Debate resumed from 15 October 2025.

Ms CATE FAEHRMANN (16:31): The Game and Feral Animal Legislation Amendment (Conservation Hunting) Bill 2025—which represents a dodgy deal between the Shooters and the Minns Government—seeks to radically change the way hunting is regulated in New South Wales. It would abolish the current Game and Pest Management Advisory Board and replace it with a Conservation Hunting Authority dominated by hunting interests, create an unprecedented statutory "right to hunt" in New South Wales law, allow hunting to expand across more Crown land and other public lands, and—until the Premier backed down under public pressure—open the door to the use of silencers and other prohibited weapons by so-called "conservation hunters." He has potentially done the same with "right to hunt" after that pressure. The bill dresses these changes up as "conservation hunting," claiming that hunters play an essential role in managing feral animals and protecting biodiversity.

After months of public scrutiny, a parliamentary inquiry and evidence from leading scientists, animal welfare experts and community safety organisations, that claim has been exposed for what it is: hollow, misleading and dangerous. The inquiry received more than 2,600 submissions. The vast majority opposed the bill. Those submissions came from animal welfare and environmental science evidence-based organisations, including the Invasive Species Council, the Biodiversity Council, Bushwalking NSW, the Alannah and Madeline Foundation, RSPCA NSW, Outdoors NSW and ACT, the Public Health Association of Australia, Lucy's Project and domestic violence advocates, among many others. These are not fringe voices. These are experts, community leaders and safety advocates telling us loudly and clearly that this bill will make New South Wales less safe—for people, for animals and for the environment.

The Greens have always opposed attempts to import American-style gun culture into Australia. Surely the vast majority of members in this place should oppose that, as indeed the vast majority of people in this State. The proposed "right to hunt" was the centrepiece of this bill, and it remains its most sinister element. As Gun Control Australia, the Australian Gun Safety Alliance and the Alannah and Madeline Foundation each made clear, the National Firearms Agreement—born from the tragedy of Port Arthur—rests on one simple principle: That gun ownership is a privilege, a responsibility, not a right, and that public safety must always come first. Creating a legal right to hunt would have torn a hole through that agreement. It would have given statutory recognition to gun use, fundamentally undermining Australia's gun safety framework.

That is why experts said it risked "bringing American-style gun politics into our communities," as my Greens colleague the Hon. Sue Higginson rightly described in her dissenting statement to the inquiry report. Thanks to huge public pressure—tens of thousands of people signing petitions and writing to members of Parliament, along with very negative media—the Premier eventually backed down on some of it. He announced that Labor would not support the "right to hunt" clause, nor the provisions allowing access to prohibited weapons. That was the right decision, but it came far too late, as the only thing this Premier can respond to is negative media headlines. Let's not forget this bill was only referred to an inquiry after the Premier's own Government initially supported it and signalled that it was going to support it.

Remarkably, the Government even allocated $7.9 million in the 2025–26 budget to establish the proposed Conservation Hunting Authority before the bill had even passed Parliament—before this authority has even been established. As the Department of Primary Industries told the inquiry, it could not recall another instance where taxpayer money was set aside for a private member's bill. That alone should set off alarm bells. The new authority proposed under this bill is nothing less than a taxpayer-funded propaganda arm for the gun lobby. Under the bill, it would be controlled by representatives of the hunting sector and charged with "promoting the benefits of hunting." As the Alannah and Madeline Foundation put it, it would be "a legislated marketing agency to promote hunting, paid for by taxpayers". The Invasive Species Council described it as "a taxpayer-funded propaganda unit for the shooting lobby".

Even the Natural Resources Commission—which sits in the Premier's portfolio—warned that such a body, without clear scientific independence, would blur the line between evidence and advocacy. Yet the Government set aside millions for it anyway. The inquiry revealed that none of that $7.9 million would go towards actual pest control or invasive species management. Instead, $4 million would fund the authority itself, and another $3.9 million would fund compliance and enforcement. Not one cent was earmarked for reducing feral animal populations or supporting landholders doing the real work on the ground. This is at a time when Government agencies are having to cut staff. I saw the remarkable similarity between $7.9 million for a Conservation Hunting Authority and $7.5 million in savings that the Art Gallery of NSW, for example, has to find.

They have had to cut 45 staff to make a saving of $7.5 million. Meanwhile, in this same budget, the Government has allocated $7.9 million to a Conservation Hunting Authority with exactly zero staff at this point in time, and it is not even established. It is pretty clear whose side Chris Minns is on when it comes to guns or galleries. The bill's supporters claim that expanding recreational hunting will help control feral animals and protect native species, but the evidence says otherwise. The Centre for Invasive Species Solutions, the Invasive Species Council, the Natural Resources Commission [NRC] and RSPCA Australia all told the inquiry the same thing: Recreational hunting is not an effective method of pest control. Dr Tony Buckmaster from the Centre for Invasive Species Solutions said bluntly:

Recreational hunting alone can't reduce feral animal populations. As a primary control tool, it is completely ineffectual.

