Half-yearly loss of almost $15m for NSW native forest logging shows industry future shaky, conservationists say
The native forest logging division of the New South Wales government's forestry agency has posted a half-yearly loss of almost $15m, prompting renewed questions about the industry's economic viability.
The half-year report for 2024-25, tabled in the state's parliament last week, shows the hardwood forests division lost $14.9m, which is $9m more than the agency had projected – taking the division's total losses since 2020 to $87m.
The Forestry Corporation of NSW said in its report that several factors had contributed to the half-yearly loss, including higher than expected land management costs, lower than forecast timber production due to adverse weather conditions, and regulatory changes such as the establishment of 'koala hubs' in the proposed great koala national park.
But critics in the conservation sector said the ongoing losses from the division raised questions for the government about its financial sustainability.
'It's long past time premier Chris Minns and treasurer Daniel Mookhey stepped in to stem the losses and re-orientate the timber industry in NSW to a sustainable plantation based future,' said Justin Field from the Forest Alliance NSW.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
Field, a former independent member of the NSW upper house, called for more government scrutiny of the financial losses from the hardwood division, saying 'the taxpayer deserves a rethink'.
'Why would they throw good money after bad only to see our native wildlife suffer? It makes no sense,' he said.
Forestry Corporation's revenue from all of its operations for the first half of the 2024-25 financial year was $193.9m, according to the report.
The report said this was $15m below target 'due to continuous disruptions in hardwood production, a decrease in commercial firewood demand resulting from milder weather, and ongoing suppression of market demand for softwood products'.
Sign up to Afternoon Update
Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
A spokesperson for the Forestry Corporation of NSW said: 'overall the balance sheet is in a net asset position of $1.6bn'.
'The claim that native timber forestry operations are loss making and subsidised demonstrates poor understanding of the information and financial accounting in the half-yearly report,' they said.
'Over the past four years, Forestry Corporation has returned more than $13m in dividends to the people of NSW, while providing community services including free public access, free camping and picnic areas, community roads, fire protection and pest and weed management.'
But the chief executive of the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, Jacqui Mumford, said the ongoing losses from the hardwood division suggested 'native forest logging in NSW clearly does not have a viable future'.
'It makes no sense that taxpayers are subsidising a loss-making business that destroys precious habitat when we should be supporting local communities and viable industries that do have a future.'
Mumford noted that the softwood plantations division of the forestry agency, which posted half yearly earnings of $14.4m, remained profitable.
A government spokesperson said the government was working to finalise the forestry industry action plan – a roadmap for the industry under development.
'We recognise that forestry is facing challenging times, from weather events to regulatory changes,' they said.
'That's why we are working to get this action plan right – to align a sustainable timber industry with the government's key environmental priorities.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Showdown looming at key summit hosted by Anthony Albanese affecting millions of Australian workers
Business groups and unions are on a collision course over priorities for a planned productivity summit despite the prime minister's optimism they can find common ground. Anthony Albanese has dismissed suggestions the roundtable, which will take place in August and is aimed at finding ways to lift the nation's economic output, would amount to little more than a Canberra talkfest. 'It is not unreasonable to bring people together ... business and unions have common interests, we have a national interest in boosting productivity,' he told ABC Radio on Wednesday. But Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox said it was disappointing the union movement had taken the view that 'there's nothing to see here and that is all about cutting jobs and cutting wages and it demonstrably isn't'. 'One of the frustrating conversations to have with unions is to hear them say: 'Yes, of course there'll be AI but everyone's job will stay the same,' he told Sky News. 'Unfortunately it won't but we have to prepare people for that - and that will be a massive exercise in reskilling and retraining ... that's where this productivity summit is going to be so important.' Experts are concerned about Australia's lagging growth in productivity - a key economic measure of efficiency and long-term driver of improved living standards. Working Australians must be at the centre of the summit, ACTU secretary Sally McManus said. 'We need to leave behind the idea that productivity is equated with cutting pay and making people work harder for less,' she said. Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Andrew McKellar said he was realistic about the potential for tangible outcomes at the roundtable. 'If it was easy, it would have been done already,' he told AAP. The scope of the Fair Work Act had grown significantly in recent years, which had a 'significant impact' on small businesses trying to hire staff, Mr McKellar said. Planned payday superannuation reforms also needed to be implemented in a way that didn't 'create a significant additional burden for small business', he added. 'We don't expect (the government) to revisit all of the industrial relations changes, but ... let's make some practical changes that make it easier for small business to create jobs and employ more people to promote productivity,' Mr McKellar said. Tax changes, cutting the regulatory burden and encouraging the uptake of digital technology would all be priorities for the business lobby, which singled out AI as a field that could make a big difference to productivity. Productivity Commission chair Danielle Wood said it was important to be clear the target was 'not about working longer hours'. 'When we're talking about labour productivity, all it means is producing more for each hour worked,' she told ABC TV. 'This is about making sure Australians have the skills, that they have access to the technology, that we have great business processes that allow all of us to get more out of each hour that we put in.' Higher productivity was ultimately what drove improvements in incomes and living standards, and technological change was the most important driver of growth, Ms Wood said. 'Australia is lagging in the adoption of AI ... so that's certainly one of the areas of opportunity that we will be looking to,' she said. The commission's most recent report showed labour productivity fell 0.1 per cent in the December quarter and dropped 1.2 per cent in the past year. Shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien said the opposition gave the government some credit for calling the summit. 'A round table. Yay!' Mr O'Brien joked during an interview on Nine's Today program. 'But look ... to be fair, at least they're recognising the problem ... so let's take that as a partial tick.'
