Debate resumed from 22 October 2025.

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK (17:30): On behalf of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, I speak on the Kosciuszko Wild Horse Heritage Repeal Bill 2025. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party will not oppose the bill on one clear condition: that the heritage value of the brumbies is recognised and respected and that a sustainable herd reflecting that value is managed and maintained within Kosciuszko National Park into the future. I foreshadow that we will move a couple of amendments. We have always said that the management of wild horses must be humane, scientifically sound and carried out using suitable firearms in the hands of skilled shooters. That is non-negotiable.

It is commendable that the Government now acknowledges what some of us have said for years: Introduced animals can and do have heritage value. To many Australians, especially those who live and work in the high country, the brumby is not a pest or a statistic but a totem animal and a living symbol of freedom, endurance and the pioneering spirit of Australians. I have spoken to many people over the years—stockmen, horsemen, rangers and local families—who see the brumby as part of their own story. For them, the horses are part of the landscape of their hearts. To some, the sight of a mob of brumbies running across the high plains is as powerful as seeing the Southern Cross in the night sky.

That is not just a view held by non-Indigenous Australians. In my travels and hunting trips through the remote Northern Territory, I have met Indigenous people who hold deep respect for wild horses, and even donkeys, some believing that the horse carries the spirit of their ancestors when it runs across country. Others see the donkey, with its distinctive cross on its back, as a sacred Christian totem that should not be killed. That tells us something profound. Heritage and cultural meaning are not confined to native species and are not frozen at a certain point in time or history. Animals can and do become part of our shared story and our identity, even when they arrived here with us.

But let us also be honest—heritage is not honoured by neglect. Doing nothing is not respect; it is irresponsibility. Allowing animals to suffer through starvation, drought or unmanaged overpopulation is the opposite of humane care. That is why we have always said that proper management is essential. Numbers must be kept at a level that the environment can sustain, but their management must be humane, competent and respectful. Our concern has always been that, too often, so-called control operations have been run with poor oversight and questionable marksmanship and without sufficient regard for animal welfare or community sentiment. If brumby management is to continue, it must be done properly, with clear standards, accountability and transparency.

There is another critical element that cannot be ignored in this debate. Effective brumby management cannot occur in isolation. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party believes that management of brumbies must be undertaken within a broader, coordinated brumby management framework across all land tenures—national parks, reserves, State forests and private land alike. That is not just common sense; it is exactly what the various New South Wales government departments, including the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, already espouse on their websites: that pest management must be cross‑tenure, collaborative and consistent across land boundaries. If horses are removed from one area but not controlled on adjoining lands, Kosciuszko National Park simply becomes a sink for unmanaged horses from elsewhere, attracted by the better feed conditions in the areas from where horses have been removed. That is not management; that is displacement. It just moves the problem around and invites more conflict.

We need collaboration between landholders, national parks staff, Local Land Services and community groups to ensure that brumby populations are responsibly managed across the wider landscape, not just inside park boundaries. We support the principle that the park's ecological integrity must be protected but we also insist that the heritage value of brumbies be preserved within that framework so that future generations can see and understand this living link to our rural heritage and frontier history.

In short, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party supports the repeal bill provided the heritage value of the brumby is formally recognised and preserved through a maintained, sustainable herd. We insist that all control measures be humane and professionally undertaken with suitable firearms operated by professional shooters. We call for coordinated, cross-tenure pest management programs across New South Wales to prevent Kosciuszko National Park from becoming a refuge for unmanaged horse populations from surrounding lands. The brumby is more than a management problem; it is a symbol. It represents the bond between people and the land and between past and present. Let us ensure that, in caring for our national park, we do not erase that bond but manage it wisely, respectfully and humanely. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party supports the bill on that basis.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON (17:36): On behalf of The Greens, I indicate our strong support for the Kosciuszko Wild Horse Heritage Repeal Bill 2025. I put on record that The Greens opposed the Kosciuszko Wild Horse Heritage Bill 2018 and have been active in supporting the repeal of that bill ever since. The legislated protection for an invasive species in a national park is a fever dream that could only be dreamt up by John Barilaro and his mate Peter Cochran in what was a "jobs for the boys" decision. Following passage of that bill in 2018, Kosciuszko became the only national park in Australia in which a feral species was protected. It was an especially despicable decision by the former Government, given that while debate on the bill was occurring, the Threatened Species Scientific Committee was considering feral horses as a key threatening process.