Jack Gough from the Invasive Species Council provided damning figures. In 2023-24, hunters operating across 1.8 million hectares of State forests—land where aerial culling and baiting are banned—killed around 3,000 deer and 5,000 pigs. By comparison, professional and coordinating government programs removed 131,000 feral pigs and deer in a single year through aerial control. That is the scale of the difference. Aerial baiting and coordinated, science‑based pest control does work. Unregulated, ad hoc recreational shooting does not.

The NRC said that hunting can play only a minor role—what it called mop‑up operations—within a properly coordinated biosecurity strategy. Without planning, monitoring, measurable targets, significant investment and coordination, this really is little more than a hobby. We know that this is what the bill is all about. The bill pretends that hunting is conservation. It is not. This is a political deal for votes in this place—let's be honest about that—dressed up as pest control. The RSPCA pointed out that there are no independent animal welfare standards governing hunting in New South Wales and enforcement is patchy at best. As RSPCA NSW general counsel, Kathryn Jurd, told the inquiry after 18 years of prosecuting cruelty offences, it is unlikely that participants would report themselves to the regulator.

The reality is that recreational hunting lacks oversight, lacks training standards and too often results in avoidable suffering. The proposal to open more Crown land to hunting also raises really serious public safety risks. For over two decades, hunting has been allowed in parts of State forests, but the expansion envisaged by this bill—into additional Crown lands used by families, bushwalkers, schools and tourists—goes much further. The Alannah and Madeline Foundation told the inquiry that hunting cannot safely coexist with other public land uses. As the foundation's senior policy adviser, Stephen Bendle, said, "It's not in the public interest to have children camping or bushwalking on land where people with guns may be shooting nearby. Governments have a duty to ensure public safety, and this bill fails that test."

Outdoors NSW, which represents outdoor education and adventure operators guiding over two million people a year in public spaces, warned that this bill could devastate the sector. CEO Lori Modde said many schools would be forced to cancel outdoor excursions due to insurance and risk concerns. She told the inquiry that even just the public awareness of the bill has increased the number of calls from operators who are concerned about whether it will interrupt access in certain areas, and that schools will be the first ones to pull out of State forests.

The Biodiversity Council and Bushwalking NSW also raised alarm that expanding shooting into shared spaces could drive away other recreational users entirely. Beyond accidents, the bill also heightens broader community safety risks. Lucy's Project, supported by domestic violence organisations across New South Wales, presented evidence from Professor Sarah Wendt showing a clear link between gun ownership for hunting and increased risks of firearm-related domestic violence. They warned that the bill would "increase the tendency of perpetrators to use guns to intimidate victim-survivors" and raise the risk of lethal outcomes. The Australasian Injury Prevention Network echoed these concerns, noting that when firearms are present, the risk of suicide or domestic homicide rises dramatically.

The Greens share the view of those organisations that any legislation that increases access to firearms, normalises gun culture, or expands shooting in the community makes us less safe, not more. Frankly, I cannot believe that I am even having to say that. The inquiry itself exposed not only the dangers of the bill, but also the Government's poor handling of the process. One of the most striking aspects of the inquiry was just how little evidence there is to support the claim that recreational hunting reduces feral animal populations. I felt for the Minister for Agriculture, in her second reading speech to the bill, having to support the very notion that so‑called recreational hunting would make a skerrick of difference. Indeed, it would actually make the problem worse.

The NRC said plainly that there is "a dearth of knowledge" about long-term environmental outcomes from hunting. The Centre for Invasive Species Solutions identified five successful invasive species programs across Australia—and not one relied on recreational hunting. Instead, again the evidence shows that coordinated, professional programs deliver measurable results. In contrast, ad hoc recreational hunting can actually make the problem worse by dispersing animals, disrupting coordinated control efforts, and diverting funding away from programs that work. We all know the old story about how all the deer got into State forests and national parks in the first place and are now running onto our roads and highways. In the words of the Invasive Species Council, "This bill doubles down on past failures in pest management across the state."

Many witnesses at the inquiry also criticised the cynical use of the word "conservation" in this bill's title. RSPCA Australia's chief science officer, Dr Suzie Fowler, said it was simply "putting a different name on something to make it more palatable to the public". The Biodiversity Council warned that such language risks undermining public trust in genuine conservation science and confusing the public about what works for environmental management. The fact that the mover of the bill has put "conservation" hunting into the title, as though the mover of the bill from the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party actually cares about conservation, is really a bit too much to stomach.

The Greens stand firmly against this bill. We oppose the creation of any statutory right to hunt. We oppose the establishment of a taxpayer-funded conservation hunting authority. We oppose the expansion of recreational hunting across public and Crown land and any erosion of New South Wales' world-leading gun safety laws. We support evidence-based, humane, and coordinated invasive species management—led by scientists, not shooters. We support the National Parks and Wildlife Service's Supplementary Pest Control Program, with coordinated, science-driven programs. But we will not support a bill that uses "conservation" as a fig leaf for the gun lobby.

