It's hard to prove a negative, but I've never actually found evidence of an actual hunting license, in the sense that the license holder was allowed to shoot a certain number of indigenous people per year, as the legend goes. That said, I've only looked closely at Tasmania, and not at the mainland Australian colonies.

That's not to say that settlers at various times weren't able to kill indigenous people with legal impunity, they certainly were. At times martial law would be declared and roving parties of settlers were authorised to kill any indigenous person who would not comply with demands to move to designated areas.

And certainly there were times when ostensibly illegal settler violence against indigenous people was ignored or implicitly encouraged by authorities, with the worst example in Tasmania being the Cape Grim Massacre.

But I've never been able to find actual evidence of the deer-hunting-style permit to shoot X Aborigines per year. Again, I've not looked nearly as closely at the other colonies, so it's possible. But I think the lack of copies of this sort of image (the infamous gold mining licenses) may be telling.

I think the error may have arisen this way. Consider this statement: "The declaration of Martial Law in Van Diemen's Land in 1828 gave settlers a licence to kill indigenous people". This is a true statement, but the word 'licence' does not mean that settlers in Van Diemen's Land were issued little rectangles of paper with bag limits or anything like that. It does mean that settlers were legally allowed to shoot indigenous people, and they did.

So TLDR, depends on what you mean by 'licence'.