Reforming Victoria's authority to control wildlife system

We are working to move application processes online to make it easier to prepare and submit applications. It will also allow for better data collection. Online applications will be implemented during 2021.

We are developing a streamlined application process for renewals of ATCWs. This will look at how a renewal process could be implemented, saving time for both the applicant and the assessing officer. We will make sure the process is efficient and enables a robust, risk-based assessment of applications.

We are improving guidance and supporting documents available for applicants. For example, we are developing guidance regarding the most appropriate ways to estimate the number of wildlife impacting a property. This was suggested in the ATCW review and will be available later this year.

The review sought feedback on whether shooter proficiency training and testing should be a requirement for those seeking an authority to lethally control wildlife. Responses to the review showed a distinct split between ATCW holders and non-ATCW holders in their views on this matter. This requirement will not be introduced because:

• Proficiency training and testing carries a significant cost to the applicant.
• Inhumane control of wildlife caused by poor shooter accuracy has not been proven by the Conservation Regulator when undertaking compliance activity.
• Other Australian states and territories do not require proficiency training and testing for their equivalent to an ATCW.
• Authorities to lethally control animals via shooting include conditions that help ensure a humane outcome. For example, conditions specify the minimum combination of firearm, calibre, and projectile weight to be used and that shooting should not be undertaken from a moving vehicle.
• ATCW holders can use a range of professional and experienced volunteer shooters to undertake control if an ATCW holder is not able or confident of their ability to comply with the conditions of the ATCW.

The introduction of a fee for ATCWs was also suggested in the review. As this would require amendments to the Wildlife Act 1975, this feedback has been provided to the Wildlife Act review independent expert panel for their consideration.

We have made alterations to the assessment process which is leading to shorter assessment times and more consistent decision making. This includes the introduction of improved guidance for our officers across the state and the establishment of a risk-based framework for deciding when inspections are required in the assessment of ATCW applications.

The transition to online applications and the development of a streamlined application process for renewals outlined above will also contribute to reducing assessment times.

We are also working to improve the information on its website to provide current, relevant, and clear information regarding the ATCW decision making process.

We seek advice from an Independent Panel of Experts when appropriate to inform assessments of ATCW applications.

This process now has clearer guidelines exist about the process and triggers for using the panel.

The review process explored the potential to introduce a minimum threshold for damage to property, crops or pasture before an ATCW will be issued. It also explored the potential introduction of a ‘damage estimate calculator’ for use in the ATCW process. These actions will not be introduced because:

Damage to property, crops or pasture is only one grounds for issuing an ATCW. Other grounds include environmental impact, human health and safety and biodiversity impact. Introduction of a threshold for damage may inappropriately focus applications and assessments on damage.

Damage thresholds and calculators would be complex, adding burden to applicants and potentially increasing assessment timeframes. The additional burden and time required may lead potential applicants to undertake lethal control without an approval.

Minimum damage thresholds may disadvantage urban or small property owners.

We established standard practices for officers to determine the level of risk posed by an ATCW application. This ensures we are aware of high priority ATCWs.

The transition to online applications will enable us to determine a low-burden way for ATCW holders to report back on wildlife control they have undertaken under their ATCWs.

The data needs to be accurate, reliable and must minimise the ability of users to manipulate the system. The data will be used to inform targeted compliance activities. Identifying high risk cases that we want to keep an eye on.

The review process considered re-introduction of the requirement to list all people that would be involved in undertaking the control of wildlife on ATCWs. This action is not supported because:

• Anyone undertaking control activities permitted under an ATCW is bound by its conditions so there is no necessity for them to be specifically listed.
• Often applicants have not decided who will undertake the control at the time of applying for an ATCW. As ATCWs are not able to be amended under the Act, adding additional parties after the issuing would require the authority to be reissued. This would increase the burden for little benefit.

The introduction of a Governor in Council Order for the wilful disturbance of common species, such as the Eastern Grey Kangaroo, was suggested in the review. It was also suggested to increase the number and range of sanctions that are available to Conservation Regulator Authorised Officers.

As these suggestions would require amendments to the Wildlife Act 1975, they have been provided to the Wildlife Act review independent expert review panel for their consideration.

Traditional Owners can currently apply for an ATCW on the ground of ceremonial or cultural reasons.

We will appoint a Traditional Owner representative on the Independent Panel of Experts by the end of this year.

We will continue to update and produce guidance documentation to assist people to comply with the law, including ensuring the information is easily found online including:

• application forms
• guides to assist in completing an application, and
• historical data relating to ATCWs.

We won't be notifying neighbours when an ATCW is issued, because:

• To do this without the consent of the ATCW holder would be a breach of the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014.
• The notification of neighbours may lead them to break the law in attempting to interact with or move wildlife without an appropriate approval.
• Anyone using a firearm is required to do so in accordance with the Firearms Act 1996 and this covers areas of concern such as shooting near residences and across property boundaries.

The review also explored the potential introduction of third-party appeal rights to issued ATCWs. The provision of this right would require amendments to the Wildlife Act 1975, so these suggestions have been provided to the Wildlife Act review independent expert panel for their consideration.