Finally, I know my colleague Ms Sue Higginson has also done this, but I acknowledge the extraordinary community campaign that helped to expose and derail this bill. It was pretty clear from the start, when we saw the bill, how shocking it was and it was pretty clear from the start where it had come from and why it was being introduced. We heard Government members in this House having to justify and support the bill, and that was really quite depressing—and almost embarrassing that that was what they were being asked to do. The community came out in force. Members of the public were phoning talkback radio because they were absolutely appalled at this attempt to expand hunting in New South Wales.

Because of that, Chris Minns, the Premier—it is all about what he put forward, what he has done and what he wants—was ultimately forced to retreat from his initial support for a bill by the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party to legislate a right to hunt in New South Wales. Let's be very clear what the Premier, Chris Minns, had agreed to with the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party to get his worker compensation legislation passed and probably to support a hell of a lot of other deals over the next 12 to 14 months of this Government. The right to hunt clause was scrapped. I thank everybody who campaigned on that. Finally, I acknowledge the excellent work of my colleague Ms Sue Higginson and her team. I give a shout-out to Daniel Reid, whose tireless work on this bill and this campaign was instrumental in revealing the truth about the bill and getting so many people to kick up a stink about it.

The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (16:49): I make a contribution to debate on the Game and Feral Animal Legislation Amendment (Conservation Hunting) Bill 2025 and state my support for the bill. I recognise that there are strong views held by the various parties represented in this Chamber, as is indicated by the volume of amendments I have become aware of. I will not pass comment on the majority of those amendments because I will Chair the Committee stage and it is most important that I remain neutral. In my support of this bill, I note that its final form may alter, but my support will stand because it is the intent of the bill that has my backing.

It seems clear to me that all sides of this debate agree that feral pest introduced species are wreaking havoc on our native wildlife, vegetation and farmlands. In February this year the Australian Bureau of Statistics published data related to feral mammal species in Australia and found that New South Wales has the highest number of feral mammal species in the nation, with animal pests expected to cause damage in excess of $489 million a year by 2026. That is just next year. The Australian Bureau of Statistics report led the NSW Farmers conservation and resource committee to conclude:

It's little wonder we're the feral capital of Australia – we've got hordes of feral pigs and packs of wild dogs as well as feral deer, foxes, cats, rabbits and mice to boot …

This is just the start of a long list of feral species that farmers are battling to control as these pests wreak havoc and harm production across the key agricultural regions of our state, trashing crops and pastures and even killing livestock—

not to mention the amount of disease that those feral pests spread. Two weekends ago I was home for a couple of days, and I had a chat with my good neighbour Brian McClelland. Brian is a builder and concreter who lives right across the road from me. If anyone needs a builder or concreter in Goulburn, look him up. He is a lovely bloke and a well-respected member of the community. Brian also happens to hunt and shoot, and he is well aware of this bill. Brian said to me, "What's happening with that bill up there?" I said, "Mate, I'm going to support the concept of the bill in terms of helping to control feral pests." He said, "Good. I'm glad you are, Rod. Let me show you a few photos on my phone." He then showed me photos of some pigs he had recently shot out the back of Taralga, and they were bigger than about 10 members put together. He showed me where they had been rooting through crops and the damage they had caused.

One of the most intriguing and concerning things that Brian told me was that feral pigs can now be found within five kilometres of the township of Goulburn. While it is clear that recreational hunting is not the silver bullet to the problem of feral animals, it will supplement all existing and proposed pest control programs. At this point, any help in dealing with our pest problem is better than the status quo. In many places in our State, forests and farms are being overrun by feral animals.

I note the Premier has made it clear that the Government does not support this bill making changes to firearms or prohibited weapons legislation, and the Government has tabled amendments to remove the bill's proposed changes to the Weapons Prohibition Act. I also note that the bill does not propose any other changes to weapons and firearms laws in New South Wales. It does not relax laws on the possession or purchase of firearms, and I support that position. The vast majority of licensed firearm owners are good, decent, law-abiding members of our community. They enjoy their pursuits legitimately and, in doing so, inject money into many rural small businesses and towns and help control feral animals. But the sad reality is that a small percentage of whatever is added to the legal firearms market will make its way into the unregulated black market. That occurs either by theft or via unscrupulous dealers. Because of that, I have serious concerns regarding the bill's desire to lower the licensing regulations for obtaining a firearm suppressor.