Of the unique and irreplaceable native wildlife of the Australian Alps, 28 threatened species and two ecological communities were directly threatened with extinction by feral horses. Along with the importance of the Kosciuszko National Park as a source of water to the Murray-Darling Basin—some 9,600 gigalitres every year—the environmental dangers of leaving horses in that precious national park is why the Kosciuszko Science Accord was co-signed by 100 scientists in 2018. I note the comments of my colleague Senator Mehreen Faruqi, who said in debate on the bill at the time:

We oppose it because we recognise the detrimental environmental impact that wild horses are having on the Australian alps bioregion … this bill entrenches this impact rather than addresses it.

She also said:

We oppose the bill because it is another example of the influence of powerful vested interests and political donations that dictate policy in this Government.

The result of that 2018 bill was extreme and deleterious. Between 2020 and 2022, after aerial shooting programs had been halted under the management plan, feral horse numbers increased from 14,000 to almost 19,000, a 30 per cent rise in population numbers. The lack of humane and scientifically justified aerial shooting programs meant that just 886 horses were removed through trapping and ground shooting in 2019 to 2020 and 859 horses in 2022. Without aerial shooting, those other measures fell well short of the 2,825 horses required to be removed each year to stabilise the number of feral horses in Kosciuszko, and nowhere near the 6,000 horses required to be removed to reach the legislated target of 3,000 animals. The simple truth at the heart of the issue is that, for every breeding mare left in the park, there will need to be continued mass slaughter of those animals to maintain the population target. As unpalatable as aerial shooting of horses is, it is far less harmful and far more humane to work towards zero horses in the park through effective, humane and professional aerial shooting programs.

The repeal bill would have been impossible without the dedication of the traditional custodians who have been resisting colonisation and invasion of their country by horses. The incredible Narjong water healing ceremony held at the headwaters of the Murrumbidgee in 2019 was a reminder that the lands and waters of this country have been cared for across tens of thousands of years by First Nations people, and that we must ask them to continue sharing their knowledge and their care for country. I thank some of the leaders who were part of the Narjong ceremony: Richard Swain, Wayne Thorpe, Sue Bulger, Max Harrison, Major Moogy Sumner, Bruce Pascoe, Rhonda Casey and Kevin Dean Whyman. I also acknowledge the brilliant work of Reclaim Kosci, the Invasive Species Council, the National Parks Association, the Colong Foundation for Wilderness and the Nature Conservation Council. They have worked tirelessly with tens of thousands of regular community members to keep this critical issue at the forefront of public and political discourse. Without them and their incredible campaign, members could not have this debate.

The Hon. AILEEN MacDONALD (17:41): On behalf of the Liberal Party, I contribute to debate on the Kosciuszko Wild Horse Heritage Repeal Bill 2025. I support the bill not because I want to see horses shot but because I respect the landscape, evidence and responsibility that we all share as stewards of our environment. Kosciuszko National Park is one of Australia's most extraordinary landscapes. It is home to unique alpine ecosystems found nowhere else on Earth. As legislators, we have a duty to protect it for future generations. The bill restores that principle: that national parks exist to conserve native flora and fauna, not to enshrine the protection of invasive species, however romantic their image may be. I know the issue touches the hearts of many people across regional New South Wales. The brumby holds a powerful place in our cultural imagination in poetry, film and family stories. But affection alone cannot guide environmental management—science must.

I participated in an inquiry into the aerial culling of wild horses in Kosciuszko. It was not a pleasant experience. The evidence, including photographs and testimony about the degradation of fragile wetlands and the destruction of native habitats, was confronting. To touch on something important, many of the photographs shown were not about the state of the park at all; they were images of the horses that had been shot. They were not pretty, and I never want to see images like that again—no-one does. But, if we fail to manage the park properly, that is exactly what will happen. The heartbreak will continue. We have a duty to ensure that Kosciuszko National Park never again faces a situation where horse numbers spiral out of control, where people are left in despair and where inaction leads to the very outcome everyone fears. It is not about cruelty; it is about responsibility. It is about making sure we never again allow conditions to reach a point where distressing measures become inevitable. We can still honour our history—the Banjo Paterson legends, the Snowy River spirit, the communities who feel connected to those animals—while also recognising that heritage does not mean perpetuating harm.