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
What is Aukus, the submarine deal between Australia, UK and US?
A multi-billion dollar submarine deal between long-standing allies - Australia, the UK and the US - has come under the spotlight after the Trump administration said it was reviewing how the deal fits in with its heavily-touted "America First" agenda. The Aukus security pact, Australia's biggest ever defence project, is set to play a key part in the country's ability to replace its ageing Collins-class submarine fleet - and, crucially, its military standing in the region. The 30-day review will be led by Elbridge Colby, who has previously been critical of Aukus. In a speech last year, he questioned why the US would give away "this crown jewel asset when we most need it". A US defence spokesperson said the review is about ensuring "this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the President's America First agenda".Fears the review may torpedo the deal have been downplayed by the UK and Australia, with both saying the review is a normal process when a new government takes power. What is Aukus? Billed as a trilateral security partnership, the Aukus deal - worth £176bn ($239bn; A$368bn) over 30 years - involves two so-called pillars. Pillar 1 is about the supply and delivery of nuclear-powered attack submarines. Australia will buy three second-hand Virginia-class submarines from the US from 2032 with options to purchase two that, the plan is to design and build an entirely new nuclear-powered submarine model for the UK and Australian attack craft will be built in Britain and Australia to a British design, but use technology from all three 2 is about the allies collaborating on their "advanced capabilities". This involves sharing military expertise in areas such as long-range hypersonic missiles, undersea robotics and AI. What's the purpose of the deal? At its core, the deal is believed to be about countering China's growing presence in the Indo-Pacific region, and its role in rising tensions in disputed territories such as the South China none of the allies have directly pointed at China as a reason for the deal, the three countries have spoken about how regional security concerns have "grown significantly" in recent condemned the agreement as "extremely irresponsible" when it was first ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said it "seriously undermines regional peace and stability and intensifies the arms race". Who negotiated it? The deal was unveiled in September 2021 by three former leaders: Australia's Scott Morrison, the UK's Boris Johnson and the US's Joe Biden. The UK reviewed the security pact last year after Sir Keir Starmer's Labour government won the general election. What does Australia get out of it? For Australia, the deal represents a major upgrade to its military capabilities. The country is set to become just the second to receive Washington's elite nuclear propulsion technology, after the submarines will be able to operate further and faster than the country's existing diesel-engine fleet. They would also mean Australia would be able to carry out long-range strikes against enemies for the first the deal, sailors from the Royal Australian Navy are due to be sent to US and UK submarine bases to learn how to use the nuclear-powered submarines. What do the UK and US get out of it? From 2027, the pact will allow both the US and UK to base a small number of nuclear submarines in Perth, Western will also create about 7,000 jobs in Britain, with the design and construction of the new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines set to take place in the UK. The benefits for the US are less obvious - but sharing its defence technology could give the nation an opportunity to grow its presence in Asia-Pacific. Arming Australia has historically been viewed by Washington and Downing Street as essential to preserving peace in a region that is far from their own.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Trump ally to spearhead review that could torpedo Australia's defence plans
Long-time Donald Trump ally and China hawk Elbridge 'Bridge' Colby will spearhead a US government review of the AUKUS submarine deal, as speculation mounts that the arrangement will be scrapped. The appointment, confirmed by a US defence official on Thursday, heightened expectations that the Trump administration will end or at least alter the deal under which Australia was to acquire nuclear-powered submarines to replace its current ageing fleet. Defence Minister Richard Marles downplayed the significance of a review, describing it as 'natural' given the policy was introduced by the Biden administration. But Shadow Defence Minister Angus Taylor has expressed serious reservations in the face of threatened abandonment. 'If AUKUS falls over, it is Australia that pays the price,' he said. 