While some here have already made arguments for the safety of other users of public land, I simply make the point of the increased danger to our law enforcement officers and the general public if a greater number of crooks are able to get their hands on suppressors and choose to use them for nefarious purposes. Think back to Sunday 5 October when Artemios Mintzas allegedly unleashed at least 50 bullets from a second-storey window on random members of the public in Croydon Park. Imagine how much greater that threat would have been if police and passers-by were unable to gauge the location of the alleged shooter because a suppressor was fitted. As I said, many amendments are proposed for this bill, but the ones that seek to remove the proposed relaxing of laws around obtaining a suppressor have my support. I close by returning to my original point: I will support this bill in its final form because I support its intent. Adding recreational hunters to all current and future pest control programs can only assist the State in its desire and need to reduce the number of feral and pest animals.

The Hon. AILEEN MacDONALD (16:55): I lead for the Liberal Party in debate on the Game and Feral Animal Legislation Amendment (Conservation Hunting) Bill 2025. The Liberal Party stands firmly against this legislation. This bill is not about conservation, and it is not about managing invasive species. It is a political deal that seeks to recast recreational hunting as an environmental policy. It is a dangerous and disingenuous piece of legislation that risks public safety, undermines confidence in our firearms framework and reverses the decades of progress made since the Port Arthur tragedy. There are claims that this bill recognises the role of hunting in managing feral animals. The bill in its current form, in truth, enshrines a statutory right to hunt, creates a taxpayer funded conservation hunting authority and opens Crown land to armed recreational activity without community consent or scientific oversight. None of that delivers measurable conservation benefit.

Let us be clear. Firearm ownership in Australia is not a right; it is a privilege granted under licence and subject to the overriding principle of public safety. That principle has guided our State since the introduction of the National Firearms Agreement in 1996. The bill seeks to dismantle that understanding by embedding rights‑based language into New South Wales law, the very language our predecessors agreed must never again be included. But do not take my word for it. Let us go back in history and learn from the Game Council New South Wales, which was created in 2002 as a result of political horsetrading. The Shooters Party, holding the balance of power in the upper House, demanded it as a price for legislative support. Mr Robert Brown, a member of this House, was its former chair. The Game Council was given an extraordinary dual role both representing and regulating hunters, a clear and dangerous conflict of interest.

A decade later in 2013 the Government commissioned Steve Dunn, a respected former senior public servant, to conduct an independent review. His findings were damning: Public safety did not receive a high level of attention in planning documents, there was an inherent conflict of interest between representing hunters and regulating their activities, and allowing the Game Council to continue on its path was not an option. He found that, more than 10 years after its creation, the council still had no governance framework, no risk strategy, no internal compliance system and no published strategic plan. When that review was underway, senior executives of the Game Council were under police investigation for using a government vehicle to engage in unauthorised hunting, crossing into a national park and discharging firearms. One was later convicted of multiple gun and hunting offences. As a result, the Government suspended all amateur hunting in State forests, the Game Council was abolished and its regulatory powers were transferred back to the Department of Primary Industries. Oversight returned to the hands of government, not lobbyists.

So why, with full knowledge of that history, would this Government introduce a bill that restores a statutory authority dominated by hunting interests, establishes a hunting Minister and grants a right to hunt in law? Let us call it what it is: Game Council 2.0, a rebrand of a failed institution that Parliament had to dismantle to protect the public. Even the Minister for the Environment at the time of the 2013 scandal, Robyn Parker, insisted on tight controls for hunting in national parks: There was no hunting during school holidays, no hunting without full supervision, no hunting by children under 18, no use of bows or no black-powder weapons and parks were closed to visitors during hunts. Why? It is because public safety matters. Today this Government proposes opening Crown land to hunting with far weaker protections and without any comparable trial period or safeguards. That is not a lesson learnt; that is a lesson forgotten.

The inquiry received 615 submissions, and the weight of evidence is against this bill. Lucy's Project, Domestic Violence NSW, No to Violence, People with Disability Australia and Full Stop Australia warned that firearms in domestic and family violence contexts significantly increase the risk of harm and lethality to victim‑survivors and that introducing a right to hunt may legitimise firearms access and embolden perpetrators. Full Stop Australia said that the bill risks putting firearms into the hands of those subject to family violence orders and that many women and children are killed or seriously harmed by intimate partners with gun access. Those are not abstract fears. In rural communities, access to firearms is already a risk factor for family violence. Normalising gun use under a right to hunt will not make families safer.

The Alannah and Madeline Foundation went further, warning that the bill "is the most regressive firearm legislation" proposed since 1996, that it undermines the spirit of the National Firearms Agreement and ignores firearms safety. The RSPCA reminded the committee that the bill contains no requirement for humane practice, no monitoring and no measurable conservation outcomes. It stated plainly that the bill had nothing to do with evidence-based pest control. The Invasive Species Council, which actually supports effective feral animal control, stated that the legislation is a political project, not an environmental one, and that it provides no scientific rationale for hunting as a conservation tool. The Biodiversity Council warned that uncontrolled shooting may in fact worsen ecosystem outcomes by dispersing pest populations and interfering with coordinated control programs. Gun Control Australia described it as a Trojan horse for expanding gun access and weakening community safeguards.

