ABC's "Timber Turmoil" and the missing picture
Last night’s ABC Four Corners program, "Timber Turmoil," highlights the complex and often contentious reality of the Australian timber industry. The reporting was high on opinion and emotive images, but low on actual statistics and failed to present any real solutions to the challenges.
The bigger picture is that we want timber; that we need timber in our built environment. Australia is a net importer of timber to the tune of $6bn a year (https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/research-topics/forests/forest-economics/forest-wood-products-statistics), which for a country with such a huge area and low population, highlights the opportunity we’re missing. Australia is blessed with natural resources and we are stewards for their responsible use. The logging ban in Victoria was a missed opportunity to help strengthen the sector and improve oversight, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater. Can you imagine the same thing happening to a coal or iron ore mining?! Forestry is the only one of these resources with any ability to be able to be used sustainably - a tree can be re-grown, but a lump of coal is one-and-done!
Shutting down local industry and reducing sovereign capacity at a time when most countries are looking to build up their own seems incredibly counter-productive. Without a robust local supply chain, we lose our most powerful tool for environmental and ethical accountability: direct oversight. When we outsource our timber supply, we effectively outsource our ethics. We exchange a transparent local system—where we can monitor, regulate, and improve controls—for a fragmented global chain where we have much less ability to check provenance.
Recent reports, including an ABC investigation this weekend, have exposed a growing reality: an estimated 100,000 cubic metres of timber containing Russian content is entering the Australian market annually (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-21/russian-timber-getting-into-australia-exploiting-loopholes/106780134). By rerouting through third countries, "conflict timber" is bypassing sanctions and undermining local standards. We would be better to improve oversight and accountability locally, than just pushing the problem elsewhere - or is it not the same if it's happening in some other country?
That is not to simplify the debate to say that Australian timber = good, and foreign = bad, as there are plenty of examples of excellent overseas suppliers, servicing a need we can't currently support. Also, the idea that suddenly we can just turn to plantation timber to replace native forestry is fanciful and would require a time machine to go back 30 years to plant trees! It's not to say that one is better or worse (some people have issues with monocultures too!) but that everything has its place. With more investment in the whole sector, from forestry, timber processing, through to design, construction and maintenance, we can make better use of our natural materials, making better and better use of every scrap of fibre to the fullest of its potential. We can work harder to expand timber resources and set ourselves up for generations to come.
At Arboralis we are committed to only supporting partners and suppliers, with whom we have built relationships over many years, and share similar passions for timber and sustainability and building better. It's our role to ensure that we support clients in ensuring that we have the best interests of future generations at heart. We welcome the debate on forestry and provenance of materials, but need to also keep a view of the bigger picture too.
