So, too, has the forestry industry.

No sector can expect to do things the way they have always been done—at least not the forestry sector.

That’s why I accepted Agriculture Minister Murray Watt’s invitation to join union leader Michael O’Connor as co-chairs of his Strategic Forestry and Renewables Partnership.

The partnership – among other things – will provide advice on the best way to secure the forest resources we need while also enhancing conservation and carbon values in the native estate.

Sky News host Caleb Bond says the Clarence Valley logging industry is “raging against” a northern New South…

Anthony Albanese and his ministers understand that closing down our sustainable native forestry sector is a recipe for higher consumer prices and more timber imports from countries that do not enforce Australia’s high environmental standards and practices.

Responding to the Federal Court’s decision, NSW Premier Chris Minns also acknowledged both our domestic resource needs and growing import dependence.

Schneiders celebrates the unfortunate decisions in Victoria and Western Australia to shut down native forestry.

Victoria is now importing its wood from Tasmania and Brazil, and in WA, the government departments are rushing to secure all the native products they can for their construction needs before the policy is implemented.

They need it for important infrastructure, including bridges and power poles.

Schneiders talks about the importance of our plantation estate. The industry values it, too. However, due to high land prices, the plantation estate is not keeping pace with demand.

But even if successful, hardwoods take between 40 to 80 years to grow. And in a welcome move, at COP28, the Australian government signed up to the Greening Construction Coalition to increase timber in the built environment due to its ability to decarbonise the hard-to-abate construction sector.

The fact is Australia – and the world – will need more timber products, not less. Australia now imports more than $6 billion worth of forest products. The window frames, floorboards, back decks and staircases in our homes are typically made from hardwoods, most of which comes from our native estate.

The industry has access to just 4 per cent of the native estate and takes around four in every ten thousand trees using sustainable practices. Every tree harvested is replaced with a younger tree, which in turn absorbs more carbon than the older tree it replaces. The carbon stored in the harvested tree is transferred permanently to the built environment.

Schneiders mischievously claims our native product goes to low-value products like “firewood, woodchips, landscaping and transportation pallets”.

That’s the pallets that deliver our food and drinks to the supermarkets and bottle shops.

But all of the products that Schneiders dismisses have value. Native hardwoods are manufactured into high-value products.

It makes no sense to do otherwise. But trees don’t grow in perfect shape, and there will always be offcuts. It’s a positive thing; we turn them into things that have value.

Schneiders was keen to repeat his assertion that the legal challenge was initiated by “community conservationists”.

But we all know that while their name is on the application, it’s the activist machine that runs these cases.

A machine typically funded by high-wealth individuals in search of relevance and represented in court by a partly government-funded Environmental Defenders Office. It’s like Legal Aid for Greenies.

In an attempt to put a positive spin on their loss, the activists made much of Her Honour’s conclusion that the future of native forestry was a matter for politicians, not the legal process. Yet our elected leaders in Canberra and Sydney have made their support for the sector clear.

Thirty years ago, the politicians created the Regional Forest Agreements to put an end to the “forestry wars” by striking the right balance between conservation and our resource needs.

The National Forestry Statement is due for a fine tune, no doubt, but that’s not what the activists want. They want to kill yet another of our important sovereign capabilities.

• The article originally appeared as “commentary” in The Australian newspaper. Joel Fitzgibbon is the Chair of the Australian Forest Products Association and is the former Federal Agriculture Minister – who had responsibility for forestry.

It was my passion for these industries which brought me to AFPA.

But by definition and by necessity, that interest also caused me to spend much of my time in politics fighting extreme environmental activists.

When I say extreme, I mean those who are driven more by ideology than outcomes.

Those who push fiction over facts. Those who misrepresent science and physics to achieve their jobs and value-destroying objectives.

In recent years their activities have expanded and grown, bank-rolled by high wealth individuals in search of something money can’t buy.  Relevance.

They are funding social media and advertising campaigns, financing job destroying legal challenges, and wheeling Green Trojan Horses into our corporate boardrooms.

Now they are sending people to Parliament to do their bidding. 

