Expert Advisory Panel's Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 - Consultation summary report
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Expert Advisory Panel’s
Review of the Wildlife Act 1975
Consultation summary report
Photo credits
Cover: (left to right, top to bottom) Lorikeet (Marcia Riederer), Page 21: Duck hunter at Heart Morass, Sale (Field and
Tawny Frogmouth, Serendip Sanctuary (Parks Game Australia)
Victoria), Wedge-tailed eagle (Salahuddin Ahmad), Page 22: Tawny frogmouth, Serendip Sanctuary
Murray River short-neck turtle (Totally Reptiles) (Parks Victoria)
Page 4: Birdwatching at Serendip Sanctuary (Parks Victoria) Page 23: Common brush-tail possum in rehabilitation
Page 9: Wodonga grey-headed flying fox camp (Doug Gimesy)
(Glen Johnson, DELWP) Page 24: Barking owl (Moonlit Sanctuary Wildlife
Page 10: Eastern grey kangaroos in a vineyard (Kokkai) Conservation Park)
Page 11: Penguin Parade (Phillip Island Nature Parks) Page 25: Red kangaroo, Murray Sunset Country
Page 12: Little red flying foxes (Russell Jones) (Parks Victoria), Swooping magpie (DELWP)
Page 13: Kangaroo fillets (Macro Group Australia) Page 26: Release of a rehabilitated grey-headed flying fox
Australian fur seals and snorkelers at (Doug Gimesy)
Chinaman’s Hat (DELWP) Page 27: Authorised officer with a seized shingle back lizard
Page 14: Dingo (Ballarat Wildlife Park) (Doug Gimesy)
Page 15: Red deer (Ron Waters) Page 29: Central bearded dragon (Totally Reptiles)
Page 18: Rainbow lorikeet (Salahuddin Ahmad) Page 30: Mitchell’s short-tailed snake (Marcia Riederer)
Page 19: Traditional dancing in Treasury Gardens (Djirri Djirri) Page 31: Platypus monitoring program (Doug Gimesy)
Traditional Owner artwork on possum skin
Page 20: Traditional Owner artwork on possum skin (Jack Pascoe)
(Jack Pascoe)
Page 33: Koala release ( Andrew Geschke, DELWP)
Traditional owner acknowledgement
The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
(DELWP) acknowledges and respects Victorian Traditional Owners
as the original custodians of Victoria's land and waters, their unique
ability to care for Country and deep spiritual connection to it.
DELWP honours Elders past and present whose knowledge and wisdom
has ensured the continuation of culture and traditional practices.
DELWP is committed to genuinely partner, and meaningfully engage,
with Victoria's Traditional Owners and Aboriginal communities to support
the protection of Country, the maintenance of spiritual and cultural practices
and their broader aspirations in the 21st century and beyond.
© The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2021.
ISBN 978-1-76105-795-3 (pdf/online/MS word)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. You are free to re-use the
work under that licence, on the condition that you credit the State of Victoria as author. The licence does not apply
to any images, photographs or branding, including the Victorian Coat of Arms, the Victorian Government logo
and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) logo. To view a copy of this licence,
visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
An appropriate citation is Peterson, D, Brockington, J, Hellstrom, J and Pascoe, J (2021),
Expert Advisory Panel's Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 Consultation Summary Report, 19 October 2021
Disclaimer
This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the
publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all
liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.
Accessibility
If you would like to receive this publication in an alternative format,
please telephone the DELWP Customer Service Centre on 136186, email customer.
service@delwp.vic.gov.au, or via the National Relay Service on 133 677
www.relayservice.com.au. This document is also available on the internet at
www.delwp.vic.gov.au.
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
Contents
Executive summary 3
Next steps 4
1. Consultation on the review of the Wildlife Act 1975 5
Why we engaged 5
How we engaged 6
Who we heard from 7
What we heard 7
2. What participants thought about the purpose and potential objectives
of the Wildlife Act 9
Contemporary values and expectations relating to wildlife 9
Rights and obligations related to wildlife 10
Protection, conservation and sustainable use of wildlife 11
Protection of wildlife ecosystems 12
Commercial, community and recreational interests and activities that involve wildlife 13
3. What participants thought about the scope and coverage of the Act 14
Definitions 14
Relationships with other legislation 15
Victoria’s contributions to wildlife under international agreements 18
4. What participants thought about the role of Traditional Owners
and Aboriginal Victorians 19
5. What participants thought about game species and hunting 21
6. What participants thought about principles and enablers of a future Act 22
Principles to guide decision making 22
Evidence to support decision making 22
Transparency and accountability of decision making 23
7. What participants thought about permitted activities 24
Licences, permits and authorisations 24
Authorities to Control Wildlife 24
Wildlife rescue and rehabilitation 26
Fees and cost recovery 26
Main heading here Sub heading here 1
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
Contents (cont.)
8. What participants thought about enforcement and compliance 27
Offences 27
Penalties 28
Sentencing guidelines 28
Monitoring compliance and enforcement 29
Appeal and review provisions 29
Other remedies and sanctions 30
9. What participants thought about alternative and complementary
approaches to regulation 31
A duty of care for wildlife 31
Landscape and wildlife management plans 32
Measures to protect and conserve wildlife on private land 32
Codes and standards 33
10. Next steps 34
Appendices 35
A1. Scope of the Panel’s review 35
A2. Contributors to the review 36
A3. Other consultation 38
2 Main heading here Sub heading here
Executive summary
In May 2020, the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change appointed an independent
Expert Advisory Panel to review the Victorian Wildlife Act 1975. The review is part of a wider
examination of Victoria’s legislative framework for protecting and managing biodiversity.
