Sammlung von Newsfeeds

When the Victorian Government announced the early closure of native timber harvesting, regional communities were told two things. First, that the science demanded it. Second, that a well-funded transition would create new industries and new opportunities to replace what was being lost. Today, more than two years after the industry was shut down, both promises are looking increasingly hollow. The closure of native forestry was one of the most significant economic decisions ever imposed on regional Victoria. It affected not only timber workers, but entire communities built around a complex economic ecosystem of sawmills, contractors, truck drivers, mechanics, engineers, fuel suppliers, equipment operators and small businesses. These were not abstract jobs on a spreadsheet. They were careers, apprenticeships, family incomes and the economic backbone of towns like Orbost, Nowa Nowa, Swifts Creek, Noojee, Heyfield and beyond. To justify the decision, the Victorian Government committed more than $1.5 billion in transition funding. Taxpayers were told this money would support workers, create replacement industries and secure a prosperous future for affected communities. So, what did $1.5 billion buy? According to the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, no-one can properly answer that question. The Auditor-General’s 2026 report found significant weaknesses in how the transition was monitored and measured. The department could not demonstrate whether workers were better off, whether replacement jobs were secure, or whether many of the claimed employment outcomes had actually been achieved. Most alarming of all was the decline in employment quality. Before the closure, more than 81% of workers were employed full-time. After the transition, that figure fell to around 60%. Casual, contract and part-time work increased substantially. That is not a successful transition. That is a downgrade. That is less kids being able to play sport or play an instrument, less ability to pay for holidays, medications and schooling, less security and more anxiety in a period where cost of living has gone through the roof. Government representatives point to businesses that remain operational. But keeping a business alive is not the same as replacing an industry. The real question was never whether individual operators could survive. The real question was whether the transition would replace the wages, skills, manufacturing capacity and economic activity that native forestry generated. The evidence says emphatically it has not. Across affected communities, millions of dollars were spent on consultants, feasibility studies, economic development strategies, community planning exercises and tourism concepts. Communities received reports. They received workshops. They received visions for the future. What they did not receive was a replacement economic engine. Outside a handful of notable projects, particularly Australian Sustainable Hardwoods in Heyfield, there is little evidence that industries of comparable scale have emerged. Many former logging contractors now operate in earthmoving, grain haulage or other sectors. Some businesses have adapted successfully. That is a credit to the resilience of regional people. But adaptation should not be confused with replacement. Most transition funding helped businesses survive the loss of forestry. It did not rebuild the economic ecosystem that forestry supported. At the same time, the scientific case used to justify the closure is facing increasing scrutiny. A recent paper published in Australian Forestry by former CSIRO Chief Research Scientist John Raison, former CSIRO scientists Sadanandan Nambiar and Glen Kile, and University of Melbourne hydrologist Leon Bren challenges many of the assumptions underpinning calls for a total ban on native forestry. Collectively, these researchers represent more than 200 years of experience in forestry science, ecology and hydrology. Their conclusion is stark. They argue there is no scientific basis for a total ban on sustainable native timber harvesting. The paper disputes claims that sustainable forestry constitutes deforestation. It challenges assertions regarding carbon emissions, water security and biodiversity impacts. It also argues that active forest management has an important role in reducing bushfire risk. Importantly, the authors do not advocate for reckless exploitation of forests. They advocate for sustainable management. That distinction matters. The debate has often been framed as a choice between logging and conservation. It is not. The real choice is between active management and abandonment. For generations, the native timber industry operated under some of the most heavily regulated forest management frameworks in the world. That framework was not perfect. It should continue to evolve. Environmental standards should continue to improve. Harvesting practices should continue to be guided by the best available science. But improvement is not the same thing as abolition. In fact, the lesson of the last two years is that abolition was a deliberate political choice of those who never need to win a vote in the bush to form government. Victoria has lost not only an industry but also a workforce with specialist expertise in forest roads, firebreak construction, fuel management, access track maintenance and landscape stewardship. At a time when bushfire risk continues to grow, those capabilities are more valuable than ever. The promise was that regional communities would be stronger after forestry. Instead, many communities are still searching for the industries that were supposed to replace it. The promise was that the science was settled. Instead, respected scientists are now publicly questioning the rationale for a total ban. The promise was that $1.5 billion would build a new future. Instead, the Government cannot demonstrate that it has. It is time for an honest reassessment. Victoria must bring back the carefully regulated native timber industry, informed by modern science and important environmental safeguards. Just picture this, something which has been my dream for many years – and with a new dawn of the native timber sector when reintroduced. A reintroduced native timber industry should not only provide timber and regional jobs, but also help fund active management of the public land estate. A portion of revenue from sustainable timber harvesting could be directed towards practical, on-ground conservation works such as blackberry control, feral pig and fox management, carp harvesting, weed eradication, track maintenance and firebreak construction. The harvesting of a small proportion of Victoria’s public forests each year could generate income to employ local contractors, Landcare groups, Traditional […]

The post Opinion: Michael Harrington – Two years, $1.5 billion and broken promises appeared first on Timberbiz.