Stewardship is a deeply Liberal value: caring for what we inherit so that it endures for those who come after us. The bill does not end that story; it allows us to write the next chapter, one that balances cultural recognition with ecological truth. It transitions management of feral horses back under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Decisions will be led by science, based on evidence and made by professionals. We have seen what happens when horse numbers spiral beyond control: waterways polluted, soils compacted and alpine vegetation trampled. But we have also seen recovery when numbers are responsibly managed: stream banks stabilising, native plants returning and the park beginning to heal. That is proof that humane, science-driven management works. The debate is not about denying history or disrespecting communities; it is about respecting country. It is about upholding our shared responsibility to protect fragile ecosystems that cannot speak for themselves. While I understand and respect the deep emotions the debate stirs, my support for the bill comes from principle: stewardship, evidence and care for the land that defines who we are. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. RACHEL MERTON (17:45): I speak in opposition to the Kosciuszko Wild Horse Heritage Repeal Bill 2025. I am strongly opposed to this misguided piece of legislation that quite frankly threatens to erase a vital and iconic thread of our Australian heritage. The bill seeks to repeal the Kosciuszko Wild Horse Heritage Act 2018, an Act that wisely recognised the sustainable cultural significance of the brumbies in 32 per cent of Kosciuszko National Park. The existing Act mandated a heritage population of 3,000 brumbies and has ensured this wonderful living symbol of our nation continues to play an important role in the culture and ethos of our Snowy Mountains.

The fact is that the Parliament passed the Kosciuszko Wild Horse Heritage Act just seven years ago for very good reasons. The Act recognised that Australia's alpine heritage is not only environmental but also social and tied to our history. The Act was about protecting the cultural value of those animals. The Act created a fair and level playing field that protected the cultural value of our brumbies whilst recognising the needs of the natural environment. The Act has been working. It is an achievement that the former Liberal-Nationals Government should be proud of. The reality is that the brumby is our living link to those generations of Australians who worked and lived in the Snowy Mountains area: families, cattlemen and horsemen who became part of our national ethos and psyche.

I have previously discussed in this place and elsewhere the role that those horses played in our history in wartime, through the Snowy Mountains scheme and in our literature and poetry. Those horses are an integral part of our national identity. The horses may be located in the Snowy Mountains, but over generations they have become a distinct part of our unique Australian culture and identity. I have followed the increasingly shrill debate on the issue over the past few years and am disappointed that we have reached a point where an Act established by this Parliament not all that long ago for entirely appropriate and legitimate reasons is now on the cusp of being repealed. The misinformation that has surrounded the Snowy Mountains brumby, and the attempt to reduce those horses to nothing more than an invasive pest, has been hugely disappointing. Why have Ministers in this Government reportedly rejected meeting with the Australian Brumby Alliance and Snowy Mountains rehoming groups to discuss this matter? Do local stakeholders not matter? Or is it only groups that agree with the Government on this bill, like the Invasive Species Council, that get an audience? Is this community engagement and local democracy, NSW Labor style in 2025?

I listened intently to debate when the bill was before the House last fortnight. I particularly commend the excellent speeches of the Hon. Nichole Overall and the Hon. Emma Hurst, who each made important and valuable contributions as to why the bill is unnecessary. The Hon. Nichole Overall rightly pointed out that the defence of the brumby is not simply about nostalgia or romanticism; rather, it is also the science, culture and heritage that make those horses so vital, not just to the Snowy Mountains but to our nation. The bill, quite frankly, is the result of rampant ideology and a campaign of sustained disinformation against the Snowy Mountains brumbies. In years to come, people will look back on those speeches, look at the destruction unleashed on the Snowy Mountains brumbies and recognise that the members who said no to the bill were on the right side of history in this debate.

I will oppose the bill today and, furthermore, I will support the sensible amendments my very good friends in the National Party will move in the Committee of the Whole, should the bill pass the second reading stage. Everyone wants to protect the Snowy Mountains national park and supports lessening the impact of the brumbies on the environment. That can be done—and has been done—through the existing responsible and sensible 2018 Act. It can be achieved by the considered management of brumby populations, through expanded trapping. Over 3,200 have been rehomed since 2002. It can also be achieved through fertility trials and true, reliable audits that place weight on the environment but also recognise the profound cultural, heritage and scientific significance of the brumbies to our nation. Brumbies have a heritage and cultural value, but they also bring significant value to the Snowy Mountains region in many other ways. They are vital to the local tourism industry, attracting visitors from across the nation and the globe, who are drawn to the cultural narrative and living history those horses embody.

The Hon. Wes Fang: Point of order: Ms Sue Higginson was heard in silence when she made her contribution in relation to the bill. It is important that all members are treated with respect. Each member's contribution is as important as another's. If Ms Sue Higginson continues to interrupt the member, perhaps she should be asked to leave the Chamber.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): There is no point of order, but I remind members to keep their conversations to a minimum. The Hon. Rachel Merton has the call.