'We would face a dangerous gap in capability at a time when we lack the capacity to go it alone.' Australia jettisoned a deal to acquire French-made submarines - despite having spent almost $2.5billion - to instead join the deal with the US and UK governments. A collapse of the AUKUS deal would leave Australia to start from scratch in finding its next generation of submarines, with such deals taking many years between commissioning and completion. US Under Secretary of Defence Policy, Mr Colby will be at the helm during the period of review, as first reported by British publication the Financial Times. He has publicly spoken of his doubts about the strategic and cost value of the AUJUS deal. 'AUKUS, in principle, it is a great idea, but I have been very skeptical in practice,' Mr Colby posted on X in August last year. 'I remain skeptical, agnostic, as I put it, but more inclined based on new information I have gleaned. 'It would be crazy to have fewer SSNs Virginia class in the right place and time.' Asked to address this during a Senate hearing in March this year, prior to being approved as under secretary, he doubled down. Mr Colby said repeated that it was a 'great idea' but that the hope for an 'Australian capacity' for US military could not be dragged out over a lengthy time period. However he also referred to Australia as 'perhaps our closest ally in the world', noting that the Australian government has supported the US 'even in our less advisable wars'. 'It is a great idea for (Australia) to have attack submarines,' he told the committee. 'I think it should be the policy of the United States Government to do everything we can to make (AUKUS) work. 'This is getting back to restoring our defense industrial capacity so that we don't have to face these awful choices but rather can be in a position where we can produce not only for ourselves, but for our allies.' As of Thursday, he has not commented on his role overseeing the review of AUKUS but took to X to back the messaging of US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. '(Mr Hegseth's) Shangri-La Dialogue speech highlighted the Department of Defense's commonsense approach in the Indo-Pacific to achieve President Trump's Peace Through Strength and America First agenda.' He also fulfilled the label of 'China hawk' which media companies have given him, highlighting his concerns for the country's expanding influence in the Indo-Pacific region - an issue AUKUS was set up to counter. 'China's actions undermine peace and stability in the region,' he said, referencing its military build up and operations in the South China Sea and near Taiwan. 'These are the reasons driving the United States assessment that China is the most serious and pressing military threat,' he said. But, as a caveat, Mr Colby then quoted Mr Hegseth's recent statement that the US does not seek war or to 'dominate or strangle China'. The messaging is similar to that of the American defence official who confirmed to Daily Mail Australia that there would be a review of the AUKUS pact - and why. 'This review will ensure the initiative meets these common sense, America First criteria,' they said. 'This means ensuring the highest readiness of our service members, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence, and that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs,' the official said. In the seven-part thread, Mr Colby identified the US as an Indo-Pacific nation, commenting that prosperity and security of Americans is 'vitally linked with those of our allies and partners in the region'. Whatever his view on AUKUS, Mr Colby is not enthusiastic about formalising defence ties with a 'NATO-like' alliance in the region. 'I am not theologically opposed to it, Senator, but I have been skeptical,' he told the March hearing. 'Something may be building up to have more multilateralization in the region, but not the huge ambition of an Asia NATO,' he added. 'Especially because you have got Japan over here, India over here, Australia down here. Their circumstances are quite distinct.' Mr Colby is a long-time loyalist to Donald Trump and the US President's view of the world which is strongly critical of American involvement in overseas conflicts that do not serve US interests. During Trump's first term, he served from 2017 to 2018 as a deputy assistant secretary of defense. The key aim of his role was the reorientation of the defence department to prioritise the threat posed by China towards the US. Between Trump's terms, Mr Colby co-founded think tank The Marathon Initiative in 2019, which focused on preparing the US for an 'era of sustained great power competition'. A statement from the organisation when he was appointed back into the defense department praised Mr Colby's work shifting foreign policy away from the Middle East and Europe, towards China. 'He has worked persistently, persuasively, and intelligently to keep China at the forefront of the U.S. national security debate,' it said in April. 'His consistent message has been that America must prioritize the top threat facing the country—and that doing so will require tradeoffs. 'Bridge has sought to equip the United States with a coherent framework for ensuring its safety and prosperity against the most formidable rival in our history.'
