An independent review into the agency tasked with protecting the World Heritage-listed Great Barrier Reef revealed staff were experiencing systemic racism and found poor performance and a lack of capability in several areas in the organisation.
The results are part of a secret efficiency review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), which employs more than 250 people and cares for an area bigger than New Zealand and home to 70 traditional owner groups.
The reef authority commissioned the review in 2022, initially to assess fees paid by tourism operators, but it was eventually broadened to look at the authority’s efficiency and effectiveness against its legislative responsibilities.
A decision to not finalise the review, despite the findings, was made.
The ABC has seen a draft version of the review, which details employees identifying “an overall lack of cultural awareness” across the organisation and that “refrained support” from the reef authority, specifically towards the Indigenous Compliance Team, “could be from other motives”.
One unidentified review participant was scathing in their assessment of the workplace.
“I have worked in many different workplaces and environments and never considered the words racist/sexist until I started working here [at the reef authority],” the participant reported.
Freedom of Information experts have criticised GBRMPA’s decision to not release the taxpayer-funded review, while reef advocates have asked for more transparency.
Reef management expert Jon Day, a former director at GBRMPA, said he no longer regarded the authority as a global leader in marine management.
“I think there are a number of things for which, in the past, GBRMPA was globally recognised. I think some of those things today have fallen away,” he said.
A GBRMPA spokesperson said the authority was widely recognised as a world leader in marine park management.
“These views are supported by feedback from the cross-sectoral reef forum held in October 2025, as well as independent market research, and direct feedback from stakeholders,” the spokesperson said
They also said the allegations of systemic racism were investigated independently and found to be unsubstantiated.
‘Systemic racism’
In 2022, the reef authority engaged Canberra-based consultancy group 35 South to look at reforming a fee charged to tourism operators for management of the marine park.
Its scope was subsequently broadened to review several areas of the authority, including science, policy and field management.
The most explosive findings centred on the Indigenous Compliance Team within the field management program overseen by both the reef authority and the Queensland government.
The field management team plays a key role in protecting the Great Barrier Reef from illegal activity, while the Indigenous Compliance Team was created to build relationships with Great Barrier Reef traditional owners and manage cases involving native title.
In the review, a picture emerges of the Indigenous Compliance Team within the reef authority feeling disrespected, unsupported and overwhelmed with tasks beyond its responsibilities.
The review explained that issues brought to the agency by traditional owners were automatically diverted to the Indigenous Compliance team, no matter if it was in the team’s remit.
The review revealed claims of systemic racism at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (ABC News: Sharon Gordon)
“Because I am Black, I am expected to deal with every time a Black person calls the phone,” an unidentified person said.
“Black business, it was expected that we use Black money, Black staff,” the report quoted.
The review found there were reported instances of issues that could have been addressed or triaged by the larger joint field management program and handled more efficiently.
“An example provided by the team was the 18-hour response time for a pair of dugongs caught in netting,” it said.
“The traditional owners were willing to give a statement to anyone; however, were deferred immediately to the Indigenous Compliance Team.
“This has led to a large backlog of cases within the Indigenous Compliance Team as well as a high level of reputational risk with traditional owners.”
The review said the lack of support for the Indigenous Compliance Team had been attributed to it being externally funded.
However it said:
This support has not been refrained from other projects undertaken by the GBRMPA. There is a risk that this refrained support could be from other motives.
The review also documented “experiences of systemic racism” and a need for more “cultural awareness”.
Adrianne, whose name has been changed to protect her identity, previously worked at the reef authority and told the ABC each day was a challenge.
“At the end, I struggled to go to work,” she said.
“It was unsafe for me as a traditional owner; it was unsafe for me as a woman.
“And it wasn’t just unsafe because of the people who were behaving outside of what is expected.
“It was unsafe because this agency failed to properly manage it.”
Adrianne says she still lives with the impacts of her employment at the reef authority.
“It’s not something that will go away.”
Despite recommendations by the review to include Indigenous compliance in overall operations, the Indigenous Compliance Team was removed from the operations team within field management after the review.
“There was no identification of risks, such as the loss of valuable information, the loss of eyes and ears on the ground, the loss of partnership,” Adrianne said.
The review’s findings are at odds with one of the reef authority’s commitments to “meaningful and respectful relationships with First Nations peoples of the Great Barrier Reef” as laid out in its latest corporate plan.
Since 2019, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage strategy has underpinned the reef authority, setting out how it will “focus on ways to keep Indigenous heritage strong, safe and healthy”.
According to the strategy, “a dedicated Indigenous Compliance Team builds compliance capacity of rangers and organisations across the reef”.
The review called for an independent investigation into racism and notes that CEO Joshua Thomas, a former staffer for several environment ministers, including Coalition MPs Sussan Ley and Melissa Price, was directly informed about the findings about the Indigenous Compliance Team.
A spokesperson for GBRMPA said Mr Thomas met the authors of the report to ensure allegations were properly attended to and to “assure the authors there was an independent external investigation already underway”.
“Allegations were investigated exhaustively by an independent external investigator and found to be unsubstantiated,” the spokesperson said.
The reef authority did not answer direct questions about why the Indigenous Compliance Team was moved out of operations within field management.
It said it was “incredibly proud of its Indigenous workforce and the breadth and depth of our work with First Nations Peoples”.
