They and their coterie of environmental campaigners can make claims without justification to achieve their own goal of closing native forestry – the industry has over 2000 regulatory requirements to meet – more than the road rules – and more people die on the road.

They do not represent most of the population – they are just the loud, squeaky wheel.

Gliders, koalas, parrots and all native fauna and flora are just as important to those who work in the forests as ENGOs and politicians.

The difference is we are there in the regrowth forests – less than 12% – and they only arrive when there is a media opportunity.

They fail to acknowledge that 88% of the forests in NSW are already protected.

So, if they think species are on the brink of extinction- what is not working in the 88% of protected parks and conservation reserves in NSW?

The new CIFOA requirements, which were published this afternoon, include:

• A 50-metre exclusion zone around known recorded locations of greater glider dens.
• Protection of extra greater glider trees in addition to existing hollow bearing and giant tree requirements:
  • Six trees per hectare greater than 80cm in diameter in high greater glider density areas, in addition to the eight hollow-bearing trees currently required to be protected.
  • Four trees per hectare greater than 50cm in diameter in lower-density areas, in addition to the eight hollow-bearing trees currently required to be protected.
  • The retention of additional hollows and future hollow-bearing trees in areas where greater gliders are less likely to occur.
• Greater glider trees must prioritise hollows (especially ones with evidence of use) where they exist.
• Undertaking of a monitoring program to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of these new rules for greater gliders.
• A new map that shows where these different greater glider areas occur.

Wood Central is a neutral platform and will not take an editorial stance on the court action. However, it invites subject matter experts to provide contributors, who will be fact-checked before publication.

However, this is entirely incorrect!

An RFA is simply an agreement between the Commonwealth and the state to regulate forestry operations at the state level, thus giving the state regulatory bodies control over compliance.

There are plenty of other examples where the Commonwealth devolves power to the state. 

In NSW, after 2000, when the NE NSW RFA was signed, the industry was controlled by the various State pieces of legislation designed to protect biodiversity and provide an industry. 

Essentially, the coastal forests of NSW have an RFA; however, in the western division of NSW, where red gum, cypress and western hardwood operations occur, there is no RFA.

Similarly, there is no RFA operating in Queensland. It does not mean that if there is no RFA, there is no protection for forests, fauna, and flora.

In NSW, the industry, whether in an RFA region or not, is controlled by the Protection of the Environment Act, the Forestry Act, the Local Land Service Act (LLS), the Biodiversity Act, and all other NSW State legislation. 

Within those, there are what are called Integrated Forest Operations Approvals (IFOA) for each region.

They require stringent planning and assessment processes for state forests and assessments for private land through LLS. Detailed fauna and flora surveys are conducted on state forests and submitted to the EPA with a harvesting plan.

So, this court case was simply a judicial review of the renewal process. 

There was no need to go through the same process that occurred between 1992 and 2000 because the reporting to both state and federal bodies is extensive as part of the IFOA process. There is a review of the RFA every five years. Everything is reported and transparent.

Put simply, this court case was a judicial review of the process used to renew the NE RFA. Not hearing evidence about operations, threatened species, floods or fires. There was a contention that climate change had not been considered, but it is in the renewal document.

Had the case brought by NEFA/EDO been upheld, it would simply invalidate the NE NSW RFA only and require any exported wood to have special export licences (which they have, anyway).

There is not enough hardwood domestically to supply the domestic market, so other than softwood, almost nothing goes out of NSW for export – used in flooring, decking, cladding, windows, structural parts of buildings, joinery, kitchens, power poles, pallets, railway sleepers, fencing, piers, bridges and many more applications.

An adverse decision does not mean that forest operations are illegal or that there is no regulation and compliance. The state legislation and regulations keep applying.

Had the finding been adverse and the NE RFA deemed invalid, there would have been no requirement for the Federal or State to do anything, and the industry could have kept operating the same way under strict state controls.

Suppose a government wishes to close down hardwood forestry. In that case, it is a political decision, not a legal decision and will involve restructuring businesses, paying out employees, etc. 

It costs tens of millions of dollars – more money than allowing the industry to keep operating, keep people in rural, regional areas employed and products in the supply chain. 

WA and Victoria now realise the allocated payouts are only the initial part of the cost, with both governments now paying high prices for imported timber for their government projects alone.

In the case of Victoria and WA, closure came in the second term after the pre-election.

The ALP case is always the leakage of green preferences in key seats and seats likely to be held or taken by the Greens in inner-city Sydney.

Disaffected conservative voters have thrown support behind the Teals – the emerging independent party at the federal election in 2022 – based on their view that the conservative parties have stopped listening to their constituents and do not reflect the community values of today.

Interestingly, the Teals failed to consolidate on the federal gains made in the Victorian state election. On analysis, the Teal primary vote is low but benefits from high preference flows. In NSW there are already Teal candidates targeting key Liberal held seats but the campaign at ground level is again different to the federal election.

The challenge for the conservative government is to keep the very public factional fighting to a minimum – whether it is costume party uniforms or gender quotas.

The public perception of a tired coalition government fighting for a fourth term compared with a fresh-faced opposition which has rarely put a foot wrong due to internal party discipline will be a deciding factor. That said, some of the long-term ALP members of parliament have either lost pre-selection or have been removed from the ticket … so the face of the ALP has changed. 

Forestry is a small target for either party compared with health and education. Thus, it can be easily traded between left and right factions and any Liberal and National Party deals. The debate is about emotion not science or facts and the priority will be the city seats.

The ALP has had a focus on jobs and on-shore manufacturing and now it would appear that can be sacrificed if a key seat can be held or gained.

The other dimension to this NSW election is the seats held by the Shooters Fishers and Farmers in the western division are now independent due to a split before Christmas 2022 in the party over the tenure of the current leader Robert Borzak. Many in rural NSW who perhaps might have changed allegiance at this election, driven by the failure of the Nationals to support people and industries hit by natural disasters, will have second thoughts as the talent pool within the SFF implodes.

The environmental NGOs are masters of the emotional campaign and have consolidated their funds by trading off saving species in “peril” such as koalas, gliders and key parrot species. Their skill is to simply follow a message that almost everything in the forest is destined for extinction and unless drastic action is taken all is lost.

The average member of the community – even in rural NSW – has no idea or understanding the complexities of harvesting in native forests and will never read about it to find out. They will accept the messaging as truth because a ‘scientifically qualified person’ says so.

The pubic still don’t understand the issues around climate change – both the debate and the science – so do not connect construction in timber with the issues of carbon, pollution, global warming and so on.

The argument about transitioning away from native forests to plantations is a great example of the disconnected. Very few in the general public or political class has asked the question – where is the replacement land going to come from to provide the 1 million ha operated by state forest agencies now. That land has to be largely in areas now occupied by state forests so those species can grow and thrive and it will take 40-60 years to transition. You can’t place it all in the western division among the cypress and red gums.

With most of the NSW electors unable to grasp forest practices, tag lines of transition to plantations and save our threatened species is very palatable.

The only consolation is that there a far more pressing issues than forestry to grasp by an ALP government if elected in the first term.

The playbook so far is the second term. If that is the case then the industry has fewer than four years to develop and run a clear message.

Polling is not always right and industry pundits who predicted the end of the Andrews’ government in Victoria last November were dramatically proven wrong.

The polls were tight in NSW at the end of 2022, but most of the political commentators predict an ALP win and that will be a huge challenge for the native forest industry in the first term of government.