Politicians claim to place equal value on each of their constituents, regardless of where they come from or who they are. In reality, they pick and choose who to discriminate against, guided by political optics and personal agendas. Their most common targets are hunters, anglers, and law-abiding firearm owners.

In this article, I outline the prevalence of culture-based discrimination in Australia and question why our recreational pursuits are constantly threatened with extinction—despite having deep roots in every corner of our multicultural society.

I’ll begin by examining the inadequacy and double standards surrounding our rights in Australia.

The Right to Hunt and Fish

Currently, Indigenous Australians have the right to hunt, fish, and gather for personal or communal needs under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). This legislation overrides laws that apply to all other Australians, framing non-Indigenous participation in hunting and fishing as a revocable privilege, rather than a cultural right.

This distinction is often defended by claiming that native title rights are “unique” and therefore not comparable to recreational hunting.

That argument misses the point.

Native title hunting rights are recognised because they arise from culture, not because hunting itself is somehow exceptional. The High Court has made it clear that cultural rights are legally real and capable of adaptation. In Yanner v Eaton [1999] HCA 53, the Court stated:

“Native title rights and interests are not frozen as at the date of sovereignty.”

If culture is the basis for recognition, then selectively recognising one culture’s hunting practices while denying others—despite equally deep historical roots, creates a cultural distinction, not a functional one.

Some argue that hunting is merely a privilege that governments are free to grant or revoke. That position is inconsistent with how Australian law treats culture. Where hunting arises from recognised cultural practice, it is a right, not a discretionary indulgence. The difference lies not in the activity itself, but in who Parliament has chosen to recognise.

Intent does not erase outcome. The result is a clear legal divide among Australians.

Culture does not lose its value based on the geographical location of one’s ancestors—whether they arrived one generation ago or one hundred. Our traditions deserve equal recognition and protection.

The Right to Bear Arms

Australian citizens do not have a right to bear arms under Australian law, unlike citizens of the United States under the Second Amendment. This is often cited as the end of the discussion.

Legally, it is not.

The absence of a constitutional right does not prevent Parliament from recognising statutory or common-law rights. Many Australian freedoms exist without explicit constitutional protection. As the High Court has repeatedly affirmed, the common law must adapt to contemporary values.

At the same time, Australian courts have emphasised a foundational principle:

“The law should be administered equally to all persons.”
— Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292

That principle collapses when comparing recreational firearm licence holders with law enforcement officers. Civilians are subject to extensive background checks, storage inspections, and ongoing compliance requirements. Police are not held to equivalent standards, despite having broader access to firearms.

Public safety is frequently raised as justification for this imbalance. Yet safety restrictions must be proportionate and consistently applied. Selective enforcement undermines both public trust and legal legitimacy.

The issue is not whether firearms should be regulated—they already are—but why the most compliant cohort in Australia is treated as inherently suspect, while others are exempt from comparable scrutiny.

Who Is the “Average Australian”?

Before proposing reasonable and universally applied law reform, it is necessary to understand who Australians actually are—by ancestry, origin, and cultural inheritance.

ABS data shows that the majority of Australians trace their ancestry to cultures where hunting and fishing were not fringe activities, but foundational practices tied to survival, trade, land management, and defence.

To argue that hunting lacks cultural legitimacy in modern Australia is to ignore the lived history of the Australian population itself.

A Brief Cultural History of Hunting and Fishing

Across the world, hunting and fishing shaped societies long before they became regulated activities.

In Europe, they evolved into structured land stewardship. In Asia, they informed military training and philosophy. In the Pacific, they remained inseparable from food security and customary law.

In Aboriginal Australia, hunting is inseparable from Country, law, and spirituality—practised continuously for over 65,000 years. The High Court recognised this connection in Mabo v Queensland (No 2), stating:

“The common law must recognise the rights and interests of Indigenous inhabitants in land.”

Modern Australia is a blend of all of these traditions.

To preserve one while dismantling others is not conservation—it is selective cultural preservation.

Modern Australian Hunting Culture

Modern Australian hunting draws from Indigenous knowledge, European tradition, and contemporary conservation science. It exists not for elitism or exclusion, but for practical outcomes: pest control, ethical meat harvesting, habitat restoration, and livestock protection.

Critics often claim that expanding recognition of hunting would undermine conservation. The opposite is true.

Governments already rely on hunters for feral animal control and ecosystem management. Courts have recognised that customary use and conservation are not mutually exclusive. Ethical, regulated hunting is a conservation tool—not a threat.

Participation in modern Australian hunting does not discriminate based on background, belief, or income. Hunters come from all walks of life—urban and rural alike.

For many city-based Australians, hunting provides escapism: a reconnection with food, landscape, and skills increasingly stripped away by modern life.

Hunters and anglers also contribute directly to conservation through organisations such as OzFish Unlimited and Field & Game Australia, restoring fish habitat and wetlands nationwide.

Yet despite these contributions, hunting culture continues to erode—often through laws that ignore history, practicality, and lived experience.

Suggested Law Reform

Calls for reform are often dismissed as radical. Legally, they are not.

As the High Court observed in Mabo:

“The common law does not necessarily conform with changing values, but it must adapt to them.”

Reasonable reform could include:

• A legislated right to hunt and fish
• A right to own firearms subject to strict, consistent background checks
• A limited right to self-defence, at minimum within one’s home, paired with training and insurance requirements

None of these proposals undermine safety. They simply demand equal treatment under the law.

Final Thoughts

Cultural erosion is often portrayed as inevitable. Legally, it is not.

Australian law has already demonstrated that culture can be recognised, protected, and adapted. The question is not whether preservation is possible—it is whether it is applied selectively.

Rights do not exist to protect what is popular or convenient. As the High Court has made clear:

“The freedom protected is not limited to speech which is polite or agreeable.”
— Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1

Australia claims to be “one and free.” If that claim is to mean anything, then laws must apply equally—and our shared cultural pursuits, including hunting, shooting, and angling, must be preserved for future generations.