The Panel engaged with a broad range of The following key issues emerged from
stakeholders and members of the public. This the consultation:
engagement included meetings with people and • People value wildlife for many reasons and
groups interested in wildlife, including wildlife interact with wildlife in many ways.
management experts, Traditional Owners and
Aboriginal Victorians, not-for-profit and advocacy • Participants shared a common and strong desire
groups, peak bodies for affected sectors, community to see wildlife protected appropriately and
groups and government agencies. treated humanely.
• People considered wildlife should be protected,
We prepared an Issues Paper, which set out some not just because it may be at risk, but because it
issues for consideration and sought views about how forms a critical part of a healthy ecosystem and
the Act might be improved. Participants were able to because it has intrinsic value.
provide written submissions, responses to questions
or comments through the Engage Victoria website. • People generally consider the purposes of the
From April to October 2021, the Panel received 1,002 current Wildlife Act are ambiguous, confused,
submissions,1 including 134 from organisations and contradictory and outdated. Further, the
868 from individuals with an interest in wildlife. We purposes do not reflect contemporary concepts,
conducted 3 online forums and 3 expert workshops. language or many people’s aspirations for
We met with 18 key stakeholder groups and Victoria’s wildlife.
9 government agencies, and met with or heard from • Some participants considered the Act should
12 Traditional Owner groups or representative focus on wildlife populations and diversity rather
bodies. These meetings are continuing. We thank all than individual animal welfare (which is addressed
those who participated for their time and through animal welfare legislation).
commitment to improving rules around how
• There was support for a reformed Act that
Victorians interact with wildlife.
recognises wildlife is part of an interconnected
We received diverse views about the Wildlife Act and ecosystem, and that the sustainability of wildlife
how it could be reformed. A selection of broad species depends on the habitat supporting them.
observations from submissions and responses to • There was support for recognising more explicitly
questions are summarised below. Submissions and the many recreational and commercial activities
comments can be viewed on the Engage Victoria related to wildlife.
website (engage.vic.gov.au/independent-review-
• There were a range of views on what species of
victorias-wildlife-act-1975).
wildlife should be covered under the Act,
In their feedback to us, people raised many issues including about whether it should cover only
with the current Wildlife Act. People want abundant indigenous wildlife.
and resilient wildlife populations that contribute to • Participants were concerned about interactions
environmental and economic sustainability, both between the Wildlife Act and other legislation
now and into the future. While they had diverse views that can affect wildlife, including gaps, conflicts
about how to access, share and manage wildlife, a and duplication.
common theme was that participants see Victoria’s
• We heard support for broader recognition of
wildlife as unique.
Traditional Owner and Aboriginal Victorian
Overwhelmingly, participants considered the Wildlife relationships to the land, waters and animals.
Act needs to change and provided many There were a range of views about the precise
suggestions on what contemporary, better practice form of this recognition.
wildlife legislation should achieve and how it could • There was considerable interest in separating
be reformed. Other areas of interest included wildlife game management from the Wildlife Act.
welfare, managing wildlife that causes injury or
damage, hunting, ecotourism and Traditional Owner
cultural values and uses of wildlife.
1. This number includes submissions, responses to questions and comments.
Expert Advisory Panel’s Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 : Consultation summary report 3
• Participants suggested including principles to Next steps
guide decision making and provided many
suggestions, including considering an ecosystem- The Panel appreciates the time and thought that
based approach, the precautionary principle, so many Victorians have given to these important
a public interest test, transparency and issues and thanks everyone who has made a
accountability, community engagement and submission or provided their views in other ways.
intergenerational equity. The Panel will draw on the perspectives and
• Participants want to see greater engagement information provided by participants in developing
with stakeholders on decisions made under recommendations to government on reforming the
the Act. Wildlife Act. We will deliver this report to the
Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate
• Participants called for evidence-based decisions Change later this year.
at all levels of the wildlife management process.
• There were diverse views about licensing, The Victorian Government will release the
particularly the Authority to Control Wildlife Panel’s report along with a response to our
system. Participants suggested a range of options recommendations in the form of a draft
for changing the current approach to licensing Directions Paper for further public consultation
activities relating to wildlife. via Engage Victoria in early 2022.
• Participants generally supported improving
compliance and enforcement of the Act, and
strengthening penalties for breaches of
wildlife laws.
• Participants felt the review and appeal provisions
under the Act are not adequate, particularly the
lack of rights to appeal decisions to grant
authorisations (e.g. licences, permits, Authorities
to Control Wildlife).
• Some participants canvassed alternative
approaches that provide more incentives to
better manage wildlife, including a duty of care,
partnerships with landholders and other interest
groups, landscape and wildlife plans, and codes
and standards.
4 Expert Advisory Panel’s Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 : Consultation summary report
1. Consultation on the review of the
Wildlife Act 1975
The Wildlife Act 1975 is part of Victoria’s legal framework for protecting and managing biodiversity.
The Act establishes procedures that seek to promote the protection and conservation of wildlife,
the prevention of wildlife extinction, and the sustainable use of, and access to, wildlife. It also
prohibits and regulates the conduct of people engaged in activities connecting with or relating to
wildlife. While it has been amended many times, the Act has not been comprehensively reviewed
since its introduction more than 45 years ago.
In May 2020, following a series of high profile Why we engaged
incidents that highlighted some apparent
shortcomings of the Act (as outlined in the The Panel engaged with stakeholders, the broader
Issues Paper), the Minister for Energy, Environment community, government agencies and experts to
and Climate Change appointed an independent find out what issues were important to those who
Expert Advisory Panel to review the Act to consider participated, and gather ideas, opinions and
whether it should be reformed and if so how. The information about the Act, its purpose, how well it
review is part of a wider examination of Victoria’s currently works and how it can be reformed.
legislative framework for protecting and managing Our aim was to gather perspectives, information
biodiversity. It also coincides with a review of and suggestions for reform from a broad range of
Victoria’s animal welfare legislation. people and organisations.
