overall survey results.............................................................................................................6

Proposal 1: Minimising decision timeframes........................................................................9

Level of support for minimising decision timeframes...........................................................9

Themes raised in consultation...............................................................................................9

GBRMPA response..............................................................................................................10

Proposal 2: Expanding the standard ‘routine’ tourism permit...........................................12

Level of support for expanding the standard ‘routine’ tourism permit..............................12

Themes raised in consultation.............................................................................................12

GBRMPA response..............................................................................................................13

Proposal 3: Requiring relevant information with an application........................................14

Level of support for requiring information with an application...........................................14


GBRMPA response..............................................................................................................15

Proposal 4: Changing the permit fee system......................................................................17

Level of support for changes to the permit fee system......................................................17


GBRMPA response..............................................................................................................18

Proposal 5: Removing duplication with the EPBC Act.......................................................19

Level of support for removing duplication with the EPBC Act...........................................19


GBRMPA response..............................................................................................................20

Proposal 6: Identifying different assessment processes...................................................21

Level of support for identifying different assessment processes......................................21


GBRMPA response..............................................................................................................22

Proposal 7: Improving the assessment criteria..................................................................23

Level of support for changing the assessment criteria......................................................23


GBRMPA response..............................................................................................................24

1

Proposal 8: Evaluating prudent and feasible alternatives.................................................25

Level of support for evaluating alternatives........................................................................25


GBRMPA response..............................................................................................................26

Proposal 9: Changing the public advertising requirements...............................................28

Level of support for changing the public advertising requirements..................................28


GBRMPA response..............................................................................................................29

Proposal 10: Changing the process for suspending and revoking permits......................30

Level of support for changing the process for suspending and revoking permits............30


GBRMPA response..............................................................................................................31

Proposal 11: Expanding limited impact research...............................................................32

Level of support for changes to limited impact research...................................................32


GBRMPA response..............................................................................................................33

Proposal 12: Defining impacts.............................................................................................35

Level of support for adding a definition of ‘impacts’...........................................................35


GBRMPA response..............................................................................................................35

Proposal 13: Using risk management tools........................................................................36

Level of support for changing how risk management tools are used...............................36


GBRMPA response..............................................................................................................37

Proposal 14: Managing facilities..........................................................................................38

Level of support for changing how facilities are managed................................................38


GBRMPA response..............................................................................................................39

Proposal 15: Setting permit terms.......................................................................................40

Level of support for changing permit terms........................................................................40


GBRMPA response..............................................................................................................41

Conclusion............................................................................................................................42

Out of scope..........................................................................................................................43

2

Introduction

About the consultationBetween 16 October 2015 and 18 December 2015, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) conducted its first round of public consultation on improving its permission system.

The permission system refers to legislation, policies, guidelines and procedures that we use to manage activities which require our permission, accreditation or notification. More information about the permission system can be found on our website.

This first round of consultation was part of a five-year project which began in January 2015 as part of our ongoing commitment to continuous improvement. The project is aimed at maintaining environmental protection and reducing administrative burden in the permission system. The project will result in changes to legislation, policy, guidelines and procedures.

Many of these changes were identified in key documents: Great Barrier Reef Strategic Assessment Region Program Report (Program Report),

released in August 2014, identified enhancements to the permission system that were required to support approval of GBRMPA for a class of actions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation 1999 (EPBC Act).

Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan , released in March 2015, identified a range of actions to protect Great Barrier Reef values, including improvements to the permission system.

The Australian National Audit Office’s Regulation of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park permits and approvals , released in August 2015, identified deficiencies in the consistency and transparency of how the permission system is administered.

This project is not considering any changes to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan 2003 or plans of management.

A second round of public consultation is planned for mid-2016.

3

Phase One (2015-2017)Round 1 Consultation - October to December 2015Round 2 Consultation - mid-2016Changes take effect - 1 July 2017

Phase Two (2017-2020)Details not yet scopedWill include public consultationChanges take effect - 1 July 2020

http://apo.org.au/resource/regulation-great-barrier-reef-marine-park-permits-and-approvals

http://apo.org.au/resource/regulation-great-barrier-reef-marine-park-permits-and-approvals

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/reef-2050

http://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/bitstream/11017/2860/1/GBR%20Region%20SA_Program%20Report_FINAL.pdf

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/zoning-permits-and-plans/permits

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/zoning-permits-and-plans/permits

During the first round of consultation, we contacted all permit holders and permit applicants from the past three years. They were invited to share their direct experiences of the system and provide suggestions for improvements.

We also advertised the public consultation period on our website, and notified our Local Marine Advisory Committees, Reef Advisory Committees and other networks to encourage feedback. More than 2400 direct invitations were emailed and posted. We also hosted public information sessions in Townsville, Cairns and Airlie Beach.

Our consultation document ‘Improving the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park permission system’ described changes being considered by the agency. We invited comment on these proposed changes, including feedback on how the changes may impact on individuals, businesses or the community.

People were encouraged to provide written comments by: completing a short written survey at an information session sending a letter submission sending an email submission completing an anonymous online survey.

Overall response

In total, we received 137 written responses two written surveys at the Airlie Beach information session one letter submission 28 email submissions 106 online surveys.

This represents a 5.7 per cent response rate to direct invitations (137 responses from 2400 direct invitations). This figure does not include community members reached through our website, social media, word of mouth or other indirect means.

Formal written submissions were received from groups or individuals aligned with:• tourism (9)• ports and industry (4)• state government departments (4) • conservation/environmental groups (3)• scientific research (2) • local government authorities (2)• education (1); commercial fishing (1); Australian Government agency (1); Traditional Owner

(1); and community/resident (1).

We acknowledge the low response rate from Traditional Owners, and are working with our Indigenous Reef Advisory Committee to ensure the views of Traditional Owners are understood and considered.

About 53 per cent of survey respondents completed the entire survey, including rating their support for each of the proposed changes.

4

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/240128/Public-consultation-document-Improving-the-permission-system.pdf

This document is a combined summary of survey results and written submissions. There is a section for each proposed change, with survey statistics (reflecting overall ratings of support provided by respondents), a summary of themes and how we plan to respond to these suggestions.

NOTES: How consultation outcomes are reported in this document

Each section shows the level of support recorded in the online survey for each proposal. Not all questions were answered — as a result, the level of support shows the number of responses on which the statistics are based. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

The online survey asked people to rate their level of support for the proposed change on a scaleof 0 (do not support) to 10 (fully support). An option of ‘unable to rate’ was also provided.

Each proposal included a comment box. In many cases, the proposal had several options or elements. A comment box was valuable in capturing instances where people may support some parts of the proposal but not others.

Comments have been summarised in this document, and in some cases further explanation has been provided to help people understand the feedback. As surveys were anonymous, the project team could not seek clarification from the person making the comment. Any misinterpretation of comments is unintended.

We have not listed every single comment made; rather, we have summarised and reported on common themes, focusing on those mentioned by several people or groups. The project team has read every comment and submission made, and all comments have been discussed and considered in formulating our proposed response.

Out of scope Many people used this public consultation process to comment on matters outside the scope of this project. Comments included suggested changes to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan, and procedures for monitoring compliance within the Marine Park. These comments have been captured in Appendix A, along with an explanation of why they are not being considered in this project and what action we may take to respond to them.