The Hon. RACHEL MERTON: Brumbies support a diverse regional economy and local jobs. From an environmental perspective, they maintain the character of our famous High Country and keep the dense bush and grasslands under control. Brumbies are also an intrinsic part of the identity of those living in the Snowy Mountains region. They are not viewed as invaders and pests; rather, they are viewed with pride, as a living and ongoing link to the opening up of those areas by settlers nearly 200 years ago. I again recognise the Hon. Nichole Overall—a very good former local member in the other place for the Snowy Mountains area—for her informative contribution, in which she pointed out that the Snowy Mountains brumbies are the only animal population in the entire world that is formally identified as having a significant heritage value, recognised under the Burra Charter and National Heritage List criteria.

Furthermore, brumbies are the subject of valuable and ongoing DNA and genetic research, with bloodlines linked, as I understand it, to rare Iberian breeds. As a horse breeder, that interests me. As a legislator, I look at the facts and evidence before me, and there is simply no justifiable reason to repeal the 2018 Act and implement this bad and unnecessary piece of legislation. It is worth considering why, after almost 200 years of brumbies being an integral part of the Snowy Mountains, it is only in very recent decades that we have seen a campaign of vilification against them, in which they have been reduced in importance from living treasures and national icons of our free spirit and liberty to little more than invasive pests. How have we gone from globally celebrating the Snowy Mountains brumbies at the opening of the 2000 Sydney Olympics to signing off on the mass eradication of those animals, just a quarter of a century later? Sadly, the vilification of brumbies in recent times has, in some cases, been driven not by conservation but by cultural vandalism and a reluctance to celebrate Australia's pioneering colonial past from which the brumby derives.

Brumbies are more than feral pests; they embody the indomitable spirit of our forebears. Brumbies today are descended from the horses introduced in the 1800s that opened up the High Country. Those horses inspired Banjo Paterson's The Man from Snowy River and the Silver Brumby series, and had a role in the Australian Light Horse in the Great War. They represent the liberty and freedom that are a key part of our national identity. A 2015 national cultural heritage assessment confirmed their profound significance, noting their role in folklore, art and the settler identity that shaped New South Wales. The 2018 Act struck a fair balance, protecting that legacy without sacrificing the environment, through trapping, rehoming and fertility controls. Yet the bill before us, cloaked in environmental rhetoric, dismisses that heritage as myth and misplaced romanticism, echoing an ideology that deems our colonial symbols disposable. The bill is ultimately a malign attack on not only brumbies, which are reduced to the role of unwelcome invaders, but also our broader Australian colonial history.

Worse still, the push for repeal of the 2018 Act further enables the brutality we have witnessed with the recent resumption of aerial shooting. Aerial shooting of brumbies was rightly banned in 2000 after the disgraceful Guy Fawkes massacre, surely one of the darkest days in the history of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. After a 23-year hiatus, aerial shooting resumed in November 2023. In my opinion, the process has proven appallingly inhumane. Figures released by the New South Wales Government demonstrate that well over 5,500 brumbies were shot via aerial culls between November 2023 and May last year. In opposition, Minister Sharpe used to say that she was opposed to the aerial shooting of horses. Some 5,500 culled horses in little more than six months is quite a leap in anyone's language.

I totally understand the importance of culling for the protection of land, whether it be our national parks or private agricultural land. I am a licensed shooter and a primary producer. I have seen the corrosive impact of introduced species on our environment, and I support the use of effective methods to control populations as appropriate. Yet what we have seen with the brumbies is anything but appropriate. Evidence from the Legislative Council inquiry reveals grotesque failures—horses chased for up to 20 minutes until exhausted, horses shot multiple times outside welfare protocols and carcasses left riddled with bullets in their rumps and necks.

Dr Jillian Brown, the convenor of the Heritage Horse and Environment Protection Alliance, criticised the volume of shots being fired into a brumby, stating, "That up to 15 shots are being used—with a median of 7.5—is absolutely staggering." Are we proud of this? In October 2023 alone 280 bodies—including foals—reportedly rotted in the park, some with wounds violating RSPCA standards for minimising suffering. Witnesses reported aborted foals beside mares and a 2024 inquiry heard of staff threats, including decapitated horse heads dumped at offices, underscoring the moral rot this unchecked method fosters. Compounding those horrors are the serious flaws in brumby counts justifying the cull. Just how reliable are the numbers we hear?