People like Dr Sophie Scamps who on Thursday will – in cahoots with the World Wildlife Foundation – and fresh from accusing the Israelis of war crimes – ask Members and Senators in the Australian Parliament to sign a Native Forests pledge full of misrepresentation.

For example, the document she wants our elected representatives to sign suggests half of Australia’s forests have been lost due to what she describes as “the industrial logging of our native forests”.

That’s right, the industry which we know, has access to less than 4 percent of our native forest estate.

In what I believe to be an insult to the blue-collar workers I’ve been defending for 34 years – and the regional communities they live in – the Pledge states:

 “with generous support for our timber workers and a well-managed transition to plantations, we could grow regional economies with a sustainable timber industry and support tourism businesses”. 

Friends, we know, our selective and sophisticated native timber industry is sustainable and those who work in it already have jobs. And we know that while we are working hard with government to expand our plantation estate, it cannot in the foreseeable future, replace the product that comes from our native estate.

The statement is not supportive of timber workers, it’s an insult.

The Pledge also describes the industry as “loss making”.  It’s funny isn’t it, how people keep operating at a loss?  This of course is nonsense.

Scamps’ Pledge also claims that ending native harvesting will be good for climate change and biodiversity yet we know the opposite to be true.

Thankfully, most political leaders know this, that’s why they support our industry.

Of course, the now former Premier of Victoria is not one of them. He shut down his native industry and then turned to Tasmania to secure the hardwood product his communities need and like so much. 

AFPA will of course be urging MPs and Senators to reject the misleading Pledge.

And we will continue to energetically advocate on behalf of the industry’s whole value chain.

We’ll do so in the interest of jobs, the economy, the natural environment, sovereign capability and of course, the interests of our member companies. Thankfully, none of these things are mutually exclusive.

A focus of the ANZIF Conference has been natural capital, that I welcome.

Natural capital is one of the three big Cs – along with financial capital and human capital.

Today I want to speak with you about a fourth big C – political capital.

Every sector holds a certain level of political capital based on the value of its contribution to the economy and the jobs it creates.

But that capital is not fixed.  It rises and falls as it is spent or more is accumulated.

In other words, political capital is part gifted and part earned.

How well political capital is spent and earned can be the difference between success and failure for any given industry, including our own.

Accumulating capital by offering governments solutions to a problem is critical in the art of advocacy.

There is often a strong correlation between the level of an industry’s political capital and the level of community support. 

For example, it appears a large number of Australians like renewable electricity generation technologies.  Therefore, renewables enjoy strong support amongst the political class. In other words, there are votes in it.

For the forestry and forest products sector, the situation is far more complex.

Despite patchy and relatively low levels of community support, forestry enjoys a healthy level of support amongst our political leaders.

Sure, state governments in Victoria and Western Australia have closed down their native forest industries, but in Canberra, support is strong. It’s also strong in other states.

Indeed, in the last twelve months both the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader have attended AFPA’s dinners to express their support for all of our industry. Not just parts of it, the whole value chain.

So too has Forestry Minister Murray Watt and his Opposition counterpart.

And here are a few quotes from recent parliamentary debate:

This one from Penny Wong

“…We continue to support native forestry, we recognise that a sustainable native forestry sector that operates under high standards for environmental standards and sustainable harvesting, has benefits in terms of jobs and the economy…

“…One of the things I have never understood, given where I come from, is why it has been the position of the Greens political party that it’s alright to have logging offshore, in countries with lower levels of regulation, than it is to have in Australia, and I can say that from first-hand experience.” 

And from our Minister, Murray Watt:

“…The reality is that, in order for Australia to meet its timber and wood product needs, we need a mixture of plantation and native forestry…
 
“…We recognise there is a need and a place for native forestry……”

And from our Prime Minister:

“…I certainly do support timber workers…through the regional forestry agreements process, we work with states and territories to support Australia’s forestry industry to operate under high standards for environmental management and sustainable harvesting. We need timber products and we want sustainable forestry jobs.”

The question becomes, why is there such a mismatch between our social licence and our political support?

The answer is – at the risk of stating the obvious – knowledge or lack of it.

Too few Australians think about where their wood-based products come from.  Too few understand that a worked forest is a healthy forest and one less prone to bushfire and animal deaths.