When domestic violence advocates, child safety foundations, conservation scientists, animal welfare organisations and governance experts are all united in opposition, Parliament should listen. We are not alone in opposing this bill. Conservation experts across New South Wales have condemned it in the strongest terms. The National Parks Association of NSW, a highly respected voice for biodiversity and public land protection, has sounded the alarm. Its CEO, Gary Dunnett, was unequivocal:

This Bill, introduced by Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party MLC Robert Borsak, is nothing more than a rebranded version of the discredited Game Council, which was abolished in 2013 following serious governance concerns.

He went further:

It is deeply disappointing that the NSW Government appears to be buying into the myth that recreational hunting is an effective way of controlling the feral animal crisis impacting our biodiversity.

We agree. Recreational hunting has its place, but it is not the silver bullet for managing invasive species across vast landscapes. The claim that this bill represents a conservation strategy is misleading. Mr Dunnett concluded:

The ill-named 'Conservation Hunting Authority' isn't about eradicating damaging feral animals — it will simply follow the same path as its predecessor and impede genuine conservation action.

Let me be clear: Professional land managers, environmental scientists and pest control specialists use the evidence-based techniques of baiting, trapping, targeted culling and, where appropriate, aerial shooting. They do so under strict protocols, not on weekends for sport. The bill confuses recreation with conservation, and that confusion puts our native species at risk.

The bill would establish a Conservation Hunting Authority dominated by hunting interests with a direct advisory line to a new hunting Minister. It seeks to remove the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development from its regulatory role, replacing it with a lobby-driven board whose purpose is to advance hunting, not environmental protection. That is not good governance; that is regulatory capture. It also allows Crown land to be declared open to hunting without consultation. That includes land used by families, bushwalkers and First Nations communities. It is unsafe, unaccountable and unnecessary. I will spend a few more moments addressing the governance structure proposed in the bill, which creates a statutory body, but it fails to address basic questions. Who will provide independent oversight? How will conflicts of interest be managed? Will the authority be required to share firearm information with police and courts, especially in the context of apprehended violence orders? What mechanisms for complaints and appeals are in place for decisions that affect safety, community use or animal welfare? The original Game Council failed on all those fronts, and the new body risks repeating every single mistake. It is a textbook case of bad governance.

What does real pest control look like? Effective feral animal management is not achieved through hobby hunting. It is achieved through coordinated professional programs—baiting, trapping and aerial shooting—guided by biosecurity experts and managed by ecological outcomes. Our farmers, landholders and environment managers understand that. They need science and strategy, not politics. If this bill had appeared in the 1980s, it might have been debated as a bold experiment in community-led feral animal management. But in 2025 it feels tone deaf and out of step with modern expectations around governance, environmental protection and safety. The bill does not reflect contemporary conservation science or modern best practice, nor the community's expectation of transparency, rigour and independence. It instead takes us back to a structure that was rejected by the Parliament, the public and even by government after its litany of failures.

Another issue raised in the submissions was the expansion of hunting on public lands, including national parks and nature reserves. That has historically been one of the most controversial policies in New South Wales, introduced as part of a deal between the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party and Government in exchange for support on unrelated legislation. The public rightly raised concerns then, and those concerns remain today.

Who is liable if someone is shot or injured? How are non‑hunting users—hikers, families, bird watchers—protected? What happens to the cultural heritage sites, particularly Aboriginal heritage areas? There is no answer in this bill, only silence. It is policy by omission, leaving the dangerous details for others to sort out. There is something deeply frustrating and, frankly, dangerous about legislation that seeks to revive a failed model without addressing why it failed. It shows disregard for the public servants and inquiry officers who expose the failures, the communities affected by those failures and the experts who have built evidence‑based solutions to the very problems this bill claims to address. One submission to the bill put it well: "This bill is not about invasive species; it is about ideology." That may be blunt, but it is not wrong.

The Opposition opposes this bill because we believe that conservation should be science led, not politically led. Firearm and hunting licences must be rigorously regulated. Public safety should be paramount, especially for women and children. Governance must be transparent and with clear accountability to the Parliament and the public. We believe in effective, evidence‑based feral animal control, not the romanticised rebranding of its failed institutions. We have seen this movie before, and we know how it ends. The Parliament has a duty to remember the lessons of our past and to legislate for a better future. We do not need another Game Council, another scandal, another system where safety is compromised and accountability is optional. We need robust, integrated pest control. We need strong protections for women, and we need laws that reflect the values and evidence of 2025, not 2002. For those reasons, the Opposition will vote against the bill and urges every member of this House to do the same.

