What the public can find.
What remains unverified.
A national review of public 1080 warning information — what government sources disclose, where those sources can be checked, and what the available evidence cannot establish.
Eight jurisdictions assessed. Two separate questions examined: the quality of individual public notices and whether comparable information is available across relevant programs. This is an audit of public disclosure, not a census of 1080 use.
Two questions. Not one score.
“A notice can be detailed, accurate and useful — yet still leave the public without a clear picture of other programs.”
The national audit examined publicly accessible warnings, maps, operational notices, regulatory resources and agency correspondence relevant to 1080 use. It looked at government-undertaken, funded, commissioned, coordinated, authorised or administered programs, including delivery by contractors where relevant. The aim was to test the public record, not to estimate how much 1080 was laid or to certify legal compliance.
Individual notice detail
Can a person understand what the published record actually says about an operation?
- Place or mapped operating area
- Dates, time window and current status
- Explicit 1080 identification and method
- Target species, purpose, authority and contact
- Warning advice, source links, changes and archive
Jurisdiction-wide program coverage
Is similar, accessible information consistently available across relevant agencies, programs and land tenures?
- Relevant delivery agencies identified
- Programs and contractors in scope
- Consistent publication expectations
- Searchable records across time and sources
- No unsupported assumption of completeness
The September 2026 review identified useful notice and mapping examples. The 16 October coverage revision tightened how those examples could support broader claims. A strong notice is not proof of complete statewide disclosure, and an unanswered source search is not proof that no notice exists.
How the evidence was sourced and arranged.
This public explanation follows the audit's research structure: source collection, source-level assessment, coverage testing, evidence reconciliation and documented uncertainty. It is not a claim that every possible government or contractor record was available for inspection.
Evidence collection
Establish traceable source records.
Find official sources
Review departmental notification systems, park alerts, interactive maps, government guidance and regulator publications. Record agency correspondence when it clarifies a source or its limits.
Record provenance
Capture the issuing agency, page or dataset name, public URL, publication period where shown, and the type of information being disclosed.
Evidence assessment
Two independent checks, not one overall score.
Test notice content
Check location, timing, explicit 1080 identification, delivery method, targets, responsible authority, public contact and where practicable status or history.
Test wider coverage
Ask whether identified sources cover other relevant government-funded, authorised or administered activities, including cross-agency programs and contractors.
Research integrity
Keep uncertainty and revisions visible.
Log uncertainty
Keep missing, ambiguous, stale or program-limited information visible as a research limitation. Separate observed disclosure from inferences about broader coverage.
Reconcile and revise
Retain dated findings, compare public copy with the audit's supporting evidence, update assessments when agency replies or methodology clarify scope, and avoid silent replacements.
The phases organise this public explanation; the two assessment tests are separate dimensions, not a combined compliance grade.
Explore the official sources reviewedFollow the published source.
Choose a jurisdiction to explore the public disclosure finding and selected government links. These are illustrative, traceable sources, not every row of the canonical audit matrix. Operational notices and regulatory requirements are labelled differently because they establish different things.
Showing all eight jurisdictions
Site-level notices are available
NPWS publishes named locations, operational windows and methods in individual alerts. LLS also issues notices for some coordinated programs. The audit did not establish that these systems cover every relevant NSW agency, program and land tenure.
Explore selected evidence
-
Operational noticeOpen official source
NSW NPWS — Tallaganda local alerts
2026 public notice with 1080 method, places and warning advice
September review example -
Operational noticeOpen official source
NSW Local Land Services — regional 2026 program notice
Dated notice describing a multi-agency aerial and ground program
April 2026 published notice
Detailed program mapping exists
Agriculture Victoria / DEECA publishes a dated ground-baiting notification map for its livestock-predation management program. The existence of this program-level record does not demonstrate consistent disclosure across every relevant Victorian operation.
Explore selected evidence
-
Operational map / noticeOpen official source
Agriculture Victoria — ground baiting notifications
Interactive program map, identified 1080 method and a published operating window
2026 operating period
Western Shield risk areas mapped
DBCA makes Western Shield baiting-area information available. The mapped layer has a defined program scope and cannot be treated as every 1080 operation or the positions of individual baits across WA.