5

Overall survey results

The online survey generated responses from a wide range of stakeholder groups and regions. The charts below illustrate the different types of stakeholders who responded to the online survey.

6

7

8

9

Proposal 1: Minimising decision timeframes

Many of GBRMPA’s proposed changes are about streamlining and speeding up decisions on low-risk applications to allow more resources to be directed to assessing medium and high-risk applications. The consultation sought feedback on the impact of decision timeframes and suggestions for reducing unnecessary administrative steps.

Level of support for minimising decision timeframes

42%

31%

18%

7%3%Survey Summary - 62 responses

Fully support (rating 10)

Generally support (rating 6-9)

Undecided (rating 5 / unable to rate)

Limited support (rating 1-4)

Do not support (rating 0)

Themes raised in consultation

Comments in support Broad general support for minimising decision timeframes as long as environmental

protection was maintained. Current decision timeframes impact on business income, job security and project

schedules. Delays result in knock-on effects through other parts of the economy. Delays affect the ability to make long-term business decisions and plans, especially taking

future bookings. Delays prevent scientists from conducting cutting-edge research or rapidly responding to

unforeseen situations.

Concerns raised Not clear what GBRMPA considers to be low risk so it is difficult to determine whether it

would be appropriate to streamline such assessments. Shortening timeframes may reduce environmental protection and place greater pressure on

GBRMPA staff to rush through decisions without properly considering all the information. Community consultation could be more difficult if there was a rush to make a decision. GBRMPA needs to maintain a flexible approach to dealing with applications, in recognition

that many situations are different. For example, research related to coral bleaching and coral spawning are time critical.

Mandating statutory timeframes may inhibit GBRMPA’s ability to thoroughly consider an application.

GBRMPA should be looking at increasing resources dedicated to permit assessment, not reducing resources and streamlining decisions.

Specific suggestions Introduce statutory timeframes (in legislation) for key steps in the process, such as a

maximum timeframe for making a decision on an application.

10

Match statutory timeframes with deemed approvals for low-risk activities, so a permit is granted automatically if a decision is not made within required timeframes.

Introduce class permissions or ‘permits available’ system to allocate permits. Introduce preliminary or concept approvals, similar to those in Queensland’s Sustainable

Planning Act 2009, to cater for complex major projects. This allows the general concept to be approved at an early stage so investment can be secured for more detailed planning and design stages.

Provide a clearer definition of low, medium and high risk and an appropriate approach to assessing each, so permit applicants know how long decisions may take.

Consider continuation applications and applications from people who meet certain standards (such as Eco-Tourism Australia or Marine Stewardship Council accreditation) as low risk, and fast-track these decisions.

Develop better guidance materials and checklists for applicants. Communicate better with applicants about how their application is progressing, including

through the use of online application tracking tools. Conduct more pre-application meetings so people know up-front what is required and how

long the process is likely to take. Pursue more joint assessments and permits with other agencies, in addition to existing joint

permitting arrangements with Queensland Marine Parks. Suggestions included joint permits with Maritime Safety Queensland, Australian Maritime Safety Agency and Queensland Fisheries.

Allow permit holders to make minor changes to permits without requiring an application for an entirely new permit or an onerous review of changes.

Continuation applications should be fast-tracked and not subject to the same level of assessment as new permit applications.

GBRMPA staff who assess applications would benefit from more experience in the field, so they have a better understanding of operations and facilities.

Government agencies should coordinate and consult more with one another, rather than expecting individual applicants to do this.

GBRMPA responseHaving considered these comments, we propose to take the following actions to minimise decision timeframes in phase one of the project (for implementation in July 2017):

1. Improve online tools for permit applications.2. Publish new application guidelines to help people understand and navigate the

application process.3. Establish voluntary service level standards in new policy to test and fine-tune potential

statutory timeframes. 4. Proceed with other initiatives (outlined elsewhere in this document) that will improve

efficiency while maintaining strong environmental protection.

In phase two of the project, we propose the following measures (for implementation in July 2020): 5. Explore the merits and options for introducing statutory timeframes, such as those

already enacted by the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and Queensland’s Sustainable Planning Act.

6. Consider opportunities to reduce duplication with other regulatory agencies, such as through joint assessments or permits.

7. Further consider how we manage complex, concept-level applications, and explore the merits of ‘preliminary approvals’.

11

12

Proposal 2: Expanding the standard ‘routine’ tourism permit

GBRMPA is considering expanding and clarifying the list of activities, types of locations and other limits (such as vessel size or passenger numbers) allowed on a standard or ‘routine’ tourism permit. The consultation invited suggestions on what may be appropriate for a low-risk ‘routine’ tourism permit.

Level of support for expanding the standard ‘routine’ tourism permit

28%

31%

21%

3%

18%Survey summary - 61 responses







Comments in support More flexibility for operators in terms of passenger numbers and vessel sizes would be

positive. Broad support to include more passive activities such as swimming, snorkelling, diving,

guided tours and non-motorised watersports on a ‘routine’ tourism permit. Support for small boats (less than 12 metres) to be allowed on a ‘routine’ tourism permit.

Concerns raised Question whether tourism is actually low impact, especially at a cumulative scale. No additional tourism should be encouraged in the Marine Park, given the many pressures

already affecting it. Existing use levels should be capped. All applications should be assessed individually; there should not be automatic ‘tick and

flick’ applications. Tourism levels in some areas of the Marine Park (especially the Whitsundays) are already

high. Concern that this proposal would make it easier for more people to obtain permits, or permits for unsuitable activities (such as motorised watersports) in sensitive or crowded areas.

Concern that this proposal would override existing plans of management, for example allowing larger group sizes or certain activities in locations where they are currently not allowed. [GBRMPA clarification: Even if an activity is listed on a permit, conduct of the activity is still subject to restrictions set in plans of management and the Zoning Plan.]

Maximum vessel size limits need to be appropriate to the location.

Specific suggestions GBRMPA should consider only granting ‘routine’ tourism permits to operators who meet a

certain eligibility standard, such as High Standard Tourism Operators or Reef Guardians.

13

In determining appropriate passenger limits for the ‘routine’ tourism permit, there is a need to consider the new modern vessels operating on the Reef.

Passenger numbers could be limited to the overnight capacity of vessel. Hydro-flight sports (such as flyboarding) and scenic flights should be allowed under ‘routine’

tourism permits. Whale watching should not be allowed on a ‘routine’ tourism permit. Motorised watersports (such as jet skis) should not be allowed in certain areas.

GBRMPA response Having considered these comments, we propose to take the following actions in phase one of the project (for implementation in July 2017):

1. Release proposed guidelines for what constitutes a low risk or ‘routine’ tourism permit for public comment in mid-2016.

2. Pending the results of the second round of consultation, proceed with changes to create a new, more flexible ‘routine’ tourism permit.

14

Proposal 3: Requiring relevant information with an application

GBRMPA is proposing to introduce minimum information requirements in the agency’s permit application form — the specific requirements would differ for different types of proposals, and the information would need to be provided before the application could be accepted. For applicants, this would increase consistency, and allow them to plan ahead for the cost of obtaining information, while also saving time and effort in seeking further information.

