New concerns have emerged over conflicts in the final week of public consultation on a new carbon‑credit method that would allow Australian state governments to earn ACCUs by halting or reducing timber harvesting in native forests.
It comes as the consultation period – running over the New Year break – has been slammed as “suboptimal” in Senate hearings, with mounting fears that the timing and governance are limiting scrutiny. Now, stakeholders are questioning whether parties involved in running the consultation are too closely tied to the proposed carbon method.
Today, Wood Central spoke to Maree McCaskill, CEO of Timber NSW, who is directly impacted by the NSW government’s decision to establish and generate ACCUs from the Great Koala National Park, who was “surprised that the consultation was largely run by the proponents of the method – the NSW Government and Professor Macintosh.” This raised “obvious conflicts of interest”, given the backgrounds of several key figures involved in designing, reviewing, and now overseeing the method.
McCaskill said Professor Andrew Macintosh – a long‑time critic of native forestry and a consultant to the Great Koala National Park assessment process – has played a central role in developing the new Improved Native Forest Management (INFM) method in conjunction with the Australian National University.
Just how ‘independent’ is the review into the McIntosh carbon method?
She also raised concerns about the independence of the method’s review, which was conducted by Griffith University. Professor Brendan Mackey, she said, was a consultant to the GKNP assessment and is publicly associated with anti‑native‑forestry positions, and was among the academics linked to that review.
In addition, McCaskill said the governance of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee (ERAC) also warranted scrutiny. That includes ERAC Chair Professor Karen Hussey, who previously served on the WWF Eminent Scientists Committee alongside Professor Jamie Pittock of the ANU Fenner School—an institution McCaskill said is well known for its strong anti‑native‑forestry stance. Wood Central understands that Pittock continues to serve on that WWF committee.
“On that webinar was Dr Stuart Blanch, a long‑serving senior manager in conservation for WWF,” McCaskill said. “Professor Hussey said she did not know who Stuart Blanch was, but he asked some good questions.”
And then there are questions as to whether the ERAC leadership could be viewed as fully independent: “How can Professor Hussey, who hails from the ANU Fenner School of the Environment—home to well‑publicised anti‑native‑forestry academics—claim that she is totally independent? This feels like a political deal, and the consultation is simply tick‑boxing a process.”
Despite these concerns, Wood Central understands the Albanese Government considers a decision on the method a priority. The INFM method—developed by the NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and formally prioritised in October 2024—underpins the funding model for the establishment of the Great Koala National Park as stated by Premier Minns, Treasurer Mookhey and the Deputy Secretary of National Parks and Wildlife Service.
In answer to a statement that both Tasmania and Queensland governments had said they would not be using the method, how was it justified for only NSW. Professor Hussey said if approved, the method would be available for 10 years allowing for any change in the view of those state governments.
Appearing before the Environment and Communications Legislation Senate Committee late last year, Professor Hussey said the creation of new parks in NSW, Tasmania and Queensland—including the Great Koala National Park—was contingent on the method’s approval, as the ACCUs generated would replace revenue currently derived from timber harvesting.
