Conservation, Forests and Lands (Wildlife (Game) Infringement Notices) Regulations 2026

The central concept is the infringement notice as an alternative to full prosecution for minor wildlife and game offences. Under the parent Act (Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987, section 91), an authorised officer may serve an infringement notice on a person reasonably believed to have committed a prescribed offence. The notice offers the person the option to pay a fixed penalty within a specified period, thereby discharging any liability for the offence without a criminal conviction (though a conviction may still be recorded if the offence is not an infringement offence for which the penalty is paid - the instrument does not alter the underlying offence status). If the recipient does not pay or does not elect to have the matter dealt with by a court, enforcement action may follow, including potential court proceedings with higher maximum penalties.

Penalty units are the valuation mechanism. Section 110 of the Sentencing Act 1991 defines a penalty unit and section 7 of the Monetary Units Act 2004 provides for the dollar value to be set annually by the Treasurer. The current value for 2025-26 is $203.51 per unit. The instrument does not state dollar amounts; it states penalty units. This means the dollar fine changes each financial year even if the instrument is not amended. The fine must be rounded to the nearest dollar under the Monetary Units Act. The instrument therefore creates a variable monetary penalty that tracks inflation or government fiscal policy, which reduces the need for frequent legislative updates but introduces some uncertainty for regulated persons who must calculate the current dollar amount.

The distinction between the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 (the enabling act), the Wildlife Act 1975 (which creates the primary offences), and the Wildlife (Game) Regulations 2024 (which contain the detailed rules about hunting, licensing, bag limits, tags, and reporting) is crucial. This infringement notice instrument sits at the bottom of a three-layer hierarchy. It does not alter the substantive content of the Game Regulations; it only designates which breaches of those regulations (and which direct breaches of the Wildlife Act sections) can be dealt with by infringement notice. For example, item 5 targets an offence against section 58C(1) of the Wildlife Act (likely relating to possession of game without a licence or similar), while item 7 targets regulation 13 of the Game Regulations (likely a minor record-keeping or tagging requirement). The instrument thus gives enforcement authorities a graded response: minor breaches attract a low fixed fine without the cost of court proceedings, while more serious or repeated breaches can still be prosecuted in court where higher penalties and potential imprisonment apply.

The concept of “prescribed infringement offence” in regulation 5 means that only those 49 items are eligible for an infringement notice. Any wildlife or game offence not listed must be dealt with by summons, charge sheet, or other formal court process. This selection is a policy choice about which offences are considered suitable for administrative resolution rather than judicial determination.

The primary population affected consists of licensed game hunters and recreational shooters in Victoria who engage in the taking of game species such as deer, duck, quail, and other animals declared as game under the Wildlife Act. Any person who holds a game licence, a wildlife licence, or an authority under the Wildlife Act to hunt or possess game is a potential recipient of an infringement notice under these regulations. Also affected are persons who are not licensed but who take or interfere with game unlawfully, as infringement notices can be served on unlicensed persons caught committing a prescribed offence. Landholders who allow hunting on their private property may be affected indirectly if they fail to observe requirements such as reporting or tagging obligations that attach to their authority.

Commercial entities involved in game hunting guiding services, game meat processing, or wildlife management are also within scope. For example, an operator who fails to keep proper records under regulation 54(1) (item 30) or who does not correctly tag carcasses under regulation 49(1) (item 26) would face an infringement penalty. These businesses bear a compliance burden that includes record-keeping, training staff, and auditing practices to avoid fines. The penalty unit system, which changes annually, imposes a small administrative cost of tracking the current value, though that cost is minor relative to the potential fine.

Enforcement agencies including Conservation Regulators, Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action officers, and authorised wildlife officers are the parties who will serve infringement notices. These regulations give them a streamlined enforcement tool. The instrument also affects authorised officers’ discretion: they can choose to issue an infringement notice or proceed to court, and the prescribed penalty amounts may guide their decision.

The regulated community includes visitors from other states who hunt in Victoria under reciprocal arrangements; they must acquaint themselves with the penalty regime. The tourism and hospitality sector in regional areas that relies on game hunting seasons may see indirect effects if frequent infringement notices deter participation.

Finally, legal practitioners, accountants, and compliance professionals who advise hunters or wildlife businesses need to understand the penalty scale and the mechanics of the infringement notice system. The instrument is short, but its interaction with the underlying Wildlife Act and Game Regulations creates complexity: the professional must cross-reference the listed regulation numbers against the Game Regulations to identify the exact conduct penalised. The penalty units themselves must be converted to dollars using the current financial year’s published unit value. Failure to do so correctly could result in incorrect advice.

