Inquiry: Wildlife Killing Program ‘Weak’ and ‘Outdated’

Native Animal Culling Licences Under Fire in NSW: Calls for Overhaul

Animal welfare advocates are raising serious concerns about the licensing system in New South Wales (NSW) that permits the harm or killing of native animals. A parliamentary inquiry has heard that the current framework is considered “weak” and “outdated,” with a dramatic surge in the number of animals approved for culling in recent years.

The figures are stark: the number of native animals permitted to be harmed or killed under the licence program has nearly doubled in the past two years. In 2023, this number stood at 243,078, soaring to over 485,000 last year.

However, the issue extends beyond mere numbers, according to Nicola Beynon from Humane World for Animals, who addressed the inquiry. “The problem is not just the numbers, it’s how the system operates,” she stated. “Licences are intended to be a last resort, yet applicants are generally not required to prove damage, demonstrate that non-lethal methods have been tried, or provide independent evidence to support their claims. The licensed killing of native animals in NSW has reached a scale and level of normalisation that demands serious scrutiny. There is limited transparency, minimal oversight and weak animal welfare safeguards.”

Under the existing scheme, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service grants licences when native animals, including kangaroos, wombats, possums, and birds, are deemed a threat to human safety, are causing property damage, or are resulting in economic impacts. While many licences are issued in areas with a strong agricultural presence, they have also been approved for residents in various parts of Sydney.

The NSW Animal Welfare Committee is actively investigating the welfare safeguards, transparency, and the reasons behind the increasing issuance of these licences.

Demands for Non-Lethal Alternatives

A consensus among several animal welfare groups presenting to the committee is that obtaining a permit to cull native animals is far too easy. Dr. Renae Charalambous, also from Humane World for Animals, expressed her concerns about the ingrained reliance on lethal control methods. “The default reliance on lethal control, I think that’s very embedded in Australian culture unfortunately,” she observed.

During discussions about alternative control methods and who should bear the associated costs, Tara Ward from the Animal Defenders Office emphasised the critical need for more comprehensive data from licence applicants. “Without that kind of information we’re never going to get to a point where we can work out what non-lethal methods do work, where, on what species, and in what circumstances,” Ward explained. “This is where the onus is on the NSW government to really increase its efforts in the research and trial space.”

The inquiry also heard proposals suggesting that the NSW government could potentially subsidise the costs of professional shooters or provide enhanced training for licence holders to ensure any necessary culling is conducted humanely.

A New Regulator Takes the Helm

The responsibility for overseeing this contentious scheme is in the process of being transferred to a new state government body, the Biodiversity and Heritage Regulator. Adam Gilligan, the chief regulatory officer for this new entity, acknowledged the challenges in enforcing licence conditions.

“Often those engaged in wildlife control will be shooting in remote areas late at night, and as such it’s not possible or reasonable to undertake live inspections of those activities,” Gilligan explained to the inquiry. “For this reason we place a regulatory emphasis on reporting obligations on licensees, coupled with reporting of breaches by the community to ensure we can have a detailed understanding of impacts. We’ll be exploring new methods and systems to improve our understanding of impacts and to improve our ability to improve to enforce compliance with the rules.”

Gilligan also highlighted the importance of supporting landholders who often possess significant expertise in wildlife management. “[We want] to contribute to a future system that is transparent, fair, grounded in good science and First Nations cultural learning,” he stated, outlining the regulator’s vision for a more robust and equitable approach. This support could involve facilitating access to professional wildlife control services and providing landholders with the latest research findings.