The October 2023 survey claimed 17,000 horses using distance sampling from helicopters, an imprecise method in rugged 690,000-hectare terrain. Critics, including biostatisticians, highlight biases, such as the overestimation of brumby numbers from double counting fleeing mobs. The quantum of the culls that followed the November 2023 resumption of aerial shooting has been based upon unreliable estimates carried out by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Its estimates of brumby numbers have fluctuated hugely year on year. The aerial survey estimate process has been dismissed as not only statistically incorrect but also biologically implausible. Independent audits have also questioned the methodology's validity, noting past surveys sighted only 3,000 to 4,000 brumbies annually over 20 years. Dodgy data and shonky statistics are no way to manage and determine the future of our iconic Snowy Mountains brumbies.

As a legislator, I have found one matter particularly mystifying during the debate. Those in the environmental movement who are the most outraged by the presence of brumbies in the Snowy Mountains area and the damage they claim these horses are causing the natural environment are generally the same people who are more than happy to support the clearing of mass tracts of native forest in areas like the Snowy Mountains for energy transmission lines as part of the net zero transition to renewables—what hypocrisy! The bulldozers for new powerlines for renewable energy in the Snowy Mountains are ripping through native forest, leading to habitat loss for native species, erosion, weed infestation and destruction of the area's natural ambience. If one wants to blame someone for environmental vandalism in the Kosciuszko National Park, point the finger at the renewable energy zealots who have rammed bulldozers through many hundreds of hectares of pristine bushland and national park, not a pack of brumbies.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak in opposition to the bill, and I urge the House to reject the repeal of the 2018 Act. Let us honour our brumbies and respect our heritage with humane tools, such as expanded trapping—with over 3,200 rehomed since 2002—fertility trials, and true, reliable audits. Let us guarantee a future for the brumbies by maintaining a large enough population of at least 3,000 horses in the foothills of the Snowy Mountains to both act as an impediment to inbreeding and, importantly, ensure they do not face extinction the next time major bushfires inevitably sweep through this area. Let us manage our brumbies and recognise their immense historic, cultural and social contribution to our Snowy Mountains, our State and our nation. Brumbies sustain our story. Do not let ideology silence it.

The Hon. WES FANG (18:04): From the outset I say that my National Party colleagues and I oppose the Kosciuszko Wild Horse Heritage Repeal Bill 2025. I appreciate the contributions that have been made, and I note that of the Hon. Rachel Merton. She talked about comments that were made by the then Leader of the Opposition or shadow Minister, who is now the Leader of the Government in this place. She indicated that the Hon. Penny Sharpe said that the Labor Party would not introduce aerial culling. There was some debate about that. I note that the Minister threw some comments at the Hon. Rachel Merton. I looked up exactly what was said in Hansard back in 2018 when we were debating this very issue. It was during a contribution by the Hon. Reverend Fred Nile, who suggested that the Labor Party had a plan to bring back aerial culling if it was in government. Minister Sharpe interjected and is recorded in Hansard saying:

No, we would not; we ruled out aerial culling.

The Minister for the Environment, who is now in charge of national parks, at the time reaffirmed the Labor Party position that it would not reintroduce aerial culling. Fast‑forward to 2023 when we know, from ministerial disclosures, the Minister took a trip to the Kosciuszko National Park. Not long after that she had a ministerial meeting with the Invasive Species Council. One can surmise what occurred in that meeting. However, not long after, the Minister made an announcement that she would seek to review the management document for the wild horse population in Kosciuszko and would seek submissions.

Madam Deputy President Hurst, you were the chair of the inquiry into the proposed aerial culling of brumbies. It is a fantastic report, although somewhat changed from the draft report that you proposed. If members go to the report, they can see the minutes from the deliberative meeting and the changes committee members made to the excellent draft report—making it a shadow of its former self. Going back to the history of how we ended up here, the Minister sought submissions in relation to a proposed change to the management plan for the Kosciuszko wild horse population—or the brumbies, as we call them. The Minister received around 11,000 submissions. The vast majority of those submissions were form submissions from the Invasive Species Council. I note that the CEO of the Invasive Species Council, Mr Jack Gough, is in the gallery. I disagree with him on some matters and agree with him on others. That is the nature of these debates.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Consistency is not your forte.

The Hon. WES FANG: I remind the Minister that she is the one who ruled out reintroducing aerial culling. If the Minister wants to talk about consistency, you are the one who told the House you would not introduce aerial culling. You lied to the House, Minister!

Ms Sue Higginson: Point of order—

The Hon. WES FANG: You lied to the House!

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): Order!

Ms Sue Higginson: The Hon. Wes Fang is out of control and acting disorderly. It is not parliamentary, and he must direct his comments through you, Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): Yes, absolutely.

