43 per cent were decided between three months and one year The remaining 34 per cent took between one and four years to decide. Some of the reasons for these timeframes are outside control. They include GBRMPA’s awaiting further information from the applicant; conducting native title notification; or awaiting a decision under the EPBC Act. However, in many cases timeframes could be improved through changes to the permission system. This would allow more resources to be directed to assessing medium- and high-risk applications. Discussion questions: What costs (financial or otherwise) do you experience as a result of waiting for a permit decision? What could GBRMPA do to minimise unnecessary administrative steps and reduce decision timeframes, while still properly considering every application? How do decision timeframes impact on you as an individual, GBRMPA’s community group or business? Reviewing which activities are included on a standard ‘routine’ tourism permit Key point: GBRMPA is considering expanding and clarifying the list of activities, locations and parameters (such as vessel size or passenger numbers) to be included on the standard tourism permit. Currently, application form includes the choice of applying for a GBRMPA’s permit tourism If granted, this permit allows certain low-risk tourism activities ‘standard permit.’ to be conducted according to standardised permit conditions. Selecting the standard tourism permit option may reduce timeframes for decisions. GBRMPA is exploring whether additional low-risk tourism activities could be added to the standard tourism permit and whether other parameters (such as vessel numbers, vessel sizes, or group sizes) could be made more flexible, within existing limits set by legislation or plans of management. The intention is to give tourism operators greater ability to expand or diversify their operations without requiring a new permit application or changes to their existing permit. For example, the existing standard tourism permit does not allow motorised water sports or whale-watching activities which some in the tourism industry have suggested — should be included. Discussion questions: What types of activities, locations, zones, vessel/aircraft types, or group sizes would be appropriate to consider for a low-risk, standard tourism permit? How would this proposal affect you, your community or your business?
43 per cent were decided between three months and one year The remaining 34 per cent took between one and four years to decide. Some of the reasons for these timeframes are outside GBRMPA’s control. They include awaiting further information from the applicant; conducting native title notification; or awaiting a decision under the EPBC Act. However, in many cases timeframes could be improved through changes to the permission system. This would allow more resources to be directed to assessing medium- and high-risk applications. Discussion questions: What costs (financial or otherwise) do you experience as a result of waiting for a permit decision? What could GBRMPA do to minimise unnecessary administrative steps and reduce decision timeframes, while still properly considering every application? How do GBRMPA’s decision timeframes impact on you as an individual, community group or business? Reviewing which activities are included on a standard ‘routine’ tourism permit Key point: GBRMPA is considering expanding and clarifying the list of activities, locations and parameters (such as vessel size or passenger numbers) to be included on the standard tourism permit. Currently, GBRMPA’s permit application form includes the choice of applying for a ‘standard tourism permit.’ If granted, this permit allows certain low-risk tourism activities to be conducted according to standardised permit conditions. Selecting the standard tourism permit option may reduce timeframes for decisions. GBRMPA is exploring whether additional low-risk tourism activities could be added to the standard tourism permit and whether other parameters (such as vessel numbers, vessel sizes, or group sizes) could be made more flexible, within existing limits set by legislation or plans of management. The intention is to give tourism operators greater ability to expand or diversify their operations without requiring a new permit application or changes to their existing permit. For example, the existing standard tourism permit does not allow motorised water sports or whale-watching — activities which some in the tourism industry have suggested should be included. Discussion questions: What types of activities, locations, zones, vessel/aircraft types, or group sizes would be appropriate to consider for a low-risk, standard tourism permit? How would this proposal affect you, your community or your business?