Level of support for requiring information with an application

43%

38%

15%2% 3%

Survey summary – 61 online responses







Comments in support General support and many comments that this is already required for most development

assessment processes. This will create administrative efficiencies for GBRMPA which should speed up permit

assessments. This is good for applicants because it will provide greater certainty about what information

will be required. Should improve consistency for applicants in their dealings with GBRMPA, especially where

an application is re-assigned to a new assessment officer.

Concerns raised The information required with an application needs to reflect minimum standards based on

risk and complexity, and should be consistent with what other agencies require. GBRMPA needs to retain the ability to request further information if required. Depending on how much information is required, this could significantly increase up-front

costs, with no guarantee of approval. While it is good to require information up-front, there needs to be some flexibility. For

example, weather conditions can make it difficult to inspect moorings and other facilities. Time extensions should be granted where lack of information for a continuation application could result in the permit expiring.

For complex projects, there needs to be an ability to provide draft or conceptual information at the time of application, but not be bound by this. As the project develops, and more studies are conducted, more detailed and accurate information can be provided to support the final decision.

15

There were mixed views on how prescriptive the information requirements should be. Some people said the requirements needed to be very clear, to avoid an application being rejected. Others cautioned that GBRMPA should not overstep and mandate particular methodologies, but instead focus on describing the outcomes or level of detail needed to be demonstrated by the applicant to meet each information requirement. Another wanted to avoid overly prescriptive lists or inflexible standards. Overall, there was agreement that the information requirements needed to be implemented in a way that provides applicants with certainty about what was required, but does not stifle innovation.

Specific suggestions On whether continuation applications should be subject to same requirements as new permit applications: Continuation applications should not require the same amount of information as new permit

applications. GBRMPA should introduce automatic permit renewals (without a full assessment of impacts

and mitigation measures) if no compliance issues have been found with the existing permit holder.

Further recommendations, ideas and suggestions from respondents included: The application forms should be specific to each activity (tourism, research, marine

infrastructure) and clearly list the information required for that activity. Would be useful to have a general ‘information required’ checklist, and support this with

detailed guidelines about what types of studies, information or plans would satisfy GBRMPA for each piece of information. Wouldn’t want the application form to become overly complicated by trying to explain all the detail of the information requirements.

A lower burden of supporting information may be required of operators who meet certain eligibility standards (such as third party accreditation), providing another incentive to achieve these standards.

Accept file notes of meetings and telephone conversations as ways to meet information requirements, not merely formal written documents. This can significantly speed up processes.


1. Ensure the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations allow the agency to reject an application on the basis that not all the required information has been provided.

2. Update application forms to make them specific to each activity and generate a list of the minimum information required at the time of application specific to that activity type. We will consider the risk level and complexity of the proposed activity when determining the application information requirements.

3. Publish guidelines which explain in more detail what is needed to satisfy application information requirements. From July 2017, the guidelines would cover the most common application types, with further explanatory material for other application types added as resources allow.

4. Ensure the Regulations allow the agency to offer an extension of time for continuation applications to submit the application information in certain circumstances.

5. Publish guidelines that explain the circumstances in which an extension of time may be granted by a delegate, such as:

16

a. where a public service or private business would be seriously compromised by the permit expiring

b. where the applicant has taken reasonable steps to provide the information before the existing permit expires.

6. Retain in the Regulations the ability for the agency to request further information (after an application is accepted) if this information is needed to complete a proper assessment.

In phase two of the project (for implementation in July 2020), we propose the following:7. Explore the merits and options for creating a new assessment level specific to certain

low risk continuation applications.8. Consider whether third party accreditation schemes could be accepted for certain

elements of the agency’s assessment.

17

Proposal 4: Changing the permit fee system

GBRMPA is considering making the permit application fee payable (or partly paid if it is a large project) at the time of application. The correct fee would need to be paid before the application could be considered valid. The consultation also sought suggestions on simplifying the fee structure.

Level of support for changes to the permit fee system

38%

32%

20%

2% 8%Survey summary – 60 online responses







Comments in support General support for requiring fees up-front, and comments that this is already standard

practice for most agencies. Support for simplifying and aligning the fee structure with assessment levels. Anyone who is serious about a proposal should not have an issue with paying an up-front

application fee. All commercial activities should attract a cost recovery or ‘user pays’ fee.

Concerns raised Prefer the existing system (where fees are invoiced after application) as it allows for more

flexibility in changing the proposal after discussion with GBRMPA. Need online tools or guidelines to help people determine which fee will apply, so they pay

the correct fee. Payment of a fee does not guarantee approval. It would be good to have guidance before

applying about the likelihood of the proposal’s approval. Alternately, a fee should only be charged for the granting of a permit, not if a permit application is refused.

Need guidance on which fee applies when there are several activities on the same permit – is it the combination of all the individual fees or only the highest individual fee?

Fees need to be reviewed to ensure they are realistic, based on the resources required by GBRMPA to assess the application.

Specific suggestions Use the same base fee for every application, with further fees determined and invoiced

once the level of assessment has been determined. Consider a payment schedule for new start-up businesses which may be struggling with up-

front finances.

18

Reduce duplication of fees where the same proposal undergoes assessment (and fee payment) across several agencies.


1. Change the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations to include a requirement for the correct fee to be paid before an application is accepted as valid.

2. Change the Regulations to ensure the agency can continue to collect fees for public environment reports and environmental impact statements, independent of decisions made under the EPBC Act.

3. Retain the existing staged fee payment system for complex applications (public advertisement, public environment report and environmental impact statement).

4. Ensure the ability to invoice for underpayment of fees or to refund for overpayment of fees.

5. Ensure the ability for an agency delegate to accept an application without the proper fee in exceptional circumstances.

6. Retain the ability to waive a fee on the basis the application requires only minimal assessment (Regulation 130).

7. Publish guidelines to better explain the existing fee system and the new changes. These will also explain that the fee represents partial cost recovery for government of the costs of processing, assessing and deciding on an application. For this reason, fees apply regardless of whether permission is granted or refused.

8. In July 2016, we will begin a full review of the agency’s cost recovery mechanisms, including the permit fee system, to meet Australian Government objectives. As part of this review, we will also explore the option of clearly aligning fees with assessment processes (see Proposal 6).

19

Proposal 5: Removing duplication with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

GBRMPA has committed to changing the permission system to adequately consider matters of national environment significance. This would allow the agency to seek Ministerial approval to undertake a single assessment which meets the requirements of both the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act). This type of situation arises very rarely and only occurs when a major activity is proposed entirely within the Marine Park. Most proposals would still require separate assessment under the EPBC Act, as most proposals include activities outside the Marine Park, such as in intertidal and port areas, or on the Queensland mainland or Queensland islands. The consultation sought feedback on this proposal.

Level of support for removing duplication with the EPBC Act

30%

28%

18%

3%

20%Survey summary - 60 online responses







Comments in support General support for streamlining and reducing duplication, provided environmental

standards are maintained. Single assessment processes are efficient and greatly reduce the financial burden on

applicants by reducing costs, timeframes and duplication of process. This is a sensible approach which would reduce costs to taxpayers. A positive step to advance the ‘one stop shop’ approach to major project decisions.

Concerns raised It is not clear how this would improve environmental protection. Removing a layer of

assessment would erode the proper ‘checks and balances’ built into the environmental protection system. This sets a dangerous precedent.