Dr AMANDA COHN (17:11): I add to the previous brief comments I made on the Game and Feral Animal Legislation Amendment (Conservation Hunting) Bill 2025 before I was truncated. I reiterate my strong support for the excellent contributions to this debate made by my Greens colleagues, and the Hon. Emma Hurst. The bill seeks to amend the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002 to establish the Conservation Hunting Authority; to recognise the role of hunting in the preservation of native species, the natural environment and cultural heritage; to recognise the right of citizens to hunt for cultural and recreational reasons; and to amend the Crown Land Management Act 2016 to establish the mechanisms by which Crown land may be made available for hunting and for related purposes. The bill also makes amendments to the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 to provide that conservation hunting may be considered a genuine reason for the Commissioner of Police to issue a permit for the possession and use of a prohibited weapon.

There is absolutely no doubt that the bill is a weakening of gun regulation in this State, and that is unconscionable. Walter Mikac, who lost his wife and two daughters in the Port Arthur massacre, has warned that the bill will weaken the National Firearms Agreement. He said:

Let's leave it. Let's leave that as a monument. It needs to stay for all those people who lost their lives that day. All the first responders, and the people who have suffered right across the rest of their lives—not excluding myself—missing out on all those events with my daughters, and my wife, like a life sentence that doesn't go away. So we just need to keep our guard up, and try and leave the legacy that we've got from Port Arthur in place. There's a danger in being complacent.

The bill will hand management of public land to the gun lobby. This will mean more recreational shooting on public land, worse outcomes for the environment and extreme danger for the non‑gun‑toting community. The bill will see the reconstitution of the Game Council New South Wales in the form of the Conservation Hunting Authority. The Game Council, after being reviewed in 2013, was found to fail on governance, safety, integrity and outcomes. Some of the senior officers on the council were charged with illegal hunting, trespass and firearm offences. A key manager was even stood down for allegedly pursuing trophy animals on private property.

As it stands, the bill will create an authority operating with a similar model to the failed council, where the gun lobby is being favoured over conservationists, scientists and landholders. Further, the proposed Conservation Hunting Authority is not just regulatory but promotional. It will be stacked with hunting lobbyists, will have the ability to make recommendations to the Government and even intervene in management planning processes. As my colleague Ms Sue Higginson noted in her contribution to the second reading debate:

This is a return to a failed and discredited model that puts public safety, environmental governance and democratic process at enormous risk. We shut this door once, and we must now resist and not let them force it open again.

The bill inserts a new section 4A into the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002, which establishes a right to hunt for culture, recreational and animal management purposes. The bill does not specify the condition of these entitlements or establish a requirement that hunting be planned or professional. New section 4B creates an obligation for public land managers—such as councils and other public sector bodies—to consider the right to hunt when making land use decisions, and to assess whether it is practicable to facilitate hunting access on their land. The only land that will be exempted is our national parks—for now. Criteria compliant land is any land that is reserved for a prescribed purpose and is greater than 400 hectares, including catchments, Crown land, State forests and recreational areas where people go to safely enjoy their time in nature and not bounty hunt. The Greens are not debating the right of farmers to shoot invasive species on their own land. The bill is about our public land.

New section 4C, headed "Decisions not invalidated by the right to hunt", provides that the making of a decision is not invalid just because the right to hunt was not considered. This means that the right is not even enforceable, but it is a political weapon for the pro‑gun lobby. The bill invokes conservation to sanction its contents, but it is clear that there is little genuine regard for effective invasive species control. We know that unregulated recreational hunting means little for coordinated, monitored, best‑practice interventions. While new section 15 rebrands "restricted licences" as "conservation hunting" licences, there is no change to ensure that those licences equate to acts of conservation. A restricted gaming licence that was enforced before commencement will immediately become a conservation hunting licence with the same rules. There are no requirements for licensees to hold ecological knowledge or commit to targeted conservation efforts. Calling it a conservation licence is merely a farce that benefits the hunting lobby, with no demonstrated benefits for our environment.

The Invasive Species Council has pointed out that recreational hunting is not effective for conservation and, in fact, undermines effective control. It notes that this is in part because the very principles of recreational hunting have nothing to do with conservation. In its submission to the inquiry into the bill, the Invasive Special Council stated:

Elevating the influence of hunting groups is likely to undermine the effective control of invasive animals. Granting the Hunting Authority the power to influence the management of public lands is likely to create impediments to effective control, propagate fallacies about control, risk the transformation of public lands into game reserves, and divert scarce public funding from effective control programs.

The Invasive Species Council also raised serious concerns around governance risks, noting that the bill:

… will undermine the credibility of the NSW Government on invasive animal control, potentially promote potential breaches of the general biosecurity duty, and foster social conflict.

The Biodiversity Council has similarly disproven claims that the bill will support conservation. In its submission to the inquiry, the Biodiversity Council stated:

Recreational hunters do not play an important role in controlling invasive species … While hunting kills individual invasive animals it does not occur at a scale or with sufficient coordination and strategy to produce significant population reduction of invasive animals … nor their impacts.