GBRMPA said it invested consistently in First Nations cultural awareness training for staff.
“For all staff, the agency prioritises matters of concern that are brought forward, individually or as a collective, while working to provide a safe, inclusive, productive and rewarding workplace across our diverse array of obligations and work areas.”
‘Poor’ operational performance
The consultants interviewed then-chief scientist David Wackenfeld for the review and said he had identified several shortcomings in the reef authority’s operational capabilities.
It noted overall “poor performance” in operational sectors.
Dr Wachenfeld has been approached for comment.
Another finding centred on the reef authority’s crown-of-thorns starfish program, in which contractors are given millions of dollars to cull the coral predator that is a major threat to the reef.
The program has had controversies over the years, including conflicts of interest over the distribution of funds.
The 35 South review found issues with the program persisted, noting a “confusion amongst priorities” when it came to funding.
The review noted then chief scientist David Wackenfeld had identified shortcomings in GBRMPA’s operational capabilities. (ABC News: Sharon Gordon)
A “lack of capability/capacity” was identified within the strategic policy section that is partly responsible for the Reef 2050 Long‑Term Sustainability Plan, an intergovernmental strategy to “improve the reef’s health and resilience” that GBRMPA is a party to.
Within the permit team, which is responsible for regulating activity on the reef and balancing human use with safeguarding the environment, the 35 South review consultants also found a “lack of capability/capacity”.
“The team has had a number of vacancies, a lack of experienced staff and an extended time to get new staff on-boarded, trained and working effectively,” the review says.
The 35 South review also spoke about budgetary mismanagement, noting funds were “currently allocated to other projects, which are not a key priority, and interfered with the ability to achieve core objectives”.
Overall, the consultants found “the key performance indicators for GBRMPA do not align to the priorities or high-risk areas for the agency”.
‘No-one wanted to upset anyone’
Leanne Fernandes, former policy director at the reef authority, told the ABC the gap between the agency’s obligation and its actions left her disillusioned, eventually leading to her departure.
Dr Fernandes has more than 30 years of experience in marine and biodiversity management and led the policy team between 2020 and 2024 after her first stint with the reef authority, during which she helped increase a “no-take zone” to 40 per cent of the reef.
“I wanted work that was meaningful, that mattered and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has always done good work, and I had experienced that,” she said.
But what Dr Fernandes returned to in 2020, she says, was a reef authority that did not want to upset anyone.
She was interviewed by the 35 South consultants and told them there was a “misalignment” between the authority’s legislative responsibilities and the work it was carrying out.
At one stage, Dr Fernandes says she worked on a report that mapped the high-risk threats to the reef and management actions against those threats, a report she says was “killed” by the executive team.
“I think the bigger problem was that the appetite to make the changes and do the things that would reduce the threats to the Great Barrier Reef would have required upsetting people, and no-one wanted to upset anyone.
“I’m motivated to protect and conserve the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which is also what the act requires GBRMPA to do. And we weren’t doing that. And that was not good for my mental health in the end.”
So she left.
The reef authority said it continued to make strategic management decisions on the allocation of budget and resources “with a focus on maximising the value of public investment in the Great Barrier Reef”.
“Our processes are well supported by a range of governance, oversight and transparent audit mechanisms,” they said.
Review not released
The ABC first applied for access to the review document, called the Reef Authority Functional Efficiency Review, in November 2025 through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, but was denied access.
The authority argued that the document was “never finalised”, “not publicly available” and “time [had] elapsed since the information was gathered,” adding there was “more up-to-date information publicly available”.
Correspondence released under FOI shows the review was paid for in 2023 and a final email to then general manager Ian Walker suggests the review was completed from 35 South’s perspective.
Mr Walker departed for unknown reasons last year. He cannot speak due to a non-disclosure agreement.
The reef authority told the ABC it did not finalise the report because of several factors.
“Factors included the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the marine tourism industry and staff raising reasonable concerns in relation to the quality of the report itself, the nature of consultation, benchmarking and subjective analysis, which undermined the agency’s confidence in the material and ability to take the work forward,” the reef authority said.
The review was never released and attempts by the ABC to obtain it under Freedom of Information were rejected. (ABC News: Sharon Gordon)
Another reason stated for the refusal to release the review was that it was not in the public interest.
Monash University Freedom of Information researcher Johan Lidberg disagrees.
“This is totally against the aims and the objectives of the Freedom of Information Act,” he said.
“The act states clearly that it’s there to facilitate public access to public interest information or any information really. This is totally in the highest public interest.”
Dr Lidberg also said it “reeks” of the “noting process” whereby management are notified of controversial requests and steps are taken to withhold the information in any way possible.
“This is more than likely the culture inside the agency where the management has told the FOI team, if you get a controversial request, we want to know,” he said.
“That’s not necessarily wrong in itself. What is wrong, though, is when the management is noted and then they get back to the FOI team and say, ‘You should not release this, find a way not to release it’. That’s when it’s wrong.”
The reef authority said it stood by the FOI decision-makers’ choice to not release the report.
Dr Day said the only reason he could think of for not releasing the review was that it contained “things they’re not happy with”.
“If there’s things that aren’t working well, they need to be addressed and that might need resourcing,” Dr Day said.
“We’re spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars, but we’re not getting the results across the areas that perhaps we’d like to.”
