Australian forestry has for too long been a plaything for politicians, activists and even some industry associations, causing economic damage to innocent people in rural and regional areas.
Forestry, whether plantations or multiple-use natural forests available for wood production, is a long-term business; it requires decades and even centuries of planning and active management to realise its full benefits. So, it deserves stable tenure from all levels of government to create the incentive to invest in the world’s most renewable product that will help the fight against climate change.
Australia is the sixth most forested country in the world, and we have plenty of land, wealth and skill to develop more forests, but we are not self-sufficient in wood products. Our import bill is growing, and our trade deficit is worsening, which is a ridiculous situation for a country like ours.
There is no incentive for private landowners to invest in forestry because log markets are not publicly reported, and often, processors are fully supplied by government-owned forest agencies. This creates an unfair advantage in market knowledge and the potential for marginal pricing.
The value of wood, especially Australia’s unique hardwoods, has never been seriously tested in the marketplace to allow private landowners to assess for themselves whether they will invest in wood production and active forest management.
Australia will never be self-sufficient by relying on supply from public forests or government-designed planting programs like the disastrous managed investment schemes.
Resource security, defined as long-term (15 years plus) contracts to processors from publicly owned forests, arose in the lead-up to the Regional Forest Agreements in the late 1990s, but they have not increased the wood supply. Our plantation estate is shrinking, and the harvest from natural forests has fallen by over 75% since they were first signed.
In my opinion, some ‘resource security’ contracts raise legal questions under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and governments may be in breach of competitive neutrality by excluding the private sector from log supply opportunities. This is not a healthy situation and must change.
We need a system that is fair to all processors and all growers, with regular and transparent opportunities to buy and sell so that investment and innovation in forest management and processing can occur.
Management security is required to provide stable tenure in the area of multiple-use forests and privately owned forests. This must be supported by an expert regulatory system like the Tasmanian Forest Practices Authority to provide comfort to the community that our forests are well managed. Private landowners would also seek relief from restrictive and unpredictable local government planning rules.
Ministers change every 18 months or so, and with parliamentary terms of only 3 to 4 years, the government is ill-equipped to provide serious guidance over a long-term asset like forests. Our current system is vulnerable to manipulation, which keeps investment from our largest forest and land owners, the private sector, away.