The RSPCA also points to serious risks posed by the bill. In its submission to the inquiry, the RSPCA argued that "the bill unacceptably weakens restrictions around hunting and risks significant animal welfare and personal safety compromise". Further, it noted that, without the effective principles of conservation, hunting can:

… fail to reduce pest populations sustainably, disrupt professional control programs, and may lead to the disruption of habitat, suffering or death of non‑target and native species, including endangered … To be effective and safe, pest management must be carried out as part of a co‑ordinated program by qualified pest management officers, who possess the expertise and training required to apply best‑practice methods. Certified pest management officers are legally obligated to meet specific training.

In other words, not only will the bill not improve conservation efforts, it may also even make them worse. The RSPCA have also pointed out that the bill "will result in an increase in hunters who lack the foundational training currently considered necessary for public safety, animal welfare, and regulatory compliance. Without adequate training, hunters may lack the skills necessary to ensure a humane and effective kill." That is also backed by research from the Australia Institute, which has found the following:

Invasive species management approaches like the one proposed have a largely unsuccessful history in Australia. Worse, such methods can result in growth of invasive species populations.

The institute also found:

Programs that focus on the elimination of individual animals, rather than on mitigating their impacts, are generally ineffective outside of limited circumstances … which do not apply to this Bill. Without coordination and management of hunting for conservation, the Bill also risks unintended consequences through disruptions to the existing ecosystem, including increases in the number of invasive species after hunting has taken place in an area.

Not only does the bill fail to improve conservation, it also represents an active harm to the humane treatment of animals. The Australasian Injury Prevention Network has confirmed that the bill presents a massive danger to human safety too. It has said that the inclusion of suppressors and night‑vision equipment for conservation hunting "presents significant risks to public safety, increasing the presence and use of firearms in public lands, particularly by recreational hunters and introduces a new definition of a 'right to hunt'. It added:

These proposed changes to legislation directly contravene the principles of the National Firearms Agreement, signed by all states, including NSW, which affirms that gun ownership is a privilege, not a right, and is conditional on the overriding principle of public safety. This is also the primary objective of the NSW Firearms Act.

I seek to spend most of my weekends and holidays in and around our State forests to go bushwalking with my partner and two beautiful rescue dogs, who are quite rightly not allowed in national parks. People who enjoy public land for recreation, like me and my family, should be able to do so safely and not at the exclusion of each other. It is important that members enter the debate with their eyes open. As I have already raised in the Parliament, there was a death from a hunting accident in New South Wales in April this year. It is not a theoretical risk. Accidents like that can and will happen on public land if the bill is passed. It will harm people who are in those spaces to simply to enjoy public land rather than engage in hunting themselves. We should be able to share and enjoy those spaces and not put people at risk.

There was another hunting death in Victoria in 2024, when a 64-year-old man died in Gippsland in a hunting accident. In 2021 a 37-year-old man died of a gunshot wound at Mount Buffalo in Alpine National Park in Victoria. The matter is very serious. It is egregious to pretend that there have been and will be no deaths, and that it is entirely safe. Members are being misled about the safety risks posed by the bill. In their submission to the inquiry, Bushwalking NSW said simply: "We do not want to get shot, even by accident". There are the risks posed to bushwalkers and nature lovers like myself, but it is also worth noting that Lucy's Project, Aboriginal Women's Advisory Network, Domestic Violence NSW, No to Violence, People with Disability Australia and Full Stop Australia also reject this bill because of the following:

… potential increased access to weapons and the risks of severe and fatal violence to women, children and animals experiencing domestic and family violence (DFV). We are particularly concerned about the impacts for families living in outer metropolitan, rural, regional and remote areas.

The Public Health Association of Australia also rejects the bill. It states:

It proposes to create a legally confusing and deeply inappropriate so-called 'right' that would operate in contradiction to other laws, including vital laws protecting public safety in NSW in furtherance of the National Firearms Agreement.

…

Any other course than rejecting this Bill would leave the NSW Government and Parliament open to the charge that they had abandoned their commitment to national firearms policy, and to the paramount principle of public safety in these matters.

This bill will provide for state-sanctioned killing of animals and risk the safety of public citizens. As I have stressed, it will do nothing for managing ecosystems. Further, it will systematically open up Crown land and travelling stock reserves for the recreational hunting lobby. New section 9A.2 of the bill, for example, will make huge parcels of land hunting accessible. New section 9A.3 goes further by setting out that Crown land reserved for one or more prescribed purposes, whether a single lot or directly adjoining lots are designated as land on which hunting is permitted if the land is a minimum of 400 hectares. As my colleague Ms Sue Higginson pointed out:

There is no ecological rationale behind the 400-hectare test. It is an arbitrary political threshold that allows entire landscapes to be declared hunting grounds with minimal assessment.

Even more worryingly—if that is even possible at this point—new section 9A.4 provides that the Minister can amend or substitute the entire list of designated land by order without parliamentary approval. The section states:

The Minister may, after consulting with the Conservation Hunting Authority—

which is the new agency representing the gun lobby—

by order published on the New South Wales legislation website, amend or substitute Schedule 5A.

