Feed aggregator

The Federal Coalition is renewing its calls for the Federal Labor Government to stand by its commitment to Tasmania’s native forestry sector and not let businesses and jobs be killed off by stealth. Source: Timberbiz This comes after Bendigo Bank has recently indicated that it would not lend to a Tasmanian business involved in sustainable native forestry practices for ‘ESG’ reasons, putting at risk its viability and the viability of all businesses to responsibly conserve forests within the state and, importantly, employ Tasmanians. The Prime Minister made a commitment to Tasmanians that forestry industry workers would “have a better future” under his government. Federal Shadow Environment, Fisheries and Forestry Minister, Senator Jonno Duniam, argues that this has not been the case. “Tasmania’s native forestry sector has never been in greater danger over the last 20 years than it has been under the current Federal Labor Government. Businesses are under threat while the Federal Forestry Minister, a Tasmanian no less, stands idly by and lets activists bully them towards administration,” Senator Duniam said. “I encourage the Federal Labor Government to honour its commitment to support our state’s workers. They need to do all that they can to ensure that businesses are able to obtain finance so that they can continue their world-leading, sustainable practices. Anything short of that is a failure in its mandate and responsibility to Tasmanians. “We manage our forests better than anywhere else in the world. Under Labor, and especially after their bans on native timber harvesting in Victoria and Western Australia, more and more timber is being imported from counties that don’t share our high environmental standards. This has the perverse effect of being worse for the environment,” he said. “The Federal Coalition will not take a backward step in supporting Tasmania’s forestry industry. That will again be evidenced by the policies we will take to the Federal election.” In a doorstop interview with Peter Dutton during the week he said that he applauded Eric Abetz for calling this bad behaviour out by the banks. “There are a lot of Australians who would say that big banking executives on multi-million dollar pay packets, frankly, have less values and standing than people do in the forestry industry. So why are they backed? Minister Dutton asked. “Let’s get serious, the banks are there to provide finance to creditworthy customers. If a business is legal and it has the ability to service the loan and it’s creditworthy, then the banks should not be discriminating on any other basis. “I think this whole woke agenda and the approach of chief executives trying to please industry super funds and proxy voters and the rest of it has to come to an end. If there is a customer of Bendigo Bank who is an employee within the forestry industry, are they going to stop banking that customer? Do they want to stop taking the fees that are paid by that customer working in the forestry or the salmon industry? “The banks have a moral and social responsibility to consumers, and they have a social licence which they need to honour. That social licence includes not discriminating against people who are involved in an absolutely essential and critical industry. “If Labor had their way, the salmon industry, forestry would close down tomorrow, and the Tasmanian economy would be bankrupt, and tens of thousands of people would be out of work. If the banks want to subscribe to that sort of theory, they should be called out for it – and we will call them out for it.”

The Australian Forest Products Association (AFPA) believes the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank needs to look at the facts, acknowledge the sustainable nature of Australian native forestry and end its ban on lending to businesses in the sector. Source: Timberbiz AFPA CEO Diana Hallam said Australia’s native forestry was world leading environmentally, responsible for essential everyday products and formed the lifeblood for thousands of people in rural and regional Australia. AFPA’s call joins with the Tasmanian Forest Products Association and Tasmanian Government Minister for Business, Industry and Resources Eric Abetz who have both this week highlighted the Bank’s decision to withdraw its lending to family forestry contracting business T P Bennett and Sons. AFPA has heard of further examples of the bank failing to support valued community businesses in the sector. “Bendigo and Adelaide Bank needs to stick to banking and stay away from greenwashing,” Ms Hallam said. “If the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges the science behind the sustainable management of native forests, then surely the bank can also. “The bank is treating native forestry as an extractive industry, not what it is, a renewable industry,” Ms Hallam said. She said Australia’s native forestry operations and the businesses that work in the supply chain were part of an essential and sustainable sector that harvests and replaces just six in every 10,000 trees in Australia’s native forests. Whether they be forest managers, contractors, harvesters, in transportation, or processing and manufacturing in mills – this sector was clean and green – and it needed long-term committed financiers to support the regional communities it underpins. “Communities Bendigo and Adelaide Bank purports to support,” Ms Hallam said. “The fact is if native forestry ceases to exist in Australia, we will be forced to import all of our hardwood timber and fibre for products like home furnishings, decking and furniture from places with lower environmental standards than Australia, and that means worse environmental outcomes for the planet. “We will have replaced an industry governed by world leading environmental standards and substituted it for one with worse environmental credentials. “Hopefully the 62% of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank’s corporate staff who completed climate change training in 2024 understand the perverse outcome their policy is promoting. “Possibly, that training could also have included the findings of the IPCC’s 4th Assessment that states ‘a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit’. “This ill-informed, virtue signalling must end. Leaving the lights burning throughout the night in any of the Bank’s offices, flying directors to meetings and driving fuel motor vehicles is far more a risk to the environment than the work Australia’s family forestry contractors are involved in,” Ms Hallam said. “The science is clear, managed native forests support the climate, communities and the economy. I challenge Bendigo and Adelaide Bank to reverse its decision on native forestry finance.”