Last Saturday I walked into a polling station to vote in the referendum.  I followed a cardboard sign, picked up a lead pencil made of wood, walked into a cardboard booth, and wrote “yes” on a paper ballot, before placing it in a cardboard ballot box.

All of these were renewable, recyclable and biodegradable products, but how many Australians thought about that?  I wonder what they think will displace plastics?

As demand for forest-based products continue to outstrip supply we need to redouble our advocacy efforts.  And we need to do it with one loud uniform voice.

We need to do more to bring Australians to realise that every facet of our sector is sustainable, every product is renewable, and there can be no substantial bioeconomy without us.

There can be no sovereign capability without us either.  And, without our sector, our decarbonisation goals cannot be realised.

In one of his more celebrated Yogi-isms, former American baseball legend Yogi Berra said:

“it’s tough making predictions, particularly about the future”.

Prophecy is risky, there can be no doubt.

But I believe Abraham Lincoln got it right when he once said:

“the best way to predict the future is to create it”.

Our renewable and sustainable forest and forest products sector enjoy strong support amongst our politicians. But we need to build more political support through the broader community, not despite it.

When we build more community support, even more political support will follow. 

The reality is, we should not assume support from a sitting MP whose main political threat comes from the Greens when his or her electorate is constantly bombarded with extreme activist propaganda.

We need to create more room for him or her to form a policy position based on the facts.

That’s a job for all of us, collectively and individually. And that means doing more to educate the electorate.

To create the future, we need at least three things.

1. A persuasive narrative;
2. Political, policy and operational credibility; and,
3. Sufficient stocks of political capital and the ability to spend it wisely.

I’ve already spoken about our narrative.  It is a compelling one.

At this time – when the world is increasingly focused on both climate change and sovereign capability – our moment has arrived.

We can’t afford to let it pass us by.

On credibility I need to say this:

Every industry regularly does good things, particularly ours. But news of the good things can be quickly overwhelmed by the very rare bad things. We cannot afford mistakes or short-cuts, they are a gift to the extreme activists.

And when we talk about our sector, its value and what it can achieve we cannot afford to embellish or exaggerate. Nor do we need to. The facts – including the environmental facts – speak for themselves.

As I’ve pointed out, we have plenty of political capital in the bank. But we need to spend it wisely.

That means creating space for our political leaders as I’ve suggested.

The ball is in our court and we need to nail the next shot.

Together, I know we can, and we will.

We don’t have the tens of millions of dollars needed for a significant ad buy, although the FWPA’s Ultimate Renewable ads are great.

But we do have plenty of big and respected corporate entities in our sector.

And we do have an effective research body in FWPA.

And we do have AFPA, Forestry Australia, AFCA and other advocacy and professional organisations on our side.

We have the weight, we just need to play harder and smarter.  And we will.  You can be sure.

So today I announce that AFPA will develop our own forestry pledge, and invite both our politicians and broader community to sign it.

Our pledge will invite signatories to recognise:

• The value of our sector;
• The people it employs; and,
• The communities it supports.

It will also acknowledge our role in:

• Tackling climate change;
• Growing the circular bioeconomy:
• Building biodiversity;
• Reducing bushfire risk;
• Protecting flora and fauna;
• Building sovereignty capability; and,
• Taking pressure off housing construction supply chains.

There is a time in advocacy for a soft and diplomatic approach.

And there is a time to fight. A time to stand up to those determined to do us harm by any means, no matter how deceitful.

This I believe, is such a time.

It will result in even more hardwood imported into Victoria from Tasmania and NSW. It will also add to current imports – already worth $5.5 billion – much of which comes from the tropical forests of developing nations with lesser environmental standards than Australia.

That’s no way to protect and conserve Australia’s native forest estate or to halt global deforestation practices. Sustainable forestry management practices play no role in deforestation in Australia and decision-makers need to understand the ramifications of their decisions.

Australia has signed a global pledge to halt deforestation practices by 2030. Decisions by State Governments to cease sustainable forestry management in Australia are contrary to the objects of the pledge. They will lead to more unsustainable and illegal logging in other countries.

Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) were created to ensure Australians can continue to access the hardwoods they need while protecting our native forest estate. Elements of RFAs include impacts on the environment, social and economic factors.