The Hon. Mark Latham: To the point of order: There is definitely a broken promise. The Labor Party said there would be no aerial shooting; there has been. This is a debating Chamber—it is not tiddlywinks here. Those points are valid and should be made because they are true.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): The point of order was not about the content of what the Hon. Wes Fang said; it was about how his comments were directed. I uphold the point of order. The Hon. Wes Fang will direct his comments through me, not direct them to members opposite. The Hon. Wes Fang has the call.

The Hon. WES FANG: Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I accept your ruling.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: You have to. Those are the rules.

The Hon. WES FANG: Madam Deputy President, I ask you to stop the clock while I take a point of order.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): The Clerk will stop the clock. I will hear the point of order.

The Hon. WES FANG: Madam Deputy President—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): Order! Members will take any discussions outside the Chamber.

The Hon. WES FANG: I think the honourable member is a bit upset about item No. 22 on the draft Business List.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): What is the member's point of order?

The Hon. WES FANG: The Minister keeps interjecting. Whilst I appreciate your earlier ruling, it is perhaps a little hypocritical for her to take objection to my contributions about her when she keeps interjecting on my contribution.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): Interjections are disorderly. I will not call the Minister to order at this time, but I remind her of that fact. The Hon. Wes Fang has the call.

The Hon. WES FANG: I was talking about the 8,000 form submissions from the Invasive Species Council. On first blush, it appeared that multiple form submissions were from similar names and similar addresses. Many of them were from outside New South Wales. If we strip away those form submissions and look at just the independent, discrete—I will say genuine—submissions, we see that they were made by people who had put considered time and effort into making them to the Minister. There is no doubt that the vast majority of those true submissions were against the reintroduction of aerial culling. However, one can surmise that there may have been a bit of a stitch‑up between the Minister and the Invasive Species Council to try to get enough numbers so that the Minister could introduce what she wanted to do.

That was done some time in late 2023. Not long into the job, already the Minister had effectively broken the promise that she made to this Chamber and to the Parliament about not introducing aerial culling. We had a trial. That was about the time that we agreed to have an inquiry into the proposal. Normally it is good practice to have a pause on matters when there is an inquiry before the Parliament. However, the Minister was so desperate to start culling the brumbies once she had her hands on the ministerial levers that—despite the fact that we had a very important inquiry into the reintroduction of aerial culling—she ignored the fact that we were seeking to investigate, have hearings and a report generated on that matter, and she sought to roll out the culling straightaway.

One can draw a conclusion as to why that was the case. We have since determined clear evidence on the numbers and the alleged need to reintroduce aerial culling. I submit that the Minister knew the numbers published were much higher than the actual numbers in the park, and she used those inflated figures in order to reintroduce culling. I see the Minister getting upset because obviously the lies that she has told the House—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): Order! There are too many interjections.

The Hon. WES FANG: —are now coming to light. I think the Minister is very sensitive in relation to lying to the House. That is okay.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order—

The Hon. WES FANG: Look at that. This is the point I make.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): A point of order has been taken.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: I simply make the point that it is not in order for the member to verbal members of the House or to suggest what they may be doing or saying within the House while asserting imputations about their motives or otherwise. That is out of order. It is not within the standing orders.

The Hon. WES FANG: To the point of order: I said that, using the evidence, one might surmise that those things were the case. Certainly, from the way the Minister is reacting to those things, one could suggest that I was correct. The other thing is that the Minister continues to interject on my contribution. She knows that is disorderly. I am trying not to engage with her, but she continues to do that. I ask you to call the Minister to order so that I can finish my contribution without the interruptions.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): I understand that this is a heated debate and a lot of emotions are involved. I will not call members to order at this time. I remind the Hon. Wes Fang to be mindful of any accusations or imputations he makes in his contribution.

The Hon. WES FANG: Understood. We know that the numbers were inflated. We know that now because if we subtract the number of horses that were shot through aerial culling or were removed from the park through other means, and then we look at the numbers that are believed to be there now in the most recent count, we see that the numbers do not correlate. There is a very high likelihood that there are less than 3,000 horses in the park at the moment. That would indicate that the Minister has perhaps shot—

[Interruption]

The Hon. Mark Latham: Point of order—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): A point of order has been taken.

The Hon. Mark Latham: The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham has said things across the Chamber to the Hon. Rod Roberts that are clearly unparliamentary, clearly wrong and should be withdrawn—not this sort of gutter talk.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): I did not hear those comments, but I heard members calling across the Chamber.

The Hon. Mark Latham: He called the Hon. Rod Roberts a coward. He is one of the most honest persons with courage and integrity in this Chamber. I am not going to wear the fact that someone who served our Police Force with such distinction—and serves this Chamber with distinction as our Deputy President—is being described by that man as a coward.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): I did not hear the comments, but I heard yelling across the Chamber. It is disorderly for members to yell anything across the Chamber. The Hon. Wes Fang is making a contribution, and he should be heard in silence. If members wish to make comments and have conversations, I remind them for the last time that they can take those conversations outside the Chamber. The Hon. Wes Fang has the call.