The debate on the “right” materials to use when building homes in bushfire-prone areas often sparks fierce opinions and misguided claims. While some advocate for alternative materials, timber framing remains a viable, safe, reliable and effective option when designed and built in accordance with modern practices. It’s time to set the record straight and address some of the myths that have driven unnecessary fear about building with timber. One common misconception is that timber frames ignite easily and pose a higher risk of destruction in bushfires compared to steel. However, this oversimplified view ignores the science. Timber-framed houses built in bushfire-prone areas must be designed and constructed in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 3959 Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas. AS 3959 provides solutions for timber-framed houses from lower bushfire threats through to an extreme threat referred to as Flame Zone. AS 3959 makes no distinction between using a timber-framed or steel-framed building. However, from a basic material science perspective, timber, unlike steel, does not lose its structural integrity at lower temperatures. Steel, on the other hand, begins to lose strength and can melt or buckle well before reaching the extreme heat generated by a bushfire. This was seen during the 2009 Black Saturday fires in Victoria and countless other events—steel was no more invincible than timber, and many steel homes suffered the same fate in the face of ferocious flames. Another important factor is the role of the surrounding environment. Studies and expert analysis repeatedly confirm that the fuel load around a property, the dry vegetation, debris, and landscape management is a significant determinant of whether a home survives a bushfire. Building materials alone do not dictate safety. A home surrounded by cleared defensible space and properly managed vegetation is far more likely to survive than a steel-framed house that is overgrown with combustible plants. It’s time we stopped stigmatising timber and started focusing on smarter overall designs and landscape strategies. What’s more, guidelines for building in bushfire-prone areas, such as using ember guards, managed building sites, and strategic design methodologies are applicable to all construction types. Timber homes, when constructed to meet the AS 3959 Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) requirements, are every bit as capable as steel or other materials at resisting a bushfire. Claims to the contrary often originate from industries with vested interests, perpetuating myths for commercial gain. The growing intensity and frequency of fires globally can no longer be ignored, and climate change is a significant driving factor behind this alarming trend. By continuing to rely heavily on materials like steel and concrete, which are produced through energy-intensive processes that emit vast amounts of carbon dioxide, we are exacerbating the very crisis that fuels these catastrophic bushfires. Conversely, timber offers a sustainable alternative that actively combats climate change by storing carbon throughout its lifecycle. Utilising timber for construction not only reduces our carbon footprint but also aligns with long-term climate action goals. By choosing timber, we are not just building safer, smarter homes in bushfire-prone areas—we are investing in a solution that mitigates the climate crisis and the rising severity of bushfire events it continues to create. The reality is that no building material, steel included, can stand up to the full force of a catastrophic bushfire fuelled by high winds, extreme temperatures, and towering flames. The Santa Ana winds in California or the blazing infernos wrought by Australia’s Black Summer are clear demonstrations that environmental factors outweigh material choice in the scale of destruction. It is building design, adherence to bushfire construction standards, and proactive land management that provide real solutions, not uninformed material bias. Timber-framed homes have a place in bushfire-prone areas, and their use should not automatically raise alarm bells. What matters is how we design and build them, as well as how we manage surrounding vegetation and community preparedness. Blanket statements dismissing timber are both scientifically inaccurate and counterproductive. The focus must be on promoting practical, evidence-based strategies instead of politicised fearmongering about building materials. The way forward for communities in bushfire-prone areas should be based on thoughtful planning, sustainable practices, and respect for fire-smart guidelines. Timber is not the enemy; mismanagement, reckless land practices, and misinformation are. It’s time to embrace timber as part of the solution to combat climate change not unfairly condemn it as part of the problem. Kersten Gentle is Chief Executive Officer of the Frame & Truss Manufacturers Association of Australia.