Thursday, 10 September 2026

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (12:07): (1478) My question is for the Minister for Environment. Last year tens of thousands of native birds were killed under the authority-to-control-wildlife permit system across Victoria. Some of the species killed by shooting or poisoning include silver gulls, rainbow lorikeets, black swans, white-faced herons and even tiny little silvereyes. These permits can be obtained easily for reasons as simple as birds being deemed a nuisance, such as being too loud. But with H5N1 bird flu in our state, native birds are facing potential catastrophic population losses, and it is clear they should not be subjected to additional unnecessary harm. Minister, will you reconsider the approval of these lethal private permits to ensure the best possible protection of our native bird populations?

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Environment, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (12:08): I thank Ms Purcell for her question. The conservation regulator is the responsible body for overseeing the authority-to-control-wildlife system. They assess every application on a case-by-case basis. I am very happy to have conversations with you. At the outset, your engagement with my office since coming in is obviously – you have got a lot of views and information in relation to this portfolio, as do a lot of members of Parliament, as I am working out as a new environment minister. I certainly encourage you to continue those conversations with my office. I am very happy to provide information where possible.

Your assertion that they are easy to obtain is actually at odds with my experience as a local member for the last 12 years. The amount of complaints about not being able to get them is something that comes into my office regularly. I am interested in a little bit of back and forth on your experience and how some of the stakeholders you are hearing from experience this. The system is designed around balance. Nonlethal means are always preferred. It is not something that is, I believe, used unnecessarily. I would certainly take evidence to the contrary. It is about genuine risks to property, public safety and biodiversity while maintaining transparency through public reporting. It is listed on the website. It is reported annually, and it is where you can see some of the species you have mentioned featured. I understand why there would be reasons for people to question that and want to make sure that that is appropriate.

It is not my role as minister to issue blanket edicts to the department and entities when they have a responsibility, but as you have indicated and as we have discussed in this place for about the last month in terms of the impacts of bird flu, these will be relevant factors in relation to the consideration, because on a case-by-case basis, if we are having instances of sick birds, it is going to be a factor where it might rub up against an authority-to-control-wildlife permit. It would be relevant, and I am happy to continue the conversation with you.

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (12:10): Thank you, Minister. My supplementary is in relation to the accessibility of these permits. Certainly, in my experience, they have been easy to get. In fact someone spoke to my office about having one within 24 hours for wombats. But I understand that some are probably also rejected, and in saying that, the government does say nonlethal options must be considered first. However, applicants do not need to prove that they have actually attempted those measures or what they were; they must only tick a box saying that they have. The killing is also undertaken privately without supervision from authorities, and there is no reporting requirement or obligation to prove that the number of animals authorised to be killed on the permit was not actually exceeded. If the government is not prepared to totally suspend these authorities, would there be consideration for additional safeguards such as stronger evidence requirements, supervision by authorities when shooting occurs and tighter limits on numbers and species?

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Environment, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (12:12): Thank you, Ms Purcell, for your supplementary question and your suggestions. As I understand it, applicants must provide evidence of the damage or risk being caused and demonstrate that appropriate nonlethal management options have been considered before lethal control is authorised. I am happy to seek more information from my department to give you comfort that that is provided and examined. The government of course expects the conservation regulator to apply rigorous assessment processes and will continue to monitor the operation of the system to ensure that it remains evidence based, proportionate and consistent with the objectives of the Wildlife Act. As I indicated in my answer to your substantive question, with the impacts of bird flu impacting all parts of Victoria, these will be complementary matters that I am very interested in examining and monitoring. Thank you for your feedback.