The Australian Minister for the Environment is the appropriate person to make decisions under the EPBC Act, and this responsibility should not be delegated elsewhere.

The objects of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act do not provide the same level of protection as the objects of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

Could increase the political pressure on GBRMPA to grant approvals. Given the complexity of both pieces of legislation, there is potential for hidden loopholes

which are not evident to the average person. GBRMPA is not the correct agency to take on this role, because the agency is:

o not sufficiently independent or neutral

20

o not sufficiently resourced, particularly for the additional compliance monitoring work that would be required

o not sufficiently skilled in terrestrial impact assessment.

Specific suggestions The opposite should also apply — where assessment is required under the EPBC Act or

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, a separate permit should not be required from GBRMPA.

The agency should take this further and require its assessment and decision policies to conform with national guidelines, policies and strategies (such as the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging).

GBRMPA should wait until the changes to the permission system are tested and demonstrated to be effective before seeking the Minister’s approval of a class of actions.

GBRMPA responseHaving considered these comments, we propose to take the following actions in phase one of the project (for implementation in July 2017):

1. Regardless of the decision on whether to seek approval for a class of actions, we will proceed with changes to the permission system identified in our Program Report. These represent improvements to our permission system which are worthy of pursuing on their own.

In phase two of the project, we propose the following (for implementation in July 2020):1. Continue discussions with the Australian Department of the Environment to determine

whether to seek the Minister’s approval of a class of actions and the most appropriate timing to do this. The Program Report identifies several other programs, policies and guidelines (which fall outside the scope of this review) that must be implemented before seeking the Minister’s approval. Some of these, such as the Reef Integrated Monitoring and Reporting Program , are likely to take several years to develop and implement. We will continue to work with the department to understand requirements and implications.

21

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/reef-2050/reef-integrated-monitoring-and-reporting-program

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/reef-2050/reef-integrated-monitoring-and-reporting-program

Proposal 6: Identifying different assessment processes

GBRMPA has committed to changing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations to introduce different types of assessment processes for different proposals, based on risk. The consultation sought feedback on whether the proposed processes were appropriate and how they should be assigned based on risk.

Level of support for identifying different assessment processes

35%

40%

19%

2% 5%Survey summary - 58 online responses







Comments raised in support Dedicating more time and resources to higher risk proposals is a common sense

approach. Identifying the assessment processes in the Regulations will make the permission

system clearer and more consistent. The five proposed assessment processes appear reasonable and seem to provide

enough flexibility to accommodate most types of applications.

Concerns raised Clear guidance on how risk levels would be assigned is critical. All risks to the Marine

Park’s values, as well as the views of stakeholders and Traditional Owners, need to be considered in this decision.

Risk assessment needs to be based on a transparent and consistent framework that uses best available knowledge and evidence, rather than perception.

Proponents could understate the risk to get an easier or faster assessment process. Traditional risk assessment models may not be appropriate for the tourism industry.

Need to engage with the tourism industry and consider the different types of tourism operations and their unique impacts.

Unclear how this proposal would actually help the Great Barrier Reef.

Specific suggestions An even lower level of assessment should be established, allowing ‘class permissions’

or ‘self-assessable’ permits for very low risk activities and potentially for long-standing uses where applicants are applying to continue their operation.

Another level should be established for continuation applications. They should not be subject to the same assessment process as new proposals.

22

Another level should be established for operators who achieve third-party accreditation (such as High Standard Tourism Operators).

Once an assessment process is selected, this should not be changed later. Doing so creates ‘shifting goal posts’ that reduce business certainty and prolong decision timeframes.

The different assessment processes should also have different assessment criteria. Regular, routine activities should qualify as lower risk activities. Because they have

been happening for a long time, or happen regularly, their impacts are well known. This includes maintenance dredging of existing harbours.


1. Add to the Regulations a list of the five proposed assessment processes. a. We do not propose to add a further assessment process to recognise

continuation applications at this time, because we believe existing activities and facilities should be subject to regular review and continuous improvement, in line with new knowledge and technology.

b. We do not propose to add class permissions, accreditations of other processes, or other suggested additional assessment processes at this time.

2. Ensure appropriate delegations and procedures are established for making a decision on the assessment process.

3. Ensure the Regulations allow for an agency delegate to change the assessment process at a later date if needed, but only if justified. Examples could include if the proposal changed substantially or if new information emerged about potential impacts. Without this ability, an applicant would need to withdraw their current application and submit a revised application. We believe this would result in greater administrative burden for both the applicant and the agency.

4. Publish guidelines for determining which assessment process should apply, detailing the processes, and explaining the situations in which a delegate may justify changing the assessment process. The guidelines are planned for public consultation in mid-2016.

5. Update the Environmental Impact Management Policy to reflect these changes, and release a draft for public consultation in mid-2016.

6. Through the permit fee review (see Proposal 4 – GBRMPA response number 8), explore the option of clearly aligning fees with assessment processes (see Proposal 6).

In phase two of the project, we propose the following (for implementation in July 2020):7. Consider the merits and options of additional assessment processes for:

a. class permissionsb. accreditation of assessments conducted by other agenciesc. low-risk continuation applications.

23

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/3847/gbrmpa_EnvironmentalImpactManagementPolicy_2004.pdf

Proposal 7: Improving the assessment criteria

GBRMPA is considering making changes to the criteria under which applications are assessed and decided. Specifically:

making all criteria mandatory rationalising the assessment criteria to reduce duplication rearranging the criteria in a more logical sequence.

The consultation sought ideas on improving the assessment criteria.

Level of support for changing the assessment criteria

32%

50%

12%7%

Survey summary - 60 online responses







Comments raised in support General support for streamlining and reorganising the long list of criteria. General support for making all criteria mandatory to improve consistency and

transparency.

Concerns raised Consideration of each criterion could create unnecessary work if they don’t add value to

a decision. It would not be good if applicants were required to provide information related to an irrelevant criterion.

In reviewing and streamlining the criteria, there is a need to be careful that none are lost or weakened in the process.

Some of GBRMPA’s assessment criteria are unique and not mirrored by the EPBC Act or Queensland development assessment legislation. By making all criteria mandatory, this could reduce the harmonisation of assessments and increase the likelihood of judicial reviews.

Need to think about why the criteria were originally split into mandatory and discretionary criteria before changing this.

Specific suggestions Continuation applications should have different assessment criteria than new permit

applications, or at least not all criteria should be mandatory.

24

There should be different assessment criteria for different types of applications or application processes. This would ensure only relevant information is required from applicants and considered by decision-makers.

Ideas for new or changed criteria included:o a requirement for tourism applicants to submit a realistic business plano consideration of not just the objective of a zone, but also the historical basis for

the zoning decision and any pre-existing uses at the time of zoning.


1. Make all criteria mandatory for all applications. Policies and guidelines will clarify the intention that all criteria must be considered and an initial decision made on which are relevant and irrelevant. A full assessment would then be required of all relevant criteria. The intention is not for every application to be fully assessed under every criteria, but rather to ensure every application is consistently and deliberately evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine which criteria are relevant. Where a criterion is deemed irrelevant, the assessment report would need to explain why the decision-maker deemed it irrelevant. Policies and guidelines clarifying this approach are planned for public consultation in mid-2016.