The Panel comprises: We thank all those who participated for their time
• Dr Deborah Peterson (Chair) and commitment to improving Victoria’s Wildlife Act.
• Ms Jane Brockington This input will help ensure the review is well informed
and that the recommendations are relevant,
• Dr John Hellstrom ONZM workable and will deliver improved outcomes for
• Dr Jack Pascoe. wildlife and the Victorian community.
Previous Panel members were Associate We used the information from participants to
Professor Ngaio Beausoleil and Emeritus identify issues, areas of interest, and areas for more
Professor Arie Freiberg AM. research and engagement. We are drawing on this
information as we make recommendations, along
The Minister asked the Panel to examine: with our own expertise and research.
• whether the Act’s objectives and scope are
appropriate, comprehensive and clear
• whether the Act establishes a best practice
regulatory framework for achieving its objectives
• whether the Act appropriately recognises and
protects the rights and interests of Traditional
Owners and Aboriginal Victorians around wildlife
and their role in decision making
• the best way to encourage compliance with the
Act, including whether offences and penalties
under the Act are appropriate to punish and deter
wildlife crime.
Appendix 1 provides more information about the
scope of this review.
Expert Advisory Panel
Dr Deborah Peterson Ms Jane Brockington Dr John Hellstrom ONZM Dr Jack Pascoe
Expert Advisory Panel’s Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 : Consultation summary report 5
How we engaged
We used several mechanisms to engage Between March and October 2021, the Panel met
with stakeholders. with 18 key stakeholder groups including the
environment, animal welfare, wildlife conservation,
Between April and October 2021, we received wildlife keeping and trading, tourism, agriculture and
information and feedback on reforming the Wildlife hunting sectors. We also met with 9 government
Act via the online engagement platform, Engage agencies. Three online forums were held for the
Victoria (engage.vic.gov.au/independent-review- wildlife rescue and rehabilitation, possession and
victorias-wildlife-act-1975). As a guide, we released trade, and ecotourism sectors. We hosted 3 expert
an Issues Paper that set out the scope of the review workshops on the topics of rights and responsibilities
and outlined some initial issues for consideration. relating to wildlife, values and expectations, and
Over 1,000 stakeholders and members of the public compliance and enforcement. We also met with or
contributed in this way, by providing a written heard from 12 Traditional Owner groups and
submission, answering a questionnaire or leaving a representative bodies from across the state, to hear
comment (Figure 1). Appendix 2 lists participants and understand their expectations, interests,
who contributed in this way. cultural practices, and beliefs relating to wildlife and
how that may relate to a reformed Wildlife Act.
These meetings are continuing. Appendix 3 lists the
people and organisations with whom we met.
Figure 1. Panel engagement for the review of the Wildlife Act 1975
We received:
579
written
submissions
1002
responses
423
comments
We heard from 134 organisations and 868 individuals.
The Panel met with: The Panel held:
18 12 9 3 3
Key stakeholder Traditional Government Sector forums Expert
groups Owner groups agencies workshops
6 Expert Advisory Panel’s Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 : Consultation summary report
Who we heard from What we heard
Participants came from across Victoria, as well as The Panel received a wide variety of views, ideas and
outside the state. Participants responding via information about a large range of issues and from
Engage Victoria (accounting for 673 of 1,002 a broad range of participants. The aim of this report
submissions) provided information about their is to present a high level summary of views of people
location. Most of these responses were from people and organisations we heard from. The report seeks
and organisations located around Melbourne to distil and summarise the main issues raised.
(representing 57% of responses). Of the remaining However, given the richness of the views and
responses, 35% came from people or organisations breadth of information provided by the consultation
in regional Victoria, 7% came from interstate and 1% process, it does not attempt to capture everything.
came from overseas (Figure 2). 2 Those providing Readers are encouraged to refer to the submissions
their response via email (378 participants) were not which are available on the Engage Victoria website
asked to identify their location. (engage.vic.gov.au/independent-review-victorias-
wildlife-act-1975).
We recognise the views presented in this report do
not reflect the views of all Victorians and that
respondents are not a representative sample of the
Victorian community. It is not a ‘poll’ of preferences,
and simply counting the number of submissions
raising an issue does not indicate its relative
importance. This summary report does not assess
the merits of particular views, or signify the Panel’s
endorsement of any views. Our assessment, findings
and recommendations will be presented in the
final report.
Figure 2. Location of participants who provided feedback through Engage Victoria*
57% Metropolitan Melbourne
35% Regional Victoria
7% Interstate
1% Overseas
* Map shows the approximate location of 673 respondents at August 2021 (Victoria only, excludes those who provided submissions via email)
2. We received overseas submissions from the United States, France, Brazil, Germany, Slovenia, England and Finland.
Expert Advisory Panel’s Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 : Consultation summary report 7
Participants raised many issues with the current Wildlife Act. They were concerned about protecting and conserving wildlife and habitat. People want abundant and resilient wildlife populations that contribute to environmental and economic sustainability, both now and into the future. While they had diverse views about how to access, share and manage wildlife, a common theme was that participants value Victoria’s wildlife. Overwhelmingly, participants considered the Wildlife Act needs to be reformed and provided many suggestions on what contemporary, better practice wildlife legislation should achieve and how it could do that. Other areas of interest included wildlife welfare, managing wildlife that causes injury or damage, protecting marine mammals, licences and authorisations, offences and penalties, research relating to wildlife, hunting, ecotourism and Traditional Owner cultural values and uses of wildlife (Figure 3). Figure 3. Areas of interest of participants who provided feedback through Engage Victoria 8 Expert Advisory Panel’s Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 : Consultation summary report
2. What participants thought about the
purpose and potential objectives of
the Wildlife Act
The stated purposes of the Wildlife Act are: Contemporary values and
a. To establish procedures in order to promote:
expectations relating to wildlife
i. the protection and conservation of wildlife
ii. the prevention of taxa of wildlife from The Wildlife Act was introduced in 1975 and has been
becoming extinct; and amended numerous times but its basic structure
and approach remains the same. Since 1975,
iii. the sustainable use of, and access to,
understanding of the growing challenges of
wildlife; and
ecosystem decline, species extinction and loss of
b. To prohibit and regulate the conduct of biodiversity has developed enormously.