The instrument creates no new duties of its own. All duties arise from the Wildlife Act 1975 and the Wildlife (Game) Regulations 2024. However, by designating certain breaches as infringement offences, the instrument modifies the procedural rights of both the alleged offender and the enforcement authority. The key right conferred is the right to elect to have the matter dealt with by a court. Under section 91 of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987, a person served with an infringement notice may choose not to pay the prescribed penalty and instead request that the matter proceed to prosecution. In that event, the person gains access to the full court process with rights of defence, evidence testing, and potential acquittal or, if convicted, a penalty determined by the court (which may be higher or lower than the infringement penalty). The infringement penalty thus represents a capped price for avoiding a criminal record (though a court conviction may also result in no conviction recorded, depending on the court’s discretion).

There is also a right to seek an extension of time to pay the infringement penalty. The parent Act and the Infringements Act 2006 provide mechanisms for payment plans, internal review, and special circumstances applications. These rights are not detailed in this instrument but are available to any person who receives an infringement notice in Victoria.

The duty on a recipient is to either pay the prescribed penalty within the period stated (usually 28 days) or make an election for a court hearing. If the person does neither, an enforcement order may be obtained and further penalties, costs, and potential suspension of driver’s licence or other enforcement actions may follow under the Infringements Act. The instrument therefore carries an indirect compulsion to engage with the system promptly.

For authorised officers, the key duty (not created by this instrument but by the parent Act and common law) is to serve the notice correctly, specifying the correct offence, the prescribed penalty, and the recipient’s rights. Errors in the notice may render it invalid. The instrument provides certainty to officers by setting out exactly which offences are in scope and at what penalty, reducing the risk of overcharging.

There is no explicit right to a warning or caution before an infringement notice is issued; the officer has discretion. The instrument does not require any particular process before service. This means that a person who honestly and reasonably believed they were complying may still receive a fine, with no formal prior warning mechanism.

The penalties are expressed in penalty units. At the current 2025-26 value of $203.51 per unit, the dollar equivalents are:

• 0.5 penalty units: $101.76 (items 7, 8)
• 1 penalty unit: $203.51 (items 25, 29, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 45, 46, 47)
• 1.5 penalty units: $305.27 (items 11, 12, 13, 21, 41, 42, 44)
• 2 penalty units: $407.02 (items 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 48, 49)
• 2.5 penalty units: $508.78 (item 26)
• 6 penalty units: $1,221.06 (items 5, 6)

The spread is relatively narrow. No penalty exceeds 6 units, which is a modest amount compared to the maximum court penalties for the same offences. For example, section 58C(1) of the Wildlife Act carries a maximum penalty of 5 penalty units (but in an infringement notice only 6 - note: the infringement penalty is higher than the court maximum? That would be unusual. The source says item 5 is “an offence against section 58C(1) of the Act” with infringement penalty 6 penalty units. The court maximum for that section is not stated in this instrument. One must check the Wildlife Act. It is possible the infringement penalty is lower than the court maximum, but the numeric comparison is not provided. The court maximum could be higher than 6 penalty units. This instrument does not set maximum penalties; it sets fixed fines for avoiding court. The point is that the infringement penalty may be lower or higher than what a court would impose, but typically infringement penalties are set below the court maximum to incentivise payment.)

Enforcement of unpaid infringement notices is handled under the Infringements Act 2006, not this instrument. An unpaid notice results in a penalty reminder notice, then an enforcement order registered with the Infringements Court, which can lead to attachment of wages, seizure of property, or suspension of drivers licence. The infringement penalty itself does not attract conviction if paid on time, but if enforced through court it may result in a conviction and additional costs.

The instrument does not prescribe any demerit points, licence suspension, or forfeiture of property as part of the infringement. However, the underlying Wildlife Act may have such consequences for the offence itself. For example, a conviction for taking game out of season may trigger licence suspension, but an infringement notice discharge may not. This creates a potential strategic choice for the alleged offender.

The penalties are fixed; there is no provision for reduction on grounds of hardship. Only if the matter goes to court can a judge reduce or waive the penalty. This means the infringement notice regime is rigid: low income does not reduce the fine amount, though payment plans may be available through the Infringements Act.

The regulations sit within a legislative hierarchy that includes at least five other enactments. The Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 provides the enabling power (section 99) and the infringement notice machinery (section 91). The Wildlife Act 1975 creates the substantive offences referenced in Schedule 1. The Wildlife (Game) Regulations 2024 (S.R. 81/2024) contain the regulatory rules that are breached for most of the 49 items; these rules deal with licensing, tags, bag limits, hunting methods, reporting, and possession limits. The Sentencing Act 1991 defines the penalty unit and provides the interpretative framework for penalties in Victorian legislation. The Monetary Units Act 2004 governs how the dollar value of a penalty unit is set and published annually. The Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 imposes the 10-year sunset provision (regulation 3 of the instrument notes the sunset date of 24 February 2036). The Infringements Act 2006 governs the enforcement of unpaid infringement notices, including penalty reminder notices, enforcement orders, and special circumstances reviews.

