Northern Beaches Council voted to ban the sale of fur products on council-owned land and at council-managed events, following a closely contested vote at Tuesday night’s council meeting 19 May.
The motion, moved by Councillor Ethan Hrnjak and Councillor Robert Giltinan, passed 8-7 after Mayor Sue Heins used her casting vote in favour. The mayor had voted against the motion but given one councillor was absent, Greens Councillor Bonnie Harvey, the mayor felt an obligation to “channel” which way the young politician would have voted had she been able to attend.
The decision makes Northern Beaches the seventh council in NSW to adopt a fur-free policy, joining the City of Sydney, Inner West, Liverpool, City of Newcastle, Canterbury-Bankstown, and Blue Mountains.
While many councillors shared concerns over the optics of banning fur sales – noting previous public criticism on council motions that went beyond the traditional scope of council – Greens Councillor Ethan Hrnjak said his motion would be simple to implement and aligned with existing council values.
“Liverpool, Inner West, City of Sydney, Newcastle, Blue Mountains and Orange Valley have already done this. They reported no enforcement burden, no cost blowouts, no community backlash.
“They simply added fur checks for the compliance work they already do at markets. We can do the same,” Cr Hrnjak said.
“Our compliance officers are already on site checking for single use plastics, food safety, and store local conditions. Adding fur to that checklist is not a new program, but rather a tick box, and the motion explicitly adopts an education first approach.”
Cr Hrnjak outlined straightforward methods for identifying real fur versus faux alternatives. “Staff will simply break the fur and look at the base. Fur generally has a mesh or threaded base. Real fur, on the other hand, will be attached to skin,” he explained.
Councillor Robert Giltinan added brief remarks emphasising the cruelty inherent in fur production, echoing Hrnjak’s framing.
“It simply says on council land at council-managed events, we won’t facilitate cruelty.”
“Animals are caged, anally electrocuted, gassed, or skinned alive solely for fashion. This motion doesn’t ban fur across the entire LGA or regulate private retail. It simply says on council land at council-managed events, we won’t facilitate cruelty. This is a small operational change with significant ethical impact.”
Councillor Rowie Dillon spoke against the motion, among others, questioning whether the issue warrants council attention, while Cr Nicholas Beaugeard was concerned it would be hard to police and simply be a political ‘box ticking’ exercise.
“It’s kind of like every council meeting, or every second council meeting, there is like a curve ball that comes into the chamber,” Cr Dillon said.
“We’ve just gone through budget consultation, and we’ve got the operational budget on exhibition. Is this a resourceful and respectful use of our staff’s time and ratepayers’ money?
“We are a chamber of elected councillors who are here to represent our community and represent them for the priorities that they require, so we can get shit done. This is not something that councillors should be involved in,” Dillon said.
The Northern Beaches Animal Justice Party’s Susan Sorensen, who sat in the gallery with one other person for four and a half hours waiting to hear the vote, said she was relieved by the decision, which reflected growing international opposition to fur production, with more than 30 countries moving to ban or phase out fur farming and more than 1,600 fashion brands committing to fur-free practices.
“There is no such thing as ethical fur,” she said.
Ms Sorensen provided Manly Observer with multiple images of fur products that have been for sale in markets across the Northern Beaches, to prove that banning fur was still necessary as it was still in active circulation.
