At its core, the bill sought to recognise hunting as both a cultural right and a conservation tool, expand access to Crown land for hunters, create a new Conservation Hunting Authority, and even open the door for hunters to apply for permits to use suppressors. It was bold legislation, and it sparked heated debate across the community.
Faced with more than 2,600 submissions and a highly polarised issue, the Committee was tasked with sorting through the evidence and advising Parliament. What it delivered was a cautious report that reflected the divisions rather than resolving them.
Hunting in NSW is currently regulated under the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002. Legal hunting on public land is confined mainly to declared state forests, with strict licensing and permission systems in place. The Borsak bill would expand this framework by:
* Opening up some Crown land to hunting (while explicitly excluding national parks).
* Abolishing the Game and Pest Management Advisory Board and replacing it with a Conservation Hunting Authority.
* Replacing restricted game licences with conservation hunting licences.
* Enshrining a statutory “right to hunt.”
* Amending weapons laws to include conservation hunting as a “genuine reason” for permits, including suppressors.
Supporters framed the bill as a way to empower communities, deliver cultural recognition, and strengthen pest control efforts. Opponents warned it risked undermining animal welfare, public safety, and NSW’s strong firearms laws.
The inquiry laid bare the deep divisions.
* Effectiveness of Hunting: Hunters and their representatives described hunting as an important, cost-effective tool for controlling pigs and wild deer. Opponents, including Greens Party-aligned lobby groups, argued recreational hunting is ineffective as a primary control measure.
* Animal Welfare: Animal welfare organisations described hunting as inherently cruel, citing wounding, non-target kills, and lack of oversight. Supporters countered that hunters are skilled and motivated partners in managing introduced species.
* Public Safety: Proponents noted that hunting has occurred in state forests for nearly 20 years without a serious incident. Opponents, particularly outdoors and education groups, argued that expanding hunting onto Crown land risks discouraging families and schools from using public spaces.
* Weapons and Suppressors: The proposal to allow suppressors was one of the most contentious. Hunters saw them as improving safety and animal welfare. The Premier intervened directly, stating there would be no weakening of NSW’s gun laws.
The Committee stopped short of endorsing or rejecting the bill. Instead, it outlined key themes and concerns:
* Safety: Concerns about public safety are valid, particularly for schools and outdoor groups. Even the perception of risk may deter community use of shared public spaces.
* Cultural recognition: Hunting is a legitimate recreational and cultural activity for many, including Indigenous communities. However, this does not automatically justify enshrining a “right to hunt.”
* Firearms: The Committee strongly endorsed the Premier’s position that there should be no relaxation of NSW’s firearms laws, including silencers.
* The Conservation Hunting Authority: While some saw value in stronger hunter representation, others warned it risked becoming a taxpayer-funded lobby group lacking scientific independence.
Ultimately, the Committee concluded that the issues raised were diverse, complex, and unresolved. Its sole recommendation was that the Legislative Council consider these issues during debate.
The report is best understood as a mirror, reflecting the competing perspectives rather than reconciling them. It recognises the passion on both sides, but it does not provide clear direction.
For supporters of the bill, the Committee’s findings leave the door ajar but offer no real endorsement. For opponents, the report validates their concerns but stops short of recommending the bill’s rejection.
In short, the Committee acknowledged the cultural value of hunting, recognised the legitimate concerns around safety, welfare, and firearms, and confirmed that recreational hunting alone is not an effective form of pest control. Beyond that, it left the heavy lifting to Parliament.
