Monitoring and enforcing compliance

The Conservation Regulator’s approach to compliance and enforcement will be consistent with its Compliance and Enforcement Policy (DELWP 2019). Our goal is to maximise compliance with the law, reducing harm and providing benefits to the community and our environment.

We consider factors such as whether breaches of the law were intentional, reckless or repeated, and the impact of the breach in our decision making. This means that our approach will shift depending on the circumstances, from providing information and advice about how to comply with the law through to imposing fines, cancelling authorisations or prosecuting for serious offending.

Supporting compliance

This document provides clear and accessible information to support blue gum plantation owners and managers to understand the law and how to comply with it. This document is publicly available, allowing all interested stakeholders the opportunity to understand the Conservation Regulator’s requirements and regulatory approach to minimise impacts to Koalas in blue gum plantations.

The Koala Management Plan template further supports reduced impacts to Koalas. The development of ProofSafe for authorisation holders to capture and report Koala incidents (within 24 hours), observations (immediately) and near misses (within 24 hours) ensures easy and accurate data reporting.

Authorisation holders can contact the Conservation Regulator to seek further advice on Koala management issues as required.

Monitoring compliance

Authorised officers monitor compliance with the conditions outlined in the authorisation and ensure operations are conducted in line with the Koala Management Plan.

Details of all detection checks and locations of Koalas must be recorded completely and accurately, as soon as practicable, in ProofSafe. Complete and accurate information on all Koala incidents and near misses must be recorded in ProofSafe. The Conservation Regulator will monitor all data submitted to ProofSafe, with access to the data in real time.

The Koala Index is calculated to monitor performance and provide data for public reporting. The Conservation Regulator expects that blue gum plantation owners and managers monitor their Koala Index and seek to modify practices to further minimise impacts when required. If the Koala Index indicates declining performance, the Conservation Regulator may request that the authorisation holder provide a rectification plan that outlines the process taken to determine why the incidents occurred, details of issues identified and proposed corrective actions, including a timeframe for implementation. The rectification plan must be provided within 10 business days of the request and must be to the satisfaction of the authorised officer.

The Conservation Regulator will undertake inspections and audits of authorisation holders regularly to ensure that the authorisation conditions are being met. Inspections and audits will be conducted with or without notice. Inspections focus on on-ground activities, with audits ensuring that the reporting and record keeping of the authorisation holder is accurate and up to date.

Assessing non-compliance

The Conservation Regulator treats all reports of non‑compliance as high priority (e.g. non‑compliance with an authorisation and/or illegal harm to wildlife). All reports, including those from third-parties, will be subject to preliminary investigations. Preliminary investigations may include reviewing other intelligence, desktop assessments, field inspections, and enquiries with other parties.

If the Conservation Regulator obtains information that a breach of the Wildlife Act or POCTA Act may have occurred, an official investigation will be undertaken. Official investigations may include site inspections, surveillance, conducting interviews and seeking expert assessment.

Enforcement action

Section 28B of the Wildlife Act states that failing to comply with the conditions of an authorisation is an offence and can carry a penalty in excess of $9,615 per offence (50 penalty units). Further, any disturbance to Koalas that is not covered by the authorisation and Koala Management Plan is a breach of section 58 of the Wildlife Act and can carry a penalty in excess of $3,846 per offence (20 penalty units).

Unlawful disturbance may also be a breach of the POCTA Act, which, for aggravated cruelty, can carry a penalty of over $96,305 or imprisonment for up to two years or, in the case of a body corporate, over $230,772. Illegal destruction of wildlife (section 43 of the Wildlife Act) can carry penalties in excess of $9,615 (50 penalty units) and/or six months imprisonment with an additional penalty of over $961 for each head of wildlife. (For the year ending 30 June 2024 one penalty unit is equal to $192.31).

If the Conservation Regulator determines that a breach (such as not meeting the conditions of the authorisation) has occurred, enforcement action will be taken consistent with the Conservation Regulator’s Compliance and Enforcement Policy. The enforcement approach aims to stop the non‑compliant activity, penalise non-compliance and deter future non-compliance.

The enforcement options available to the Conservation Regulator include issuing a formal written warning, suspension of authorisation, cancellation of authorisation, and prosecution for offences under the Wildlife Act and/or POCTA Act. The Conservation Regulator will exercise its discretion when applying enforcement tools to ensure that its responses are in line with its Compliance and Enforcement Policy (DELWP 2019).

The greatest harms and intentional non-compliance will be met with the strongest enforcement responses.

Each decision about response to non-compliance will be informed by past actions. This includes considering previous communications and actions with parties on specific issues.

Communicating outcomes

Outcomes of court proceedings relating to koalas in blue gums will be published, including through the Conservation Regulator’s annual reporting.

In the interests of transparency and accountability, a quarterly summary of Koala incident trends will be published on the Conservation Regulator’s website.

Case studies

The following case studies are provided to illustrate how the Koala Index may be used to guide the Conservation Regulator’s compliance response. The examples are hypothetical only – the Conservation Regulator’s compliance response will always be based on the specific circumstances.

Case study 1

A blue gum plantation company has been authorised to disturb Koalas based on an appropriate Koala Management Plan. The company has a good compliance record but has recorded three consecutive months marginally below zero on the Koala Index, trending to indicate a declining performance. The Conservation Regulator requests the company provides a rectification plan within 10 business days. The company provides a thoughtful rectification plan that outlines the process taken to determine why the incidents occurred, details of issues identified and proposed corrective actions, including a timeframe for implementation. The company’s Koala Index scores improve in the following months and no further action is taken. The Conservation Regulator continues to monitor the company’s Koala Index performance and compliance with authorisation conditions.

Case study 2

A blue gum plantation company has been authorised to disturb Koalas based on an appropriate Koala Management Plan. The company has an inconsistent compliance record of providing its records on time and has previously been issued a warning letter about this. In a certain month, the company records a very low and concerning Koala Index score. The Conservation Regulator requests the company provides a rectification plan within 10 business days. The company fails to provide a rectification plan and its monthly report shows incomplete records whilst continuing to harvest. The Conservation Regulator requests the company to show cause why its authorisation should not be suspended and again receives no response. The Conservation Regulator suspends the company’s authorisation and commences a criminal investigation into the company’s conduct.

Updated