The interaction is layered. A failure to tag a deer (e.g., regulation 49(1) of the Game Regulations) is an offence under the Wildlife Act (by virtue of section 22A(8) of that Act, which makes it an offence to contravene the Game Regulations). That offence is then prescribed by this instrument as an infringement offence with a penalty of 2.5 penalty units. If an infringement notice is issued and paid, the matter ends. If not paid, the Infringements Act machinery applies. If the recipient elects court, the Wildlife Act maximum penalty applies (which may be higher than the infringement penalty). The instrument thus acts as a filter: it selects which breaches are amenable to the streamlined process.

There is also interaction with the principle that an infringement notice is not a conviction but may still be relevant for licence renewal decisions under the Wildlife Act. Some licence conditions may require disclosure of infringement notices, even if no conviction is recorded.

The instrument revokes the 2023 regulations. Transitional provisions are not included; the general rule is that offences committed before 25 February 2026 are dealt with under the old regulations, and offences committed after under the new. There is no savings clause in the instrument, so any proceedings for pre-revocation offences will rely on the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (section 14) to continue the old regulations’ effect for those offences.

Federal laws may also interact, such as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 if migratory game birds or threatened species are involved, but this instrument does not reference that.

The instrument is version 001 as at 25 February 2026. There are no amendment entries in the Table of Amendments. It is a new regulation replacing the previous 2023 version. The 2023 regulations (S.R. 64/2023) are revoked in full by regulation 4 with effect from 25 February 2026. The explanatory details endnote confirms that the 2023 regulations are S.R. 64/2023. No transitional provisions or savings are included, which is a notable omission for practitioners who may have clients with pre-commencement offences. The instrument is not yet amended and will remain in its current form until either a later amending regulation is made or it is revoked and replaced. Because it is subordinate legislation, amendment can occur at any time by the same procedure (Governor in Council on the recommendation of the responsible Minister). The 10-year sunset means that after 24 February 2036 the instrument automatically ceases to have effect unless it is remade before then. This sunset is a standard feature of Victorian subordinate legislation under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994, designed to force periodic review of delegated instruments. If the regulations lapse, the consequence is that no infringement notices can be served for these game offences under the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act; enforcement would have to proceed entirely by court prosecution, increasing costs for both the state and alleged offenders. The sunset thus creates a pressure point for the relevant department to review the penalty amounts and the list of prescribed offences before 2036. The instrument contains no amendment history because it is new; future amendments would be recorded in a table of amendments in subsequent versions.

There is no litigation history recorded in the instrument. The regulations are new (made 24 February 2026, commenced 25 February 2026) and no court proceeding has yet considered them. However, legal professionals should be aware of potential grounds for challenge that could arise in the future. First, a challenge could argue that the instrument exceeds the power under section 99 of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 if the prescribed penalty is not within the range permitted by the parent Act. Section 91(3) of that Act provides that “the regulations may prescribe penalties not exceeding 10 penalty units” for infringement offences. The highest penalty in this instrument is 6 penalty units, which is within that limit. Second, a challenge could argue that the definition of “the Act” in Schedule 1 (meaning Wildlife Act 1975) is ambiguous when read with regulation 5, but that seems straightforward. Third, a challenge could be based on the procedural validity of the infringement notice if the notice incorrectly states the penalty unit value or if the officer miscalculates the dollar amount. Fourth, the interaction between the infringement penalty and the maximum court penalty may raise arguments about proportionality under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), though the Charter does not apply to infringement notices in the same way as criminal penalties. Fifth, if a person elects court and is convicted, the court might impose a penalty lower than the infringement penalty; that could be seen as a penalty on the election itself, but that is inherent in the system and has been upheld generally.

The absence of litigation history does not mean the instrument is immune. Given that the predecessor 2023 regulations were in force for about three years, there may have been cases under those regulations that interpret similar provisions, but this instrument does not reference any. Practitioners should search for decisions under the Wildlife Act and the Game Regulations for any judicial consideration of the infringement notice regime. The Explanatory Details in the endnotes clarify the penalty unit calculation but do not purport to bind a court. Any litigation over the interpretation of the schedule would rely on ordinary statutory interpretation principles.