2. Reorganise and rationalise the assessment criteria. In doing so, we will carefully consider the reasons for the original wording and the implications of any changes, including conducting a legal review of the proposed re-wording. Policies and guidelines explaining the new assessment criteria are planned for public consultation in mid-2016.

3. Publish new guidelines explaining in ‘plain English’ what is considered under each assessment criterion. These guidelines will detail how the agency considers each assessment criterion. Draft guidelines are planned for public consultation in mid-2016.

4. Update templates and forms to reflect the new assessment criteria. A range of templates, forms and procedures will require updating before the new assessment criteria are planned to come into effect on 1 July 2017.

In phase two of the project, we propose to explore the merits and options for the following (for implementation in July 2020):

1. Consider allowing for a pass or fail decision to be made on some assessment criteria. Under the current Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations, we must assess an application against all relevant criteria and make a decision based on all the evidence. This can lead to situations where an application clearly ‘fails’ on a criterion, but time and effort must still be spent assessing against all the other criteria before a decision can be made. We want to explore with stakeholders whether some criteria are in fact more critical than others in making a decision. Examples could include where:

a. the application is clearly inconsistent with limits set in a plan of management or elsewhere in legislation

b. the applicant is not ‘a suitable person’ to hold such a permissionc. the proposal will cause unacceptable impacts to the values of the Marine Park.

2. Consider whether there should be different assessment criteria for continuation applications, for different activities or for different assessment processes. We are open to reconsidering this question based on stakeholders’ experiences with the new assessment criteria and guidelines which are planned to take effect in July 2017.

25

26

Proposal 8: Evaluating prudent and feasible alternatives

GBRMPA has committed to introducing a requirement that applicants for proposals that potentially impact on matters of national environmental significance evaluate lower risk alternatives and justify why their preferred option should be permitted. The consultation sought feedback from respondents on the practical implications this may have and whether this should be a new regulation or simply be explained in guidelines.

Level of support for evaluating alternatives

40%

40%

9%4% 7%

Survey summary – 57 online responses







Comments in support General support for requiring new proposals for medium to high-risk activities (those

requiring public consultation) to consider alternatives, but not for activities such as small-scale tourism that pose only a low risk.

Some support for all applicants to evaluate alternatives, provided the guidelines explain that lower risk activities require less detailed justification, while higher risk activities may need a robust cost-benefit analysis of multiple options.

It is important that the ‘do nothing’ alternative is consistently evaluated, to justify use of the Marine Park.

No issues as this is already required (under parallel assessment processes such as EPBC Act) for higher risk proposals, meaning it would not add to the regulatory burden for those applicants.

Concerns raised Does not seem to fit into GBRMPA’s aim to streamline and reduce regulation. This adds

a new, complex requirement for applicants. It is acceptable to require applicants to explain what alternative sites they have ruled

out, but GBRMPA should not place conditions on a permit requiring a different site to be used. GBRMPA’s existing ability to refuse an application should be used if the proposed site is not acceptable.

If GBRMPA takes a narrow view confined to the Marine Park, this can lead to unintended negative outcomes. For example, GBRMPA may refuse an application that has the best environmental outcome (such as ocean disposal of waste or dredge spoil), thereby causing a greater overall environmental impact if the material is then forced to be disposed of in a less suitable site on land.

27

General agreement that continuation applications (for pre-existing activities or facilities) should not have to evaluate alternatives, unless specific issues or impacts have been experienced during the previous permit term.

This may impact on long-term or ongoing research projects if they now have to justify their activities or use of a site. If changes are made to how a research project is conducted, long-term comparisons and monitoring are compromised.

Recent and relevant option analyses should be accepted by GBRMPA, for example where an applicant has already evaluated alternatives for another regulatory agency.

Applicants are unlikely to openly and honestly evaluate alternatives. They have already made up their minds and settled on a proposal which they think is viable. Applicants will be focused on justifying their proposal.

Specific suggestions For an open and honest evaluation, someone independent of the applicant needs to

lead this work. Guidelines need to be published and pre-application meetings encouraged to help

applicants address this requirement in the early stages of a project. GBRMPA’s approach to evaluating alternatives should be consistent with national

guidelines or standards. For example, GBRMPA’s expectations should be consistent with the ‘disposal alternatives’ process outlined in the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging.

Evaluation of alternatives should not be required where a statutory regional plan, port master plan or other rigorous planning process has already considered various alternatives and determined the best option.


1. Amend the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations so assessment criteria explicitly require a delegate to consider ‘prudent and feasible alternatives’ to the proposal. We believe that including a consideration of alternatives in the Regulations provides the greatest clarity and transparency.

2. Publish guidelines on how to consider alternatives. These guidelines are planned for public consultation in mid-2016 and would likely include the following:

a. An appropriate level of detail is needed for each of the five assessment processes (see also Proposal 6), in line with the level of risk. For example, an application under a tailored assessment process may only need to explain why they require use of a particular part of the Marine Park, whereas an application under an environmental impact statement process would be expected to submit a robust options analysis.

b. We may refuse an application on the basis that lower risk, prudent and feasible alternatives exist. However, we cannot place conditions on a permit that would substantially change the applicant’s proposal. This would actually be a rejection of the proposal, meaning the correct decision in such a case would be refusal.

c. We may require an independent review of the applicant’s options analysis.d. Options analyses can incorporate the outcomes from rigorous planning

processes, such as statutory regional plans or port master plans.

28

In phase two of the project, we propose to explore the merits and options for the following (for implementation in July 2020):

3. As outlined in Proposal 7, revisit the question of whether continuation applications should be required to consider alternatives. We are open to reconsidering this question based on stakeholders’ experiences with the new assessment criteria and guidelines which are planned to take effect in July 2017.

29

Proposal 9: Changing the public advertising requirements

GBRMPA has committed to a requirement for public advertising for any activities which have the potential to impact on the values of the Marine Park or other matters of national environmental significance. We are also considering changing the way in which comments are received. The consultation sought feedback on which activities should be publicly advertised and how public submissions should be processed.

Level of support for changing the public advertising requirements

45%

26%

20%

9%Survey summary - 56 online responses







Comments in support Strong general support for public advertising of activities which could impact on Marine

Park values. Essential if EPBC Act is ‘switched off’ as proposed, so people continue to have the

same opportunities for comment.

Concerns raised Need to avoid duplicating other public notification processes for the same activities. Advertising in the newspaper is expensive, and online advertising and emails are more

effective. Depends on how GBRMPA chooses to define a ‘significant impact’ on matters of

national environmental significance, thereby requiring public adverting. Need to see guideline details.

If comments are sent to the applicant, this may prevent some people from stating their views due to privacy concerns.

GBRMPA needs to see all submissions to avoid an applicant inaccurately summarising the views of the public.

Specific suggestions Types of applications that should be publicly advertised:

Dredging — mixed views; some said all new and continued dredging, others said long-standing maintenance dredging is routine and should not be open for public comment

Specific locations — sensitive locations, high risk locations, high use areas Tourism — superyachts, changes to cruise ship activities, large numbers of guests Industrial — mining, shipping, manufacturing and other industry activities

30

Specific impacts — noisy activities Other — all commercial uses should be publicly advertised, as the public has the right to

know how the Marine Park is being used.