The Hon. WES FANG: I have only seven minutes left, and the interruptions I have faced have been very unfortunate. I foreshadow that I will seek an extension of time. In relation to the numbers, we know that aerial culling was introduced on an inflated figure. I surmise that the Minister was aware of that. Certainly, when one subtracts the number of horses that were aerially culled from the number purported to be in the park in 2023, the result is well above the figure we have now. I believe that the Minister has breached the legislation as it currently stands. There is a high probability that the number is below 3,000. That is from the very figures that have been provided to us through National Parks.

That creates an issue and is perhaps partly the reason why the Government is now prepared to support the repeal of the Act. If it is the case that the Minister has culled too many horses, repealing the Act would mean that the Minister is no longer in breach of the legislation, as I believe she currently is. I note the constant interjections occurring behind me. I am trying not to engage with them. I think the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham, who introduced the bill in this House, is upset because of item No. 22 on the draft Business List. If he is so upset about that—

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: If the member has a point of order, he should take it. He should not be referring to other matters that are on the draft Business List for debate. That is deeply unhelpful, and he should be sticking to the matter that is before the House.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): Does the Hon. Wes Fang wish to take a point of order?

The Hon. WES FANG: I believe that if the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham is upset about item No. 22 on the draft Business List, he should raise that separately to my contribution on the bill.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): That is not a point of order. The Hon. Wes Fang may continue his contribution.

The Hon. WES FANG: If the Minister was serious about this, we would know that from the petition debate that occurred earlier this year in the other place regarding the repeal of the bill when the Invasive Species Council, I believe, was yet again involved in stacking the petition. In the final paragraph of his contribution to the debate, the Labor member with carriage of that in the other place, the Hon. Jihad Dib, said:

The New South Wales Government does not, therefore, consider pursuing repeal of the Kosciuszko Wild Horse Heritage Act 2018 to be a priority at this time.

The Labor Party is yet again talking out of both sides of its mouth on this issue. We have a Minister who in 2018 lied to the House, saying that she would not reintroduce aerial culling. In almost the very first act of becoming a Minister, she sought to bring in the very thing that she guaranteed to this House she would not do. That speaks to the integrity of the Minister and the Labor Government. We then saw the Minister in the other place, when leading the debate on the petition, say that this would not be a priority. Yet here we are. Of course, that is what this Government does.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Don't you support Independents bringing forward bills? Clearly not.

The Hon. WES FANG: I note the Minister is now interjecting. She often does that when she knows she is wrong on an issue. Here we go. The Labor Party is yet again seeking to defend the indefensible. It says it will not do something and then does it as soon as it is in power. The Minister in the other place said it is not a priority, so what did the Government do? It used a proxy. It used somebody else to bring in the repeal so Labor can have clean hands on the matter. We see it time and again from that party.

We held a good inquiry on this matter and produced a great report. That inquiry uncovered a lot of issues. During the contribution from the Hon. Rachel Merton, the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham referred to the brumbies and said, "Why don't you have them in your backyard? Put them on private land." Part of what the inquiry uncovered was that many supporters of the brumbies would be prepared to take them from Kosciuszko National Park and rehome them, but national parks would not give them access.

If that was the Government's true intention, I can promise that people would be lining up to save the brumbies in Kosciuszko National Park rather than see them shot from the air. But the Government will not let them do that. Whilst I appreciate the interjections from Hon. Jeremy Buckingham during the Hon. Rachel Merton's contribution, the reality is that the Government will not let people do it. Many people would accept rehoming brumbies on their own private lands, but the Government will not let them do that.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: There are 10,000 of them.

The Hon. WES FANG: There are not 10,000 there; that is the problem. The Minister shot too many. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party indicated it will only support the bill in circumstances where the Government preserves some part of the heritage value and a herd that will ensure that that is the case. If the Shooters are prepared to believe the Government after all the lies it has told on brumbies, then more fool them.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM (18:24): I oppose the Kosciuszko Wild Horse Heritage Repeal Bill 2025 on not only its contents but also the means by which it has come to our House. The sponsor in the other place, who brought it here via the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham, is Dr McGirr. He is not a doctor of philosophy but a doctor of medicine. I do not know how a doctor of medicine could authorise the slaughter of animals as beautiful as the brumbies. I do not know how a doctor of medicine could sign up to a workers compensation whole person impairment [WPI] of 28 per cent knowing that injured workers will kill themselves at that level. Dr McGirr is doctor death, and he needs to think long and hard about the oath he has taken—

Ms Sue Higginson: Point of order—

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: —and the things that he has committed to doing.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): Order! I will hear the point of order from Ms Sue Higginson.