persons engaged in activities concerning
or related to wildlife. We heard from participants who felt the Act does
not represent what they consider to be
The Act does not have a statement of more contemporary community values and expectations
specific objectives. relating to wildlife. The views expressed largely
centred on expectations and values that wildlife
While we received feedback on the current Act,
should be protected, not just because it may be at
the purpose and objectives of a reformed Act also
risk but because it forms a critical part of a healthy
prompted many suggestions.
ecosystem and because it has intrinsic value.
The Act was perceived as inadequately recognising
the links between wildlife and healthy environments, Sentience
and not considering wildlife management using a There were diverse views about animal sentience
whole-of-ecosystem approach. Two other important and whether it should be reflected in a reformed Act.
issues related to: Most participants who commented on this issue
• Traditional Owners – Participants saw minimal supported recognising animal sentience. We heard
recognition in the Act of Traditional Owner rights from participants who considered recognising
and responsibilities relating to wildlife. Participants sentience could help determine what is appropriate
noted the Act does not recognise the ecological use and management of wildlife in the Act, what
knowledge of Traditional Owners and Aboriginal activities should be permitted and what activities
Victorians and their connection with Victoria’s should be prohibited. It could also help ensure that
land, waters and animals, and how their culture, wildlife was treated humanely.
customs and practices have protected and
shaped the land and its animals. Feedback about Other participants suggested recognising sentience
the role of Traditional Owners and Aboriginal was not necessary because it is already being
Victorians is discussed in Section 4. considered as part of animal welfare reforms being
examined in parallel with this review.
• game species and hunting – Feedback about this
issue related to whether non-native game species Participants had few suggestions about what
should be included in the Wildlife Act. This issue is species should be recognised as sentient. Common
discussed in Section 5. references included ‘animals’, ‘all wildlife’ and
‘individuals’. Some specific examples included
Other comments about the purposes of the current indigenous fish and invertebrates.
Wildlife Act included that they can be ambiguous,
confused, contradictory and outdated, and do not
reflect contemporary concepts, language or many
people’s aspirations for Victoria’s wildlife.
Some participants considered the purposes of
the Act remain relevant, and that the Act
provides a framework and mechanisms for
meeting the sometimes competing needs of
people living in Victoria.
The following sections discuss specific concerns
participants raised about the Act’s purpose
and objectives.
Expert Advisory Panel’s Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 : Consultation summary report 9Lethal control of wildlife Rights and obligations related
There were strongly held and diverse views about to wildlife
lethally controlling wildlife.
Numerous participants addressed the question of
Participants objecting to lethal control of wildlife where the rights and responsibilities for managing
put forward various reasons, including it: and using wildlife should be located and how those
• is inhumane rights might be best expressed in a new Act.
• conflicts with their personal values In Australia, state governments have primary
• can distress community members, particularly responsibility for natural resources, including native
if it happens near where people live fauna. Queensland and New South Wales legislation
explicitly states that indigenous wildlife, unless
• can affect tourist operators who rely on wildlife lawfully taken or used, is the property of the Crown.
for revenue Victoria’s Wildlife Act does not explicitly confer
• has regulation that is not transparent this status.
• is inappropriately driven by commercial or We heard arguments that the State’s responsibilities
recreational interests rather than animal and obligations for managing wildlife would be
welfare interests. clearer if wildlife were legally defined as property of
the Crown. Others suggested property rights could
Others suggested lethal control should be allowed in also be attached to other parties. Specific
certain situations: suggestions included:
• for cultural, ceremonial and other purposes of
• private landholders should have greater rights
Traditional Owners and Aboriginal Victorians
over wildlife on their property
• to control overabundant populations
• Traditional Owners and Aboriginal Victorians’
• to control wildlife that causes damage to property rights (and responsibilities) relating to wildlife
or poses a risk to human health and safety should be recognised
• for licensed hunting for recreational, social and • game species (taken in accordance with the
cultural reasons Game regulations) should become the property
• for commercial reasons, such as harvesting of the game licence holder.
kangaroos for human and pet food However, there were also other views. Some
• where it can be done sustainably. participants argued ascribing property rights over
wildlife to other parties, including the Crown, would
If lethal control measures could threaten a local not be appropriate because it would infringe the
population or affect non-targeted species, intrinsic rights of animals. We heard the Act should
participants suggested legislation should allow recognise the rights of animals and give wildlife legal
for other means of control. protection and rights that override other real or
10 Expert Advisory Panel’s Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 : Consultation summary reportperceived rights people and communities might Protection, conservation and
hold. We also heard wildlife is a natural asset that
should not belong to anyone in particular; wildlife sustainable use of wildlife
belongs to everyone and should be protected for
We heard support for broad policy goals of
people and its contribution to nature.
protecting and conserving wildlife. These goals were
There were also perspectives that it is not necessary variously described as avoiding harm to wildlife,
or desirable to attach property rights to wildlife. preventing animal extinction, or recovering and
It was suggested this approach creates more enhancing native wildlife populations.
confusion and would not assist with shifting the legal
There was support for the Act to be based on an
framework from one based on rights to take or use
ecosystem or ecological approach to wildlife. There
(concepts amenable to the concepts of property) to
were participants who considered the current
ethical or cultural obligations towards wildlife. It was
approach focuses on individual species and could
suggested it would be sufficient to set out the broad
instead focus on the full suite of species that exist
authorities and duties of the Crown relating to
within an ecosystem. Participants advocating for an
wildlife as a type of public good.
ecosystem-based approach argued it would better
protect all species, when compared with the current
focus on protecting threatened species.
