Rachel Payne MP has spoken in support of a motion on the ongoing destruction of Victoria’s native forests, arguing that the end of commercial native forest logging is being undermined by regulatory gaps and what communities are now calling “loophole logging”.
Full Transcript
A Landmark Ban With Serious Gaps
Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:48): I rise to make a contribution on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria about the ongoing destruction of Victoria’s native forests and the serious gaps that remain in our laws. At the outset I would like to thank Ms Purcell for bringing this motion before the house, acknowledge the work that she has done in this space and say that we will be supporting this motion. Victoria ended commercial native forest logging on 1 January 2024, and it was meant to be a landmark moment in Victoria. However, we must recognise that regulations are only as effective as their enforcement, and the reality is that there are significant gaps that remain. One of the gaps that still exists is how logging by Forest Fire Management Victoria is not subject to the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2014. They are not subject to the legal requirements that are intended to protect threatened species, and the state conservation regulator has no power to intervene. This creates inconsistency in the regulatory framework, as timber harvesting activities conducted by FFMVic may not be subjected to the same standards and oversight mechanisms. This gap also has serious implications for environmental management and consistency of sustainable forest management practices.
What Is the Point of a Ban With Loopholes?
The government must ensure that the end of commercial native forest logging is not undermined by regulatory gaps or loopholes that allow native timber to continue to enter commercial supply chains. It raises a really simple question: what is the point of banning native forest logging in state forests if loopholes allow similar destruction to continue elsewhere? Our native forests are not simply sources of timber; they provide habitat for threatened species, protect waterways, store carbon and support ecosystems that cannot simply be replaced by planting a few more trees. The Carroll government has a responsibility to address and close these regulatory gaps, strengthen oversight and ensure that environmental protections apply on private land as well as public land.
Changing the Language Does Not Change the Practice
The Victorian government has increasingly moved away from using the clear and well understood term ‘commercial logging’, instead relying on vaguely descriptive terms such as ‘forest management’, ‘timber recovery’ and what communities are now calling ‘loophole logging’. This change in language matters. Ending an industry on paper does not mean the practice has disappeared. Native timber can still be removed from forests under different regulatory pathways, including private land harvesting, limited forest produce licences and timber removal as part of fire safety or other fire management activities. The government continues to claim that forest and fire management works are not conducted for commercial purpose and therefore are not logging, but for communities who continue to see mature native forests being felled, removed and potentially entering commercial supply chains, changing the terminology does not change what is happening on the ground. Calling it something other than commercial logging does not answer the fundamental question of whether Victoria’s ban on native forest logging is being upheld. The community deserves more than this.
Protecting Our Forests in Practice, Not Just on Paper
Rachel’s contribution backs Ms Purcell’s motion and makes a clear case: a ban on native forest logging only means something if it is enforced consistently across public and private land. Closing the gaps in oversight, and being honest about what is actually happening in our forests, is the next step.
