09/22/2026
There has been plenty of noise lately from NSW landholders about the increased evidence now being requested when applying for licences to harm kangaroos. Photos, records, evidence of damage and information supporting estimates of kangaroo numbers are apparently creating an unreasonable burden.
Judging by some of the reaction, you could be forgiven for thinking this requirement appeared out of nowhere. It didn’t.
Back in 2021, the NSW Parliament held its Inquiry into the Health and Wellbeing of Kangaroos and Other Macropods in New South Wales. The inquiry received hundreds of submissions, held public hearings and ultimately produced 23 recommendations covering population estimates, quotas, welfare, compliance and the licensing system.
One of those was Recommendation 18, which called for a full review of the systems used to issue and monitor licences to harm kangaroos, with the aim of increasing the rigour and transparency of licensing and compliance.
More importantly, the committee explained what greater rigour should actually look like. It specifically raised “a requirement for a landowner to provide evidence that lethal control on their property is necessary before a licence is granted.”
That was October 2021 — nearly five years ago.
Fast-forward to 2026 and that principle should sound remarkably familiar. The current NSW kangaroo licence application asks landholders to identify the impacts kangaroos are allegedly causing and then tells applicants to “Include evidence to support each impact listed above.”
The regulator provides plenty of examples. Evidence can include photographs comparing affected and less-affected areas, photos or video of kangaroos, expert reports, repair invoices or records, photographs of fencing or other non-lethal measures, and monitoring records supporting population estimates. It isn’t simply a demand for a particular receipt or one prescribed form of proof.
And this is where the current outrage becomes interesting.
I’ve spent a fair bit of time going through the published submissions to these inquiries and, when names appear in media stories or Facebook threads complaining about the new system, I’ve started checking whether they actually participated when Parliament gave them the opportunity.
Quite a few names are proving difficult to find.
That doesn’t automatically mean somebody didn’t participate. Some submissions are confidential, some names are suppressed and organisations can make submissions representing broader interests. But it does raise a reasonable question: where was this level of outrage when Parliament was actually asking people to put their evidence and concerns on the record?
And there wasn’t just one opportunity.
NSW subsequently held another parliamentary inquiry — the Inquiry into Licences to Harm Native Animals — which examined the adequacy of the assessment processes used when licences are granted, along with transparency and accountability surrounding those decisions.
Then, just last week, the issue was back before Parliament again.
On 16 September 2026, the NSW Legislative Council debated a motion on Kangaroo Population Management, with concerns raised about the operation of the changed licensing arrangements.
So we’re now in the rather extraordinary position of having Parliament discussing complaints about increased scrutiny in 2026, when another parliamentary inquiry was explicitly talking about increasing scrutiny and requiring evidence back in 2021.
To me, complacency — and probably a fair degree of arrogance — has played a role here. For years there appears to have been an expectation that claims about kangaroo numbers and damage would continue to be treated much as they always had been. Say they’re damaging fences, say they’re competing with livestock, say there are too many and apply for another permit.
Perhaps people assumed nothing would change. Perhaps they didn’t think they needed to participate in the inquiries. Perhaps they never imagined anyone would eventually ask the most basic question of all: can you actually demonstrate the damage you’re claiming?
Because if kangaroos have supposedly been causing substantial and ongoing damage for years, collecting evidence shouldn’t have required a crystal ball.
If they’re damaging fences, photograph the damage. If they’re damaging crops or pasture, document it. If hundreds of kangaroos are supposedly causing the problem, keep records showing how that estimate was reached. If repairs are continually required, keep some record of them.
Most of us carry a high-resolution camera, GPS receiver and timestamping device around in our pocket every day.
The idea of photographic verification isn’t particularly radical either. Here in South Australia, PIRSA’s kangaroo drought-management incentive arrangements already use photographs containing time, date, latitude and longitude metadata as part of verifying claims by participating field harvesters.
Nobody is suggesting that legitimate problems involving kangaroos can’t occur, or that every landholder making an application is being dishonest. The question is much simpler than that: if the State is going to authorise the killing of protected native wildlife because of a claimed impact, is it unreasonable to ask for evidence that the impact actually exists?
NSW Parliament was asking essentially that question in 2021.
Nearly five years later we’ve had two parliamentary inquiries, hundreds of submissions, multiple opportunities for stakeholders to put their case on the public record, and a recommendation specifically addressing evidence before lethal control is authorised.
Now the scrutiny has arrived, and apparently the paperwork is the problem.
Nobody warned us?
They did.
Maybe nobody was paying attention. 🙃