How public comments should be collected: Of those who voiced an opinion, all believed that comments should go directly to

GBRMPA rather than to the applicant. This was primarily on the basis of ensuring privacy and transparency.

There was support for GBRMPA passing on comments to the applicant verbatim but without contact details.

There was a similar level of support for GBRMPA summarising or considering the submissions and then asking the applicant to respond to specific issues, without providing the applicant with the detail of individual submissions.

One suggestion was for submissions made by incorporated bodies (business or association) to also divulge the submitter’s identity to the applicant.

A summary of submissions should be made publicly available.


1. Amend the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations to require public consultation for any application which may significantly impact on matters of national environmental significance and/or which may impact on the public’s reasonable use of the Marine Park. To improve consistency and transparency, this Regulation amendment will change the current discretionary phrase, “the Authority may…require the applicant to publish an advertisement” to the non-discretionary phrase “the Authority must…require the applicant to publish an advertisement”.

2. Retain the Regulations which specify that submissions are sent to GBRMPA.3. Publish guidelines explaining how the agency will decide if an application needs public

consultation and how to consider any public comments. Draft guidelines are planned for public comment in mid-2016.

4. Update procedures and privacy declarations to explain how submissions will be shared with applicants. We would provide applicants with the full text of submissions (even when submitters choose to identify themselves within this text), but not the names or contact details of the submitters.

In phase two of the project, we propose the following (for implementation in July 2020):5. Further explore with stakeholders the merits and options for amending Regulation

88D(2)(b) to remove the requirement for an advertisement to be published in a local newspaper. This could be replaced with a more general requirement for the public to be appropriately notified of the proposal. Guidelines could then explain current standards, such as posting notifications on websites and emailing key stakeholders identified by GBRMPA.

31

Proposal 10: Changing the process for suspending and revoking permits

GBRMPA is considering changing the process for suspending and revoking permits in cases where permit holders fail to comply with permit conditions. The consultation sought feedback from respondents on the circumstances that would lead the agency to suspend or revoke a permit, and whether it would improve compliance.

Level of support for changing the process for suspending and revoking permits

46%

25%

20%








Comments in support General support for revoking permits for breaches of permit conditions, where these

breaches are significant or frequent. No tolerance should be given for breaching permit conditions. Operating in the Marine

Park is a privilege, not a right. More ability to suspend and revoke permits would help to ensure compliance and

maintain environmental protection. Need to revoke permits if they are not being used.

Concerns raised GBRMPA should communicate with permit holders and try to work out issues before

resorting to suspending or revoking permits. A notice or warning system should be provided in the first instance. Permit holders

should be given a reasonable timeframe to rectify any issues before a permit is suspended or revoked.

Permits should not be revoked for relatively minor or administrative breaches. For fixed infrastructure, a permit should only be revoked if a conviction has been

recorded. This would incorrectly shift responsibility from the legal system to GBRMPA. This is too

much power for GBRMPA to exercise. Other agencies do not have these powers. Need clear guidance on when and how this should be done, so it is fairly and

consistently applied. More resources need to be directed to compliance monitoring activities for this proposal

to have any effect. Revoking permits will increase the ‘black market’ for unpermitted activities.

32


1. Amend the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations to allow the agency to suspend and revoke permits for non-compliance with permit conditions, in a similar way that permits can be suspended and revoked due to non-payment of the environmental management charge (EMC).

2. Publish guidelines explaining the circumstances in which permits should be suspended and revoked, including how to ensure natural justice, providing warning and adequate time to rectify non-compliance, and other measures to promote consistency and transparency in decision-making.

3. Publish an agency-wide compliance management policy outlining the agency’s broad approach to monitoring and managing compliance. A draft policy is planned for public comment in mid-2016.

33

Proposal 11: Expanding limited impact research

GBRMPA is considering changes to allow more activities to be conducted as limited impact research under an institution’s research accreditation, without the need for a permit. The agency is also considering updating the list of species which can be taken to ensure consistency with other legislation, and to allow more or fewer specimens to be taken (depending on the species) as limited impact research. The consultation sought feedback on what should be allowed as limited impact research and how this should be managed.

Level of support for changes to limited impact research

34%

36%

23%

2% 5%Survey summary - 56 responses

Fully Support (rating 10)

Generally Support (rating 6-9)


Limited Support (rating 1-4)

Do Not Support (rating 0)


Comments in support Many people expressed general support and no notable issues with the proposed

changes. Passive monitoring equipment such as cameras and acoustic arrays should be allowed. Support for adding several shark and ray species to the list of protected species.

Concerns raised Methods and materials should be evaluated for risk before being allowed. They should

not be allowed if there is a risk to the Marine Park’s values. Limits should be set on using drones for visual surveys. Question raised about whether GBRMPA is monitoring and considering the cumulative

impacts of limited impact research. There is a possibility some ‘limited impacts’ could become higher impact through cumulative impacts, particularly with research techniques that directly affect fish and coral (such as the proposed use of clove oil).

Possible increase in regulatory burden for fisheries-related activities in moving from species level listings in Table 19–1, Part 2, to class level listings. [GBRMPA clarification: Table 19-1 only applies to limited impact research conducted under an accredited institution and does not apply to fisheries or permitted activities.]

Specific suggestions A ‘statement of objective’ should be published for each limited impact research type to

help researchers understand their roles and responsibilities.

34

Research institutions should be required to publicly release their data within a certain period of time, for example five years. A full assessment of the impacts of all research should be provided for public scrutiny by institution and location.

On whether the allowed methods, materials and take limits should remain in legislation or be moved to non-statutory polices or guidelines:

Details of allowed methods, materials and take limits should remain in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations, because this gives greater certainty than policies and guidelines.

The allowed methods, materials and take limits should remain listed in the Regulations, but the details should be moved outside legislation to provide greater flexibility. For example, size details and number of stakes allowed could be in a policy, guideline, or web-based schedule.

On whether clove oil should be allowed: This is a good idea because there is growing evidence that clove oil has very little

impact on the marine environment when used as a fish anaesthetic by researchers. There is no point in limiting the concentration of clove oil without also limiting the total

volume that can be used. For example, using 10 litres of 10 per cent clove oil (the concentration limit proposed by GBRMPA) would probably have more impact than using one litre of 20 per cent clove oil.

Ethanol should be allowed along with clove oil, as ethanol is used to emulsify and disperse the oil. This means less clove oil is needed to achieve the same result. Ethanol has less impact on corals than clove oil.

On the intention to update species take limits and protected species: Considering the documented impacts of crown-of-thorns starfish on the Great Barrier

Reef, the number of crown-of-thorns starfish specimens allowed to be collected for scientific research should be increased to 50.

The collection of any rare and/or overfished holothurians, such as the black teatfish (correct scientific name: Holothuria whitmaei, not H. nobilis) and white teatfish (H. fuscogilia), should not be allowed as limited impact research and should be tightly controlled through permits.

Shark species should not be protected because their numbers seem to be increasing in the lagoons and reefs, and they are taking a lot of fish.

GBRMPA responseHaving considered these comments, we propose to take the following actions in phase one of the project (for implementation in July 2017):1. Proceed with the proposed changes to Table 29 and Table 19–1 in the Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park Regulations (as outlined in the consultation summary document ), with minor updates to ensure the latest scientific names are used.