The level of control that the hunting lobby will have under those changes is obscene. This is land that should be prioritised for community access, heritage protection and environmental value, not prioritised based on lobbying pressure. Schedule 4 amends the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 to provide that conservation be considered a genuine reason to apply for prohibited weapons. That means that a recreational shooter could apply for permits for silencers, night-vision scopes and other dangerous accessories. As I have stressed, along with my colleagues, there is nothing in the bill to provide for these weapons to be used as part of a professional, planned or scientifically supported invasive species control program. I reiterate that the bill will hand management of public land to the gun lobby, which will mean more recreational shooting on public land, worse outcomes for the environment and extreme danger for the rest of us, who seek to enjoy public land.

An extraordinary array of stakeholders has united in their opposition to the bill: Not only conservation groups and groups representing the wellbeing of animals, but also domestic violence groups, families of the victims and survivors of the Port Arthur massacre and groups like the Public Health Association of Australia. It is extraordinary to see such a broad range of well-respected advocacy bodies on so many different matters unite in adamant opposition of one bill. The bill recreates the Game Council, which in 2013 failed on governance, safety, integrity and outcomes. Some of its senior officers were charged with illegal hunting, trespassing and firearm offences. It is just unconscionable that we can be recreating a body—

The Hon. Robert Borsak: That's bullshit—complete bullshit.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member will be heard in silence.

Dr AMANDA COHN: Mr President, there was some deeply unparliamentary language used just now by the Hon. Robert Borsak.

The PRESIDENT: There are some strong views on all sides of the issue. The Hon. Robert Borsak will cease interjecting. The member will be heard in silence.

Dr AMANDA COHN: In reiterating The Greens' firm opposition to the bill, I think it is important to comment again on the political context in which members debate the bill. The last time that I had the opportunity to speak on the matter was during a week that the Government sought to rush through workers compensation legislation, which has subsequently been sent to an inquiry. There were very serious and very credible allegations of a deal being struck between the Government and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party relating to the current bill and an utterly unrelated piece of legislation. Given the community's extraordinarily unified opposition to the Game and Feral Animal Legislation Amendment (Conservation Hunting) Bill 2025, it is actually extraordinary that the Government would proceed to support any part of it.

Premier Minns is now on record as saying that he will not support the right to hunt and that it is important not to water down gun laws in this State, but it is clear from the stakeholder evidence that I have already relayed that the rest of the bill is still a weakening of gun regulation in this State. It is a good thing that the Premier has indicated that the Government will not support the right to hunt, but the Government should go further and not support any part of the bill, because it does not do what it proposes to do and will expose people to significant harm. Further to that, the Premier made a promise on record that the Government would not provide Government time in Parliament for debate on the bill. I echo the comments of my colleagues that many members of the Legislative Council will hold him to that promise.

The Greens reiterate our firm opposition to the bill. On a personal note, as a very new member of this place, I find it frankly extraordinary that we continue to debate something that is so baseless and has been shown not to achieve any of the things that it claims to seek to achieve. As I have already said, there is such extraordinary breadth of opposition from so many different people. I am one of many people who was deeply moved by the advocacy of Walter Mikac, who has been through enough and has done extraordinary work in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre to ensure that what happened to his family will not happen to another family. For him to have to continue that advocacy now—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member will be heard in silence.

Dr AMANDA COHN: I am deeply saddened that he has had to advocate against this piece of legislation but also very grateful for his advocacy. We should listen to those voices regarding the legislation, and not to the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party.

The PRESIDENT: The Clerk will stop the clock. Before I call the Hon. Sarah Mitchell, I will let members know what we will do from here. Item (9) on the business list for today, as determined by the committee, states:

That, if not adjourned earlier, proceedings be interrupted after 60 minutes, but not so as to interrupt a member speaking …

Accordingly, the Hon. Sarah Mitchell will have a choice, as Ms Cate Faehrmann did last week. There are 35 seconds left on the clock. At the end of that time, if the member wishes to move to adjourn the debate, that would be appropriate. It is then up to the House if it wishes to proceed in that way. Alternatively, the Hon. Sarah Mitchell may give her entire speech. It is entirely up to her.

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (17:32): Thank you for the clarification, Mr President. On behalf of The Nationals, I speak in debate on the Game and Feral Animal Legislation Amendment (Conservation Hunting) Bill 2025 for a second time. Obviously, we had an initial debate on the bill before it was referred to a committee. I acknowledge those who were involved in the inquiry. I was not but the Hon. Scott Barrett was, and I am sure he will have something to say about that work when he makes his contribution. I put on record that The Nationals' position is to support the bill with some of the amendments. We will support it at the second reading stage to go to Committee of the Whole. We have some of our own amendments, and we will also support some of the other amendments that have been foreshadowed by other members in this place when we reach the Committee stage.

Debate adjourned.