We also heard from participants who supported
an Act based on ecological management objectives
that guide both the management and sustainable
use of wildlife. These participants argued that
allowing for sustainable use of wildlife can help
address overabundance, which is better for individual
populations as well as the ecosystem generally.
Expert Advisory Panel’s Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 : Consultation summary report 11Participants provided examples of where they Protection of wildlife ecosystems
considered ‘protection’, ‘conservation’ and
‘sustainable use’ sit uneasily together: There was support for a reformed Act that
• The ‘protection’ offered to some introduced recognises wildlife is part of an interconnected
animal species was seen as inconsistent ecosystem, and that the sustainability of wildlife
with protection and conservation of species depends on the habitat that supports them.
indigenous species. Some participants advocated for an ecosystem or
ecological approach as the framework for designing
• Some activities sanctioned by the Act, such as and operationalising the Act, including scheduling
‘take’ or ‘unprotection’ of indigenous wildlife, to the Act the governing principles and operational
could be inconsistent with conservation of wildlife guidance of the Convention on Biological Diversity
or prevention of extinction in some circumstances. as relevant guidance.
We heard mixed views about how to address these We heard concerns about the risks associated with
concerns. Some participants suggested leaving the environmental collapse, biodiversity loss and the
goals of ‘protection’, ‘conservation’ and ‘sustainable challenges of global warming, and their effects on
use’ as they currently are, considering them to habitat loss and the decline in habitat quality on
be appropriate. both public and private land. These participants
considered the current Wildlife Act does not
Other suggestions included: recognise the connection between wildlife
• requiring stricter controls and oversight on orders conservation and habitat protection, or the variety
to ‘protect’ or ‘unprotect’ wildlife. Participants of habitat types across landscapes.
specifically called for scientific and other
evidence, including traditional ecological We also heard from participants who noted actions
knowledge, to be considered in decision making, by private landholders that improved habitat for
such as knowledge of species distribution and wildlife (e.g. agricultural and forestry activities that
their role in the broader ecosystem and provide habitat). They emphasised the need for a
associated ecological processes whole-of-lifecycle habitat perspective towards
decision making, highlighting the positive impacts
• making decisions relating to declaring protected to habitat and wildlife a forest plantation makes for
and unprotected wildlife more transparent the majority of its lifecycle, for example. They
• attaching review and sunset dates to ‘protect’ considered these benefits outweigh the costs to
and ‘unprotect’ orders. habitat and wildlife that occur at the end of the
plantation lifecycle.
There were differing views on how to address
protection of wildlife habitat, ranging from relying
on other legislation that manages habitat and the
environment more broadly, to incorporating
requirements for managing habitat in a reformed
Wildlife Act.
Specific suggestions included:
• obligations on the government to
maintain habitat
• obligations on private landholders to
maintain habitat
• incentivising private landholders to protect,
conserve and restore habitat
• mechanisms to prevent habitat removal
• spatial policy tools such as zones, protected
areas and area plans
• provisions for determinations to protect critical
habitat (i.e. expanding the provisions in the Flora
and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) that
allow for critical habitat determinations for
threatened species).
12 Expert Advisory Panel’s Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 : Consultation summary reportCommercial, community and Participants argued the Act could recognise the
benefits of these commercial and recreational
recreational interests and activities activities, including:
that involve wildlife • promoting awareness and fostering appreciation
of wildlife and the environment
We heard from participants who wanted the
purpose and objects of a reformed Act to better • contributing to the state and many local
recognise the range of interests and activities that economies (e.g. ecotourism, wildlife harvesting
involve wildlife. As an example, some supported and processing)
recognising recreational activities involving wildlife • fostering awareness of the rules and regulations
such as hunting and fishing in the purpose and around wildlife
objects of the Act.
• identifying and reporting compliance issues.
We also heard from participants who supported
recognising the many commercial activities However, some participants considered using
involving wildlife. Examples are tourism activities wildlife, particularly for economic or commercial
that centre on wildlife such as whale watching, reasons, should be secondary to purposes such as
diving tours, guided bushwalking and bird watching. conserving wildlife within a broad ecosystem
Other commercial activities that participants framework, and ensuring their humane treatment.
mentioned included:
• harvesting wildlife (i.e. kangaroos) for human
and pet food
• displaying native wildlife for educational purposes
(e.g. zoos, wildlife parks and travelling shows)
• selling and trading wildlife (e.g. pet shops)
• controlling wildlife causing damage or posing a
risk to human health and safety (i.e. possum
and snake catchers)
• farming wildlife (e.g. emus)
• processing wildlife products
• wildlife taxidermy.
Expert Advisory Panel’s Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 : Consultation summary report 133. What participants thought about the
scope and coverage of the Act
We heard from participants who considered the scope and coverage of the current Act were not
clear. In particular, they provided feedback about the definitions in the Act, and how the Act
interacts with other legislation relating to wildlife and the environment.
Definitions There was a wide range of suggestions of what
should be incorporated into this definition. Some
We heard calls for more clear definitions. suggested the definition should cover all animals.