2. Conduct a formal risk assessment and, subject to the outcomes, add the following materials and methods to the list for limited impact research that can be conducted without a permit by accredited institutions (within appropriate limits):

a. acoustic monitoring and survey equipmentb. acoustic tags c. clove oil, including mixtures of clove oil and ethanold. baited remote underwater video equipment

35

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/240128/Public-consultation-document-Improving-the-permission-system.pdf

e. star pickets.3. Remove Regulation 19(3)(b), which prohibits the use of chemicals and explosives, on the

basis that all methods and materials are automatically prohibited unless they are specifically listed as an approved method or material. This change also recognises that ‘chemicals’ is a broad term that could encompass most materials used in the course of research.

4. Update the Policy on managing scientific research in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Policy on managing activities that include the direct take of a protected species from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to reflect these changes.

5. Publish new guidelines for research with further detail about what methods and materials (including limits) the agency considers to be consistent with the Regulations.

6. Review and update the memoranda of understanding with accredited institutions to reflect these changes, including ensuring each institution has appropriate procedures for education, monitoring and reporting.

7. Consider publishing in the agency’s annual report key statistics on limited impact research conducted under accreditation, such as the number of samples taken, locations visited and/or the use of approved methods and materials.

36

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-us/corporate-information/annual-report

Proposal 12: Defining impacts

GBRMPA is considering adding a definition of ‘impact’ to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations to clarify that impacts include direct, indirect and cumulative impacts. The consultation sought feedback on this proposal.

Level of support for adding a definition of ‘impacts’

48%

29%

13%








Comments in support General agreement that adding a definition of ‘impacts’ to the Regulations would

increase clarity. GBRMPA’s definition should be the same as in the EPBC Act, specifically including

'significant residual impacts.’ GBRMPA should explicitly consider cumulative impacts, especially for projects where

one large impact footprint is split into multiple small projects for individual assessment.

Concerns raised The definition should not be overly prescriptive to the point of limiting the scope of

considerations. An assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts by GBRMPA would duplicate the

existing assessment of these matters under the EPBC Act. If cumulative impacts are included, more clarity is needed about how this would affect

applications. GBRMPA staff should be responsible for identifying cumulative impacts, not proponents, as the agency is aware of all current and pending applications.

Procedures for assessing cumulative impacts are needed, including what types of applications would need to consider cumulative impacts.


1. Add to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations a definition of ‘impact’ to be consistent with the EPBC Act definition and to include cumulative impacts.

2. Publish guidelines for considering direct and indirect impacts for individual proposals. Draft guidelines are planned for public consultation in mid-2016.

37

3. Develop a guideline for assessing cumulative impacts within the permission system.

Proposal 13: Using risk management tools

GBRMPA is reviewing the tools it uses to minimise the risk of impacts to the Marine Park and to protect the Australian public from the costs of cleaning up an incident or removing a facility. The consultation sought feedback from respondents as to how and when these tools should be applied to ensure the least burdensome and most effective tools are used to manage risks to the Marine Park.

Level of support for changing how risk management tools are used

41%

28%

24%








Comments in support Many commented that insurance should be considered as an alternative to bonds. Some support for the use of bonds as a means of financially insuring against potential

clean-up and removal costs. Some thought GBRMPA should use bonds and insurance together in coordination. Many respondents thought environmental management plans were effective. One

commented that these plans should be used for all but low-risk applications and be part of ongoing permit conditions, with regular auditing of these plans.

Agreement that GBRMPA needs to review and modernise its suite of risk management tools and look at new ways of reducing risk to taxpayers without overly burdening businesses.

Concerns raised Any decision on risk management tools needs to be clearly linked to mitigating the risks

of the activity or facility. Bonds should only be required for medium to high-risk operations. Bonds need to represent the real cost of removing the facility and rehabilitating the site. Some felt bonds were too expensive for businesses to maintain, and other tools could

be used to manage risks just as effectively. Bonds should be large enough to be an effective deterrent, so operators have a

financial stake in maintaining good environmental standards. The vessel notification approval (VNA) system makes it easier for GBRMPA to track and

manage latency and disused permits than the vessel identification number (VIN) system.

38

Specific suggestions Allow flexibility for complex applications to provide a generic environmental

management plan at application stage, with detail to be added at a later stage in the assessment process to allow uptake of contemporary methods or approaches.

All moorings should be covered by mooring insurance. All permitted vessels should be required to carry a transponder and be tracked.


1. Publish guidelines for using the various risk management tools. These guidelines will explain the purpose of each tool, the situations in which it is appropriate, and any particulars, such as how to determine a suitable bond amount. Draft guidelines are planned for public consultation in mid-2016.

39

Proposal 14: Managing facilities

GBRMPA is considering new policies to explain how facilities (such as jetties and pipelines) will be managed. The consultation sought feedback on how different types of facilities should be inspected, managed or dealt with at the end of their life.

Level of support for changing how facilities are managed

35%

35%

22%








Comments in support General support for regular inspections by a qualified professional — annual, biennial,

or every five years were common suggestions. General agreement that disused facilities should be required to be removed, unless

removal is likely to cause more harm to the Marine Park.

Concerns raised Too much duplication, as many facilities are subject to several licensing or inspection

requirements. Need to harmonise with other agencies. Mandatory inspections for all facilities would be an unnecessary burden on operators.

Specific suggestions Inspection frequency needs to be determined based on the specific nature of the facility,

such as its age and its potential to corrode. Need an inspection schedule that recognises different types of inspections. For

example, an engineer may inspect the facility every five years, while the permit holder could self-inspect their facility every six months.

Permit holders with a good track record of compliance should be allowed to self-inspect their facilities. Government agencies may also be allowed to self-inspect.

While permit holders are encouraged to regularly inspect their facilities, GBRMPA should only accept inspection reports from independent and experienced people.

Surrogate indicators should be accepted as evidence that a facility is in good condition, where the actual facility (or parts of it) cannot be visually inspected on a regular basis. Examples may be pipelines or electricity cables, where normal flow/current could demonstrate the facility is in good working order.

Lack of regular inspections leads to facilities being in poor condition — these are difficult to rehabilitate, sell or manage. GBRMPA should take steps to keep operators

40

up-to-date with inspection and maintenance schedules to avoid bigger problems in the future.

Permit holders that invest in facility maintenance and upgrading could be supported by being granted longer permit terms.

GBRMPA should consider design life and decommissioning/removal options before granting a permit for a new facility.


1. Update the Environmental Impact Management Policy to include critical policy positions on the design, maintenance and removal of facilities. A revised draft policy is planned for public consultation in mid-2016.

2. Publish guidelines explaining in more detail our approach to managing facilities, such as design criteria for new facilities, ongoing inspection and maintenance requirements, and how end-of-life decisions will be made. Draft guidelines are planned for public consultation in mid-2016.

3. Revoke the Structures Policy , on the basis that the material is outdated and the new Environmental Impact Management Policy and guidelines will contain the latest information.

