by Janine Duffy
“The Independent Forestry Panel is a sham inquiry and I have no confidence in it. The panel are ex-forestry and closely aligned to government, there are no publicly-declared terms of reference, and the outcome is a foregone conclusion.”
Just now, in NSW, a so-called independent panel are delivering recommendations to the government about whether logging of publicly-owned native forest should continue. But beware, the inquiry is rigged, and the whole system is a fiasco.
This is a state that has a koala population in catastrophic decline, where koalas are predicted to become extinct by 2050.
The same state where the Labor party promised, every election for the last three, to form a Great Koala National Park as soon as they were elected. They were elected, in 2023.
2 years later, there is still no Great Koala National Park. Worse, logging has intensified in the area earmarked for the national park. Almost as if the NSW state-owned forestry corporation were trying to extract every useful bit of timber before its too late. No, surely they wouldn’t do that. Surely.
The public is pretty upset about this. There’s been protest after protest, all across NSW. A news search on “Great Koala National Park’ gives 21 pages of media articles on the subject. This must be starting to irritate the Minns government.
How do governments in Australia deal with this public pressure? Announce an inquiry! That will bury the caring public in paperwork for months, employ several public servants, stall action for months or years, and if the resulting report is well-written by compliant government insiders, absolutely nothing needs to change.
It is often said that such an inquiry should never be set up unless the answer is known – (Parliament of Australia)
So, while the findings of this inquiry have clearly been stage-managed by the NSW government, the outcome is not in their control. It’s in ours.
This article will show that the real work on this issue has only just begun.
..
Koalas: Death by a thousand inquiries
As Professor Lindenmayer points out in his public submission to this Independent Forestry Panel – this is the 29th inquiry into the native forest logging industry over the past 30 years.
One has to give him credit – rather than bashing his head against a wall in frustration, Prof Lindenmayer has written another excellent, impressive, readable submission. Read it here.
His key points, for koalas are:
- “The native forest logging industry is not sustainable in NSW (or indeed anywhere in Australia)”
- “The native forest logging industry is not sustainable because areas that are logged and then regenerated are more flammable, thereby contributing significantly to fire risks.”
- “a key way to reach Australia’s 2030 GHG reduction targets will be to stop native forest logging”
- “Logging not only significantly reduces critical habitat for species such as large old hollow-bearing trees, it also changes the composition of forests that make them unsuitable for leaf-feeding specialist animals like the Koala and Southern Greater Glider “
Other comprehensive submissions include those from the EDO, Sydney Basin Koala Network, North East Forest Alliance, International Fund for Animal Welfare, WWF, Bob Brown Foundation, Koala Koalition Econetwork Port Stephens. (note: there are A LOT of submissions. You can search for the submissions by name with control F)
All these submissions, and many others, show that endangered koalas in NSW will be harmed by a continuation of logging.
But this is no surprise to the NSW government. There have also been two koala inquiries in NSW in the last 10 years:
June 2019 – June 2020 Koala Populations and Habitat in NSW Report Government Response
March – December 2016 Independent Review into the Decline of Koala Populations in Key Areas of NSW Report (note: I can’t find a published government response)
In addition here’s another review into NSW forestry that devotes two pages to a discussion on how koalas are impacted by forestry:
March 2021 – December 2022 Long-term sustainability and future of the timber and forest products industry Report Government Response
What do these inquiries achieve? Are koala populations stabilising in NSW? Has native forestry ended? And if the answer is nothing and no, should we ignore requests for submissions to inquiries, and focus instead on drumming up public support for the issue?
Or maybe we should still make submissions, but we should ask a lot more questions of the inquiry first, manage the preparation time for the submission carefully, and follow up more thoroughly.
..
1. Question the independence of the Panel
The independence of the Independent Forestry Panel has been questioned, as it should, by North East Forest Alliance and Sue Higginson from the Greens.
Independent Forestry Panel Chair, Peter Duncan is a former CEO of the NSW Forestry Corporation. Just take that in for a second. This chair is too strongly representative of a particular group (forestry), and aligned with government.
Perhaps the most significant decision here relates to the inquiry chair(s). .. governments generally choose members of public inquiries with regard to two types of criteria: representativeness and expertise. … This balance can be difficult to get right. If the chair is seen to be too aligned with the government or too strongly representative of a particular interest group, the independence of the inquiry will be compromised and it will not achieve sufficient standing. In addition, if the chair does not have adequate expertise, the authority of the inquiry’s recommendations may be