Feedback from participants suggested the Specific suggestions were common invertebrates
Wildlife Act’s definitions of some terms, such as and fish, which are excluded from the current
wildlife and protected wildlife, are complex, do not definition in the Act. However, we also heard
reflect what most people would consider wildlife, arguments against including fish and aquatic
create confusion about what is or is not covered, invertebrates already covered under the Fisheries
and affect the ability of the Act to achieve Act 1995. There were also calls for distinguishing
its objectives. between wild animals and domestically bred native
animals such as birds.
Wildlife
There were suggestions to include plants, fungi and
Some participants argued the Act should establish soil and micro-organisms. Participants proposing a
specific categories for species: wider definition of wildlife often also proposed a
• ‘Iconic’ species, ‘heritage’ species or species of wider ranging Act that focused on biodiversity or an
special notoriety or status – These categories ecosystems approach.
could apply whether or not species are listed as At the same time, some argued for excluding non-
threatened or culturally significant. Declaration indigenous species (examples included deer, quail,
would trigger, for example, requirements for partridges and pheasants). Debate on whether
protective planning and management. non-indigenous species were defined as wildlife was
• ‘Keystone’ wildlife species – These species have a often linked with views on hunting and sentience,
significant role in ecosystem function, such as and whether hunting should remain a part of the
apex predators or ecosystem engineers. Wildlife Act or be covered by different legislation
Participants argued this approach would reflect a (including creating a separate Game Act).
greater ecological focus for wildlife management.
We heard the current definition of wildlife in the Act
can be unclear and somewhat contradictory and
can cause confusion.
14 Expert Advisory Panel’s Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 : Consultation summary reportSeveral species in particular attracted Other definitions
much discussion:
Participants also noted definitions of other terms as
• Deer were explicitly raised as an issue, especially missing, ambiguous, confusing or unclear, including:
concerns about their impact on the environment.
Some participants argued for excluding them from • protection
the definition of wildlife and declaring them as a • habitat
pest species under the Catchment and Land • use of wildlife and sustainable use
Protection Act 1994 (CALP Act) or covering them
• ‘in the wild’
under a separate Game Act. Others argued for
retaining them in the definition of wildlife, and that • balance
licensing of game hunting could provide resources • game and game animals
for proactive management of habitat and
• destroy
sustainable use.
• disturb.
• There were arguments for and against including
feral horses or brumbies as wildlife. Those in favour
cited their cultural significance for some
communities and noted inconsistencies with the
Relationships with other legislation
approach taken for other introduced species such The Wildlife Act interacts with other legislation that
as deer and trout. These participants advocated also affects wildlife outcomes (Figure 4).
for sustainable populations of brumbies, with Other relevant Acts include the FFG Act, the
overabundance managed in the same way as for
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (POCTA
kangaroos, koalas and deer. Arguments against
Act), the Game Management Authority Act 2014
including brumbies centred around their
(GMA Act), the Traditional Owner Settlement Act
detrimental effects on native animals directly and
native environments. 2010, the Fisheries Act, the CALP Act, the Planning
and Environment Act 1987, the Victoria Planning
• How dingoes and wild dogs are managed was also a Provisions and the Environment Protection and
concern for some participants. Dingoes are a Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act),
threatened species and are protected under the Act. among others.
Wild dog numbers are controlled in Victoria to
protect livestock. However, because of the difficulty Participants raised concerns about how the Wildlife
in distinguishing between wild dogs and dingoes, Act interacts with other legislation relating to wildlife
dingoes are unprotected on private land, and within and the environment more generally. For example,
a 3 km buffer of private property, so that landholders we heard from participants who were concerned
and public land managers can control wild dogs wildlife and their habitats were not considered
without fear of prosecution. There were concerns
appropriately under planning schemes and
about how these controls affect the conservation of
associated legislation (particularly the CALP Act
dingoes and hybrid species. Participants discussed
and the Planning and Environment Act). One
the significant cultural value of dingoes to some
suggestion was to require planning schemes to
Traditional Owners and Aboriginal Victorians. We
consider ways to conserve wildlife habitat, so that
also heard about the important role dingoes play in
new developments do not negatively impact wildlife
ecosystems as apex predators, for managing
(e.g. natural corridors that allow wildlife to safely
populations of both native species and introduced
access food and water).
species (e.g. foxes and feral cats).