4. Work with other agencies to harmonise and streamline the management of facilities.

41

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/16968/Structures-Policy-reviewed-2010.pdf


Proposal 15: Setting permit terms

GBRMPA is considering granting longer permit terms for low risk activities and applicants who meet certain standards. The consultation sought feedback on appropriate permit terms, who should receive them and under what circumstances

Level of support for changing permit terms

41%

34%

14%2% 5%Survey summary - 56 online responses







Comments in support Longer permit terms are important for investment and business certainty. General support for granting longer permit terms for fixed facilities that are intended to

remain in place for a long time (such as seawalls and jetties). Some support for granting longer permit terms for low risk activities and High Standard

Tourism Operators. Some support for maintaining one-year permit terms for first-time permit holders. General support for granting longer permits to well-established, continuing operations. Permit terms should be clearly based on risk.

Concerns raised Do not support longer permit terms (beyond 10 or 15 years). The existing 5–10 year

permit terms allow for timely reviews based on changing knowledge, technology, environmental condition and community expectations.

Better guidance material is needed to help people understand that permit terms are specific to circumstances and the risks of the proposal.

Specific suggestions Need to explore longer permit terms for scientific research. This could be matched with

more general permits to cover several research projects. Need to harmonise with other jurisdictions, for example Maritime Safety Queensland

permit or licensing timeframes. Research station managers should be engaged in deciding permit terms for research

projects at their sites. Well-maintained moorings and facilities should qualify for longer permit terms. Longer permit terms should be considered in cases where a statutory regional plan, port

master plan or other planning instrument establishes the long-term needs and

42

requirements of a facility or activity. This is particularly true where a robust monitoring program is in place.

More adaptive management and outcomes-based conditions should be built into permits, to allow longer permit terms without sacrificing the ability for continuous improvement. Prescriptive conditions can quickly make a permit out of date.


1. Update the Environmental Impact Management Policy to reflect the principle that longer permit terms should be considered for low risk activities. A revised draft policy is planned for public consultation in mid-2016.

2. Publish guidelines explaining in more detail how to set appropriate permit terms. These will include discussion of ‘umbrella’ permits for research, which reduce the need for multiple permits for individual activities that occur within a broader research program. Draft guidelines are planned for public consultation in mid-2016.

In phase two of the project, we propose to explore the merits and options for (for implementation in July 2020):

3. Developing more outcomes-based and adaptive management conditions.

43


Conclusion

We wish to thank everyone who took the time to read the consultation summary, attend an information session, complete an online survey or make a submission.

Through your responses, we have gained a much better understanding of your experiences with the existing permission system, your thoughts on proposed changes and suggestions for further improvements.

Our next step is to begin drafting amendments to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983. This process is planned to occur between April 2016 and March 2017.

We are also writing new policies and guidelines to better explain our expectations and approaches to managing the permission system. We plan to publish these in mid-2016 for further feedback from the public.

In early 2017 we will send information to stakeholders and permit holders explaining the changes that will come into effect. Our plan is for all phase one changes to come into effect on 1 July 2017.

Thank you again for your interest and involvement.

Should you have any questions, you can reach us at:

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

Email: [email protected]

Telephone: (61) 07 4750 0700

44

mailto:[email protected]

APPENDIX A: Out of scope A number of people raised issues or made suggestions that fall outside the scope of the Improving the Permission System project. We have listed these in the table below, along with an explanation of why each is out of scope and any action we will take to respond to these suggestions.

Issue / suggestion Why it is out of scopePermits should not be required for research, when those research activities fall within the limits allowed for recreational use, such as recreational snorkelling, photography, fishing or collection.

This would require changes to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan, which specifies that permission is required for research, unless it is being conducted by an accredited institution and fits the definition of limited impact research. Changes to the Zoning Plan are out of scope for this project.

Permits should not be required for tourism activities. This would require changes to the Zoning Plan, which specifies that permission is required to conduct tourist programs. Changes to the Zoning Plan are out of scope for this project.

Permits should not be required for charter fishing tours.

Most charter fishing meets the definition of ‘tourist program’ in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and the Zoning Plan. Permission is required to conduct any ‘tourist program.’ Changes to the Zoning Plan are out of scope for this project.

Permits should not be required for aircraft flying over the Marine Park (not landing).

This would require changes to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and Zoning Plan, which specify that (a) the Marine Park extends to 915 metres above the surface and (b) permission is required to conduct tourist programs or passenger transport within the Marine Park. Changes to the Act and Zoning Plan are out of scope for this project.

All researchers should be able to conduct limited impact research without a permit, not just those whose research is authorised by an accredited institution.

This would require changes to the Zoning Plan, which specifies that permission is required for research, unless it’s being conducted by an accredited institution and fits the definition of limited impact research. Changes to the Zoning Plan are out of scope for this project.

Only tourism activities should be allowed in the Marine Park. Commercial and industrial activities should not be permitted.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and the Zoning Plan establish the Marine Park as a multiple-use park that supports a wide range of uses, provided they are consistent with the primary objective of long-term protection of the Marine Park’s values. The Act and the Zoning Plan also establish what types of activities are allowed with and without permission in the Marine Park. Changes to the Act or the Zoning Plan are out of scope for this project.

43

Issue / suggestion Why it is out of scopeCertain areas in the Whitsundays are becoming overcrowded. GBRMPA needs to review permit latency policies and the Whitsunday Plan of Management to ensure Marine Park values are protected.

The Whitsundays Plan of Management is under review, and these concerns have been passed on to the review team. GBRMPA’s policy on Managing tourism permissions to operate in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (including allocation, latency and tenure) is not under review, but these concerns have been passed on to the tourism policy team for consideration.

GBRMPA should dedicate more resources to permit assessments.

The agency’s resourcing decisions are not directly being considered in this review, however the intention of the improvements is to free up staff to spend more time on assessments and less time on administrative processes.

All popular tourism and recreation sites need a review of current and acceptable use levels to avoid overuse.

The agency prepares site management arrangements for particular sites to identify significant values and describe management arrangements. These are reviewed on an ongoing basis. This concern has been passed on to the GBRMPA team responsible for site planning.

Concerns about Traditional Owners fishing in Marine National Park (Green) Zones

The Native Title Act 1993 recognises Traditional Owners’ right to hunt and gather in their land and sea country — this includes fishing. We recognise the rights of Traditional Owners under the Native Title Act or an accredited Traditional Use of Marine Resources Agreement.

Need guidelines for assessing cumulative impacts Policy and guidelines on cumulative impacts are being developed through a separate GBRMPA project. Once completed, they will be implemented (in part) through the permission system.

Many people are operating without permits, and some of the proposed changes would increase this ‘black market’ by making it more difficult or costly to obtain a permit.

This is primarily an issue of compliance with the Zoning Plan, which falls outside the scope of this project. However, we are considering any potential flow-on effects on compliance from the changes.

Fuel samples should be collected from every ship entering the Marine Park and held for future reference in the event of a spill.

Shipping does not usually require a permit provided the ships stay within the Designated Shipping Area. This means shipping and oil spills fall outside the permission system. This idea has been passed on to the GBRMPA team responsible for shipping policy.

Concerns about the certification standards of Eco-Certification Australia and the High Standard Tourism program.

These concerns have been passed on to the GBRMPA team responsible for the High Standard Tourism program.

46

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/zoning-permits-and-plans/plans-of-management/whitsunday-plan-of-management

Documents

Web viewResponse to public consultation on proposed changes. Improving the . Great Barrier Reef Marine Park . permission system. March 2016. Contents. Introduction3. About