ROBERT BORSAK’S BRUMBY BETRAYAL

Robert Borsak, MLC, a long-standing member of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party (NSW), did not enter the Brumby debate quietly.

During formal government inquiry hearings into the killing of wild horses in Kosciuszko National Park, Borsak spoke at length — and with apparent conviction — about animal welfare. He did not merely raise procedural concerns. Borsak questioned the very premise that aerial shooting could ever be humane.

At the hearings, Borsak challenged officials directly, stating that the program was being justified for “environmental reasons, not humane reasons.”

He went further, scrutinising the weapons and methods being used, warning that they were fundamentally unsuitable for killing horses humanely.

Despite calling the methods inhumane and unsafe, Borsak did a complete about-turn. He flipped his vote — going from being opposed to aerial ‘culling’ of wild horses to being in favour of the bloodbath – and thousands of Brumbies were inhumanely massacred — including pregnant mares and foals.

Kind of makes you wonder doesn’t it? What kind of backroom deal was made? What did Borsak get to reverse his stand?

“If you really wanted to confront the reality of what you’re doing, you would not be using .308 150-grain copper bullets.”

Borsak repeatedly pressed witnesses on reports of multiple shots being required to bring horses down — something entirely incompatible with claims of humane killing.

“Is it humane? … I don’t think anyone’s arguing that a second shot is needed, but why are 15 shots needed? … It’s not humane.”

“… the humane outcome would be a head shot — which from a helicopter is inherently inhumane, unsafe and ridiculous.”

Those words matter. Inhumane. Unsafe. Ridiculous.

OH WAIT – they did NOT.

Keep in mind…

They were not spoken by activists, whistleblowers, or outsiders — they came from a sitting Member of the Legislative Council – Robert Borsak – during an official inquiry.

And yet.

When the inquiry concluded and decisions moved from testimony to outcomes, Robert Borsak voted in favour of the very program he had condemned.

The methods did not change.

The ammunition did not change.

The risks he described did not disappear.

What changed was the vote.

Despite acknowledging — in his own words — that the killing methods were inhumane and unsafe, Borsak ultimately aligned himself with the continuation of aerial shooting and mass killing of Brumbies.

The same practices he had described as indefensible were given political cover.

This is not a disagreement over policy details. It is a complete collapse of principle.

In December 2025, a mass shooting in Bondi Beach — a terror attack targeting a public celebration that left 15 people dead and dozens injured — shocked Australia and catalysed renewed urgency on firearms policy.

In response, the federal government and state leaders agreed to pursue tougher gun laws — including plans for a national gun buyback program, limits on the number of firearms a person can own, and tighter licensing powers for police.

In New South Wales, the Minns government recalled Parliament for urgent legislation that would tighten firearm controls and embed reforms meant to enhance public safety in the wake of the attack.

Rather than supporting reforms aimed at reducing risk, Robert Borsak MLC and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party publicly criticised the proposed gun law changes:

Borsak described the NSW gun reforms as “political” and a “knee-jerk reaction” rather than a genuine attempt to enhance safety.

Official party statements explicitly framed the government’s response as a distraction from enforcement and intelligence failures, arguing that licensed firearm owners were being unfairly targeted and the real problems were failures of action, not the laws themselves.

This reflects the party’s broader platform: the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party advocates for relaxing gun-control restrictions and emphasizing hunters’ and shooters’ rights rather than supporting tighter public-safety controls.

The same political instincts that saw Robert Borsak criticise aerial shooting methods and then vote to continue them also showed up in the wake of the Bondi Beach massacre.

In late 2025, when New South Wales and federal leaders moved to urgently tighten firearms laws — including limits on gun ownership, stricter licensing and even proposals for a national buyback scheme — Borsak and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party rebuked the reforms as “political” and “knee-jerk,” choosing to protect the interests of hunters and firearm owners over measures aimed at preventing future tragedies.

In refusing to support strengthened gun law reform, Borsak once again put ideological alignment ahead of public safety — a move critics say prioritises political signalling and entrenched party ideology over protecting lives.

What do YOU think?

Join the conversation on our Facebook page at: https://www.facebook.com/@NoAussieHorseSlaughter