Expert Advisory Panel’s Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 : Consultation summary report 15Figure 4. The framework for wildlife protection in Victoria
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
(Commonwealth)
• Nationally listed threatened species and migratory species
• Approvals process for matters of national environmental significance
• Regulates international wildlife trade
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
• Wildlife policy and administration of the
Wildlife Act 1975 Office of the Conservation Regulator
• Community education and advice for managing
wildlife issues and impacts • Compliance and enforcement
• Wildlife population management and research • Licensing and permits
Wildlife Act 1975 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
• Protection, conservation and sustainable access • Biodiversity conservation objectives
and use of wildlife • Listing of threatened species
• Licences, authorisations and authorisation • Critical habitat and habitat conservation orders
orders
• Biodiversity strategy
• Offences and Authorised Officers powers
• Protections for whales, dolphins and seals
• Regulates tour operators in State Wildlife Reserves
Wildlife Regulations 2013
• Regulate the trade, possession and use of wildlife
Parks Victoria • Prescribe licences and their conditions
• Prescribe fees, offences, royalties
• Regulates protection, use and management of and exemptions
Victoria’s national parks and other state parks • Habitat protection
• Regulates tour operators
Wildlife (Marine Mammal) Regulations 2019
• Regulate activities relating to marine mammals,
including tourism
16 Expert Advisory Panel’s Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 : Consultation summary reportNative Title Act 1993
(Commonwealth)
• Traditional Owner Corporations can apply for a Federal court determination to recognise native
title rights
Department of Jobs, Precincts Department of Justice and
and Regions Community Safety
Minister for Agriculture Attorney-General
Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010
• Policy relating to recreational game hunting, • Traditional Owner Corporations can enter into
animal welfare, agriculture and biosecurity a Recognition Settlement Agreement with the
State to recognise their right to access and use
wildlife
• Exempt from offences under the Wildlife Act
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986
• Animal cruelty offences that apply to wildlife
• Research permits in relation to wildlife
Local Government
• Exemption from offences for anything done in
accordance with the Wildlife Act Minister for Planning
Planning and Environment Act 1987
Game Management Authority Act 2014 • Section 52.17 of Victoria’s Planning Provisions
sets out the requirements for a planning permit
• Establishment of the Game to remove native vegetation and offset specific
Management Authority impacts on threatened species
Game Management Authority
• Regulation of game hunting, including deer,
native duck, quail Other legislation with intersections with the
• Administration of game licences Wildlife Act:
• Regulation and enforcement of kangaroo • Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994
harvesting program
• Forests Act 1958
• Conservation Forests and Lands Act 1987
• Crown Land Reserves Act 1978
Wildlife (Game) Wildlife (State • Fisheries Act 1995
Regulations 2012 Game Reserves) • Land Act 1958
Regulations 2014 • Meat Industry Act 1993
• Regulate game
hunting • Prescribe
• Prescribe game particulars relating
licences, conditions to the management
and restrictions of state game
reserves
• Prescribe fees and
offences relating
to game
Expert Advisory Panel’s Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 : Consultation summary report 17Another issue raised by participants was the However, others argued such integration would
relationship between the Wildlife Act and other create new problems, such as weaker controls and
animal welfare legislation including the POCTA Act. regulations. Those supporting separate statutes
For example, some participants supported including noted benefits such as clearly defined subject
animal welfare provisions in the Wildlife Act. matter and appropriate mechanisms for managing
However, other participants disagreed with this particular circumstances.
approach in favour of maintaining the current
separate Acts for wildlife and animal welfare. Other suggestions related to ways to improve the
clarity and consistency between different statutes:
We also heard from participants about the • Introduce mechanisms in the Wildlife Act that
confusion, costs and administrative burden arising complement those already available in other
from the many Acts and statutes relating to wildlife legislation (e.g. conservation tools contained in
and habitat and how they intersect. As an example, the FFG Act such as action statements for wildlife
some tourism organisations require licences under listed as threatened, flora and fauna
the Wildlife Act to operate as well as separate management plans and regional recovery plans).
licences under legislation managing land or water.
They may also need separate licences for different • Ensure existing pesticide use legislation
species, which adds to the administrative burden (Agriculture and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of
of operating. Use) Act 1992) aligns with the Wildlife Act or
incorporate native wildlife issues into the
Another example related to different classifications Agriculture and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of
of animals such as kangaroos, which are defined as Use) Act. This suggestion related to illegal use of
wildlife under the Wildlife Act and as ‘game’ under pesticides that have consequences for wildlife.
the Meat Act 1993. Participants saw these definitions • Remove game (particularly introduced species)
as conflicting and considered this can undermine from the Wildlife Act and modify the GMA Act or
objectives of the Wildlife Act to protect and create a new Game Act (as discussed in
conserve wildlife. Section 5).
Generally, participants called for greater clarity and
consistency between statutes that manage
Victoria’s wildlife and their habitats. One proposal to
Victoria’s contributions to wildlife
better integrate the Wildlife Act and other relevant under international agreements
legislation was to create a new Act for protecting
and conserving wildlife and habitat, by We heard from participants who suggested
amalgamating the Wildlife Act, the FFG Act and the recognising Victoria’s obligations under
relevant parts of the Planning and Environment Act. international agreements relating to wildlife,
such as the Convention on the Conservation of
Migratory Species of Wild Animals (the Bonn
Convention), the Ramsar Convention and the
Paris Agreement to combat climate change, which
includes obligations to protect biodiversity and the
integrity of ecosystems.
Particular suggestions were to:
• extend wildlife protections to certain key
migratory species, such as shorebirds,
waterbirds and other fauna that depend on
Victorian wetlands
• clarify and specify Victoria’s key practical
and administrative role in these
international obligations.
18 Expert Advisory Panel’s Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 : Consultation summary report4. What participants thought about the
role of Traditional Owners and
Aboriginal Victorians
We heard a range of views about broader recognition in the Act of Traditional Owner and
Aboriginal Victorian relationships to the land, waters and animals.
Traditional Owners and Aboriginal Victorians Additional suggestions included aligning the Wildlife
provided detailed suggestions about how to reform Act with other policies and strategies related to
the Wildlife Act including: Traditional Owners and Aboriginal Victorians.
• explicitly recognise rights and responsibilities of Examples included the Victorian Traditional Owner
Traditional Owners and Aboriginal Victorians to Cultural Landscapes Strategy, the Self-
manage (care for and protect) Country and Determination Reform Framework 2019, the
wildlife and that their needs vary across Nations Victorian Aboriginal Affairs Framework 2018–2023,
and Pupangarli Marnmarnepu – DEWLP’s Aboriginal
• enable greater involvement in land management Self-Determination Reform Strategy 2020–2025.
as part of a cultural landscape or whole-of- There were also calls for additional resources to
Country approach allow Traditional Owners and Aboriginal Victorians
• recognise and use the ecological knowledge to support their role relating to wildlife.
and skills of Traditional Owners and
Aboriginal Victorians
• provide additional protections for culturally
significant species
• create rights to use wildlife for cultural purposes
and to maintain traditions
• create rights to harvest wildlife without a permit
for cultural, ceremonial and other purposes
including commercial purposes.