For 31 years, that’s what they have considered, and the forest sector is continually improving management practices to ensure the longer-term health of Australia’s native forests.

A quality, accessible and fire-resistant forest is a worked and managed one. That’s the other benefit our RFAs deliver; as climate impacts have increased on native forests management practices, research and development have focused on how to build resilient, sustainably managed forests.

Access to native hardwood resources provides the private sector and Government Business Enterprises involved in the sustainable management of native forestry with the incentive to manage our forest.

There is a growing focus on better understanding the practices of how First Nations people managed the land for tens of thousands of years. That’s good for our economy, good for jobs, and good for the fauna that call our native forests home.

RFAs are an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States and AFPA acknowledges that the Federal Government is committed to upholding the RFAs. However, if the RFAs are falling short because of activist lawfare, the solution is to strengthen them rather than abandon them.

This is now a problem for the Federal Government as we approach a hardwood supply crisis.

It’s time to elevate our growing import dependence and shrinking sovereign capability to the National Cabinet.

That’s the only way to establish a national plan promptly. Stopping native forestry in one state to import the product from another is not a plan.

With a decision of the Federal Court on a challenge to the RFAs in NSW pending, AFPA is calling upon the Federal Government to urgently engage with the States to secure the domestically produced hardwood supplies our economy needs.

Australia is already a net importer of forestry product. Just as Australian investors are coming to realise the greater role forestry can play in addressing climate exchange and how much more we can do with carbon-storing-wood in the built environment, some state governments seem intent on killing the sector.

Whilst some will argue that Australia should rely on its plantation estate. In real terms – despite the Albanese Government’s welcome recent assistance measures – the plantation estate is in decline and hardwood trees take at least 45 years to grow.

Australia’s forest sector is a sophisticated one and research and development is focused on doing more with each tree and innovation which allows structural timber to be manufactured using softwoods. The Albanese Government is supporting these efforts.  But where will timber come from?

AFPA again acknowledges the Federal Government’s support to grow the plantation estate, but the harsh reality is, it cannot replace the timber and fibre-products our sustainable managed native forests provide to Australia for our everyday products Australian’s love and decision makers take for granted.

Australia needs its sustainably managed native forest estate, and something has to be done for the sake of sovereign capability, our natural environment, and regional jobs.

I am very conscious I have very big shoes to fill following Ross Hampton, who has been a giant of our sector. But I love a challenge.

Over the past decade, with the support of Australia’s forest industries and the team he assembled, Ross built an effective advocacy organisation that has helped raise the profile of a sector critical to the Australian economy, but one which is too often underappreciated. I look forward to building on the momentum Ross and the team have built.

My interest in the forestry sector value chain began nearly 20 years ago when I spent some time serving as Shadow Minister. Since then, I have served as Forestry Minister, Shadow Minister and convenor of the Parliament’s Forestry Friendship Group.

As a regional resident, I have always had an interest in regional policy and regional jobs. Forestry, of course, is a big regional employer and a key driver of regional economic activity. Thus, my ongoing love for the sector. Post-politics, I was always going to gravitate to the sector.

At the 2022 federal election, AFPA secured a $300 million package of funding and other policy commitments from the Albanese government to better forest industries. The package rollout – which now includes the development of the $100 million National Institute for Forest Products Innovation (NIFPI), removal of the Emissions Reduction Fund ‘water rule’ in the remaining Forest Industry Hubs, $113 million for timber innovation grants, a commitment to secure one billion new trees by 2030 and certainty for native forestry with support for the RFA process, among other commitments – is under way.

My big priority for 2023 is ensuring the timely and full delivery of the government’s commitments. Working closely with relevant ministers and federal government departments comes easily to me and that engagement will be the key to achieving our aims.

Climate change is another key priority. The government can’t meet its carbon reduction targets without us. That is the simple proposition AFPA will be pressing with the Prime Minister and his ministers. We are here to help.

Another key government focus is sovereign capability. AFPA will work hard to highlight the importance of our sector and the need to secure our resource supply. Our whole value chain is critical to Australia’s economic independence.

I look forward to working with the industry, governments and other stakeholders to positively progress Australia’s forest industries supply chain and the people who make it great.