Several traps await the unwary. First, the penalty unit value changes annually on 1 July. A fine calculated in July may differ from one calculated in June. The instrument does not state a dollar amount, so any infringement notice must use the current unit value. An officer who uses the wrong year’s value may issue an invalid notice. The recipient should verify the published penalty unit value for the financial year of the offence, not the year the notice is served. The Monetary Units Act requires publication before 1 June, but the value may not yet be known at the time of the offence if it occurs in the transition period.

Second, the schedule defines “the Act” as the Wildlife Act 1975 and “the Regulations” as the Wildlife (Game) Regulations 2024. The term “Act” in the schedule does not refer to the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987, which is the parent Act for the infringement notice power. This is a common drafting convention but can cause confusion if a reader assumes “the Act” means the enabling act. The objective and authorising provisions use “relevant law” and “the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987” explicitly, but the schedule uses its own definitions.

Third, the revocation of the 2023 regulations without transitional provisions means that an offence committed before 25 February 2026 should be dealt with under the old penalty amounts. However, if an infringement notice is served after that date for a pre-commencement offence, the notice might use the new penalty. The Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 section 14 generally preserves the old law for past acts, but the officer may apply the new schedule if unaware. Anyone receiving a notice for an older offence should check the date of the alleged conduct and, if it predates 25 February 2026, confirm that the penalty matches the 2023 schedule.

Fourth, the instrument lists offences by reference to regulation numbers of the Wildlife (Game) Regulations 2024. A person must cross-reference those numbers to understand the prohibited conduct. For example, item 32 refers to regulation 56 of the Game Regulations. Without the Game Regulations at hand, the person cannot know what conduct constitutes the offence. This creates a practical accessibility problem, especially for hunters in remote areas with limited internet.

Fifth, the highest penalty is 6 penalty units (items 5 and 6). The parent Act section 91(3) allows up to 10 penalty units for infringement offences. The instrument does not use the full range. This may reflect a policy choice to keep fines moderate, but it also means that for some offences the infringement penalty may be significantly lower than the court maximum, creating a strong incentive to pay the fine rather than contest the matter, even if the person has a good defence. That dynamic could lead to people paying fines to avoid the risk of higher court penalties, effectively paying for convenience rather than guilt.

Sixth, the instrument does not specify whether multiple infringement notices can be issued for multiple offences arising from the same incident. The parent Act does not prevent that, but the cumulative total could be significant. For example, a single hunting trip might result in breaches of several regulations (tagging, bag limit, reporting), each carrying its own fine.

Compliance with this instrument does not require any direct action. Its obligations are triggered only if a person is suspected of committing an underlying offence. Therefore, compliance begins with understanding the Game Regulations. A person who hunts game in Victoria should obtain a copy of the Wildlife (Game) Regulations 2024 and know which regulations are listed in Schedule 1. A practical approach is to focus on the regulations that attract the highest penalties: items 5 and 6 (6 penalty units) likely concern serious licensing or possession offences. Next most serious are items with 2.5 penalty units (item 26: regulation 49(1) - probably tagging). The bulk at 2 penalty units cover many routine requirements.

Specific compliance steps include: holding a valid game licence; carrying the licence while hunting; correctly tagging all game immediately after taking; reporting kills within required timeframes; not exceeding bag or possession limits; using only permitted hunting methods and weapons; not hunting in closed seasons or in prohibited areas; keeping accurate records of game taken; and ensuring that any game in possession can be traced back to a lawful taking.

If an infringement notice is received, the person must decide within the due date whether to pay or elect court. Paying the fine will discharge liability and avoid a criminal record, but it is not an admission of guilt in a civil sense. If the person believes they did not commit the offence, or if there are procedural errors (wrong penalty unit value, wrong offence code), they should consider electing court or seeking internal review under the Infringements Act. The instrument does not provide a formal review mechanism itself, but the Infringements Act allows for an application of internal review on grounds such as mistake of fact, special circumstances, or that the penalty is disproportionate.

For commercial operators, compliance programmes should include: training staff on the 49 offences; auditing tagging and record-keeping processes; setting aside funds for potential fines; and maintaining insurance that covers regulatory fines (though many policies exclude penalties). Given that the penalty units change annually, the compliance programme should check the Government Gazette each June for the new dollar value and update any internal guidance.

The sunset in 2036 means the regulations will eventually lapse unless remade. Businesses and individuals should participate in any consultation when the instrument is due for review, to ensure the penalty amounts remain proportionate and the list of prescribed offences reflects current hunting practices and conservation needs. Ignorance of the specific provision breached is no defence; the penalty will still apply. The most effective compliance strategy is to obtain the underlying Game Regulations and study them carefully, focusing on the 49 items listed, and to keep up with any amendments to either the Game Regulations or this infringement notice instrument.