Explore selected evidence
-
Program notice / map referenceOpen official source
DBCA — Western Shield 1080 safety information
Official program safety publication directing readers to Western Shield mapping
Official publication; older source version -
Standing site warningOpen official source
DBCA Explore Parks — Point Ann
A specific park page describing ongoing 1080 risk; not an operation-level statewide dataset
Standing warning
Some explicit park alerts
QPWS publishes individual park alerts with dates and, in some examples, an explicit 1080 reference. The audit did not establish comparable notification coverage across all relevant agencies and programs.
Explore selected evidence
-
Public alerts portalOpen official source
Queensland Parks — park alert register
Official notices searchable by park and region; individual entries vary in specificity
Audit source category -
October exampleOpen official source
QPWS — Curtis Island 1080 notice
Detailed October alert illustrating what a later individual notice can show; not evidence that the September audit covered this notice
Published 28 September 2026
Regulation and notices differ
PIRSA publishes 1080 use and notification guidance. General park closures or animal-control notices may not identify whether 1080 is actually involved; a generic notice cannot be counted as confirmation of 1080 use.
Explore selected evidence
-
Regulatory guidanceOpen official source
PIRSA — baiting with 1080 poison
Rules for neighbour notification and warning signage; not an operational public register
Regulatory context only
Permit records, limited public operational visibility
Tasmania publishes a 1080 code of practice and use information, including permit and neighbour-notification requirements. The reviewed sources did not establish a comprehensive, advance, public operation-level register.
Explore selected evidence
-
Regulatory guidanceOpen official source
NRE Tasmania — 1080 poison
Official overview of 1080 use, permits and risks
Regulatory context only -
Code / requirementsOpen official source
NRE Tasmania — 1080 code of practice
Requirements for permits, neighbour notification, signage and record-keeping; not an online operational register
Regulatory context only
Standing-area warnings; operation record gap
The September audit identified standing warning arrangements, but the reviewed evidence did not establish a public, searchable record of specific 1080 operations with dates, status and archived changes.
Explore selected evidence
- Source link not reproduced here. The available project material records standing-warning findings for the ACT, but this selected index does not include a verified official operation-level URL. See the ACT evidence page for context; the underlying source should be reconciled against the canonical ledger before publication of a full extract.
Authorisations and records exist
The NT sets out authorisation, notification and baiting-record requirements. Records kept for regulators or permit holders do not by themselves amount to a searchable advance public warning system.
Explore selected evidence
-
Permit and record guidanceOpen official source
NT Government — controlling animals with 1080
Government requirements for authorisations, records and notification; not a public operational register
Regulatory context only
No matching jurisdictions. Try another search or select All 8.
What the audit cannot establish.
These qualifications are essential to reading the findings accurately. They are part of the research, not exceptions to it.
No notice found ≠ no operation.
The absence of a public record in the sources reviewed cannot prove an operation did not occur, or that a notice was never issued elsewhere.
Map coverage is not bait coverage.
The 1080 Watch Map includes different source types for NSW, Victoria and WA. Points, transects and polygons are not equivalent, and none identifies every individual bait.
No legal compliance certification.
The audit assesses public usability and identified coverage gaps. It does not provide a finding of legal non-compliance or prove statewide absence of disclosure.
An audit that can be corrected.
National source review
Eight-jurisdiction audit assembled from public systems, official documents, supporting evidence and correspondence. Detailed source examples and gaps identified.
Coverage clarification
Methodology revised to separate notice detail from across-program coverage. Earlier source-level strengths retained without extrapolating complete statewide coverage.
Public methods page draft
Selected official links and research caveats organised for public access. Full canonical workbook export awaits final reconciliation and publication approval.
If you know of a missing government source, an outdated link or a program whose publication arrangements are not described accurately, please contact the Coalition with the agency, source URL, relevant dates and the specific correction. Reviewed changes should be dated and reflected in the underlying audit record.
The standard is the next step.
The audit identifies public disclosure practices that are useful and gaps that remain unresolved. TP-101 sets out a proposed national minimum for more consistent, searchable and preserved warning information. It is a policy proposal, not an existing legal requirement.