Ms Sue Higginson: You have to sit down. I am taking a point of order.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): Order! The Hon. Mark Latham will resume his seat.

Ms Sue Higginson: The member was casting aspersions on a member of the other place, and he must do that by way of substantive motion.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: To the point of order: If someone is in the business of slaughtering those beautiful animals—anyone who has an affinity with horses knows how beautiful and glorious they are—and they sign up to a 28 per cent WPI, knowing on the evidence of our committee chaired by Ms Abigail Boyd that injured workers will kill themselves, then they are doctor death and they should be ashamed of themselves. They should be ashamed because they are advocating for the death of horses and injured workers. It is disgraceful.

Ms Sue Higginson: Further to the point of order—

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: Dr McGirr is doctor death.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): Order! The Hon. Mark Latham will resume his seat.

Ms Sue Higginson: —the member is flouting the rules of this House. He is bringing everything into disrepute.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: To the point of order: The member not only is making imputations against the good doctor but also should be made to withdraw the comment. That is an outrageous allegation. It is an absolutely awful thing to say against a man who has dedicated his life to being a health practitioner. To call him that as a cheap slur is outrageous. The member should be made to withdraw his comment.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: Further to the point of order: He is a bad doctor in my assessment. I do not think it is out of order to tell the truth. Those members cannot handle the truth about the sponsor of the bill. If members have facts to back the assertion—

Ms Sue Higginson: Further to the point of order—

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: Hold on. I haven't finished here. You have a big say all the time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): The Hon. Mark Latham will not direct other members.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: The evidence shows that man is for the killing of those beautiful, glorious animals and, at 28 per cent WPI, we know there will be the suicide of workers. Doctor death is appropriate.

Ms Sue Higginson: —the member is bringing the House into disrepute by flouting the rules in front of all members. He must now be called to order for the first time. He has flagrantly breached the rules and has continued to make rude, wrong and nasty imputations about a member from the other place. We know the rules. If he wants to do that, he can, but he must do it in accordance with the rules of this House, which is by way of substantive motion only.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): I will seek advice from the Clerk. I uphold the first point of order taken by Ms Sue Higginson. The Hon. Mark Latham made inappropriate comments about a member of the other place, which can only be done by way of substantive motion. I call the Hon. Mark Latham to order for the first time and warn him about making further comments. I also remind members that they are not to give directions to other members, such as a direction to sit down. That is the role of the Chair.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: Madam Deputy President, do you require me to withdraw my comments in light of that ruling?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): The member is not required to withdraw.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: I have concerns about the content of the bill and the means by which it has come before the House. Unfortunately, there is a pattern with crossbench members in the other place, which we should be concerned about as diligent members of a crossbench in this House which holds the Government to account. Each of the nine crossbench members in the Legislative Assembly gets concessions, boondoggles and pork barrels from this Government. The member for Wagga Wagga got this bill. In Pittwater it is road funding. In Wakehurst it is the Northern Beaches Hospital. In Sydney it is the alphabet agenda. And the member for Lake Macquarie was made Speaker.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): A point of order has been taken. The Hon. Mark Latham will resume his seat.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: The member is entitled to make contributions to this debate that relate to the long title of the bill. He is not entitled to make imputations about members of the other place or to speak about other matters outside the long title of the bill.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): I remind the Hon. Mark Latham to ensure that his contribution to debate relates to the bill before the House.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: I was just pointing out that the member for Wagga Wagga getting this bill is part of a pattern. All of his colleagues in the other place, who are mostly teals, have got concessions as well. In Orange it is virtual fencing; in Barwon it is an avalanche of grant funding; and in Wollondilly it is manipulation of the Local Small Commitments Allocation.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Point of order—

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order—

Ms Sue Higginson: Point of order—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): I will hear from the Minister on a point of order.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: Nine out of nine have been bought off.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): Order! The Hon. Mark Latham will resume his seat.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Madam Deputy President, I ask you to consider calling the Hon. Mark Latham to order. He flouts the rulings of the House and disrespects the rules of debate anytime he sees fit. He has also flouted your ruling.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): The time for debate on the bill has concluded. I take this moment to remind the Hon. Mark Latham to ensure that, going forward, his comments relate specifically to the bill.

I shall now leave the chair. The House will resume at 8.00 p.m.