Expert Advisory Panel’s Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 : Consultation summary report 19However, other views were also expressed. Some Some participants were also concerned whether participants disagreed with the principle of recognising rights and interests of Traditional attaching special rights to any group within the Owners and Aboriginal Victorians would impact community. Other people concerned about others in the community, for example, by adversely sentience and wildlife cruelty argued culling was affecting an established industry or competing unacceptable under any circumstances, including unfairly with established organisations. for cultural and traditional reasons. We also heard from people opposed to commercial harvesting under any circumstances, whether for economic development or as a reflection of self-determination. 20 Expert Advisory Panel’s Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 : Consultation summary report
5. What participants thought about
game species and hunting
The issue of game species and hunting generated significant feedback.
Hunters and hunting organisations strongly Other potential approaches included:
supported hunting for its social, cultural and • introducing greater penalties for acts of cruelty
economic contributions. They also pointed out related to hunting
hunting can help control game numbers (e.g. deer).
Some argued that ethical and sustainable hunting • establishing an independent animal advisory
is a historical and legitimate means of collecting body to evaluate hunted species
food, and that the Act should preserve and • avoiding pain and suffering
enshrine the traditional and cultural rights of
• avoiding waste by recovering all animal carcasses
all people to hunt wildlife.
• increasing hunting licensing fees to fund the
We also heard from participants who strongly training of staff to conduct compliance checks
opposed hunting. Some pointed to what they saw and enforce laws
as a contradiction of protecting non-native species
• ensuring no conflicts of interest exist between
that are a threat to wildlife and wildlife habitat.
officers involved in compliance checks, and
Other participants objected to any activity that
involvement in recreational hunting
involves lethal control.
• facilitating hunting, including allowing some
A view was expressed that classifying animals as flexibility with season settings and bag limits
‘game’ reflected historical activities and patterns and
• prohibiting recreational deer hunting until their
the perceived utility of animals, and that this decision
numbers are reduced
is not based on any scientific principle. Often, the
support for or against hunting depended on whether • requiring full transparency about information
the species in question is native or non-native. Some supporting recreational duck season decisions,
participants did not support hunting native animals. including which stakeholders were consulted.
Hunting of native ducks in particular was an issue for
many of these participants. They supported their
arguments with examples where threatened species
were killed because of inaccuracies in identifying
game and non-game species. Participants also
argued banning native duck hunting in Victoria would
be consistent with bans in New South Wales,
Queensland and Western Australia.
Proposals relating to hunting varied from banning it
outright to specifying which species could be hunted
along with stringent permit conditions to ensure
hunting is ethical, humane and sustainable. Another
suggestion was to remove game (particularly
introduced species such as deer, partridges, quail and
pheasants) from the Wildlife Act and modify the GMA
Act or create a new Game Act. Others considered that
if a new Game Act is not enacted, deer should remain
classified as wildlife, adding that nothing in the Wildlife
Act prevents utilisation or management action when
they cause damage to the environment.
Expert Advisory Panel’s Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 : Consultation summary report 216. What participants thought about
principles and enablers of a future Act
Participants provided feedback about ways to improve how the Act operates.
These aspects related to principles to guide decision making, and consultation and engagement.
Principles to guide decision making Evidence to support decision making
We heard it would be helpful to include principles in We heard from participants who considered the
the Act, and a wide range of possible principles were Wildlife Act lacks provisions that explicitly require or
suggested. Some examples included: enable evidence-based decision making in planning
• apply an ecosystems approach and promote and developing strategies for wildlife management
recovery and restoration – an integrated and conservation.
approach that incorporates the entire ecosystem, There were arguments for prioritising specialist
including humans, into resource management. expert advice to support informed decision
Specific reference was made to the 12 governing making. There were also arguments for basing
principles of the ecosystem approach and decisions on more than just scientific information,
5 principles of operational guidance agreed to and including the view of interest groups and the
under the Biodiversity Convention. broader community.
• apply a restoration ecology approach – actively
renew and restore degraded, damaged or There was support for greater engagement to
destroyed ecosystems and habitats capture the significant experience and knowledge
held by stakeholders, including Traditional Owners
• apply a One Health approach – the health of and Aboriginal Victorians, relevant interest groups
wildlife, livestock, humans and ecosystems and commercial interests.
depend on one another, so ensuring the health of
one is necessary to ensure the health of all There were also views on the processes for engaging
• apply the precautionary principle – actions taken with experts, stakeholders and the broader
to conserve and protect wildlife should not be community. These included:
avoided or delayed because of lack of scientific • a technical advisory group or a panel of technical
certainty about the outcome experts, which is formally recognised in the Act.
• apply a public interest test – wildlife are The Scientific Advisory Committee convened
managed for the diversity of interests represented under the FFG Act was suggested as an example.
by the broader community and not just an • consultative committees or advisory groups that
influential minority provide a forum for regular discussion between
• embed ethics and values such as do no harm, government, interested groups and Traditional
compassion in decision making and the 5 animal Owners and Aboriginal Victorians. Western
freedoms (freedom from hunger and thirst, Australia and South Australia were identified as
freedom from discomfort, freedom from pain, having processes that incorporate a broad range
injury or disease, freedom from fear and distress, of community members.
and freedom to express normal behaviour)
• require decisions to be based on the ‘best
available evidence’
• consider all forms of relevant information,
including scientific and indigenous and local
knowledge, innovations and practices, in arriving
at effective ecosystem management strategies
• require intergenerational equity
• apply the subsidiarity principle – decentralise
management to the lowest appropriate level
• recognise change is inevitable.
22 Expert Advisory Panel’s Review of the Wildlife Act 1975 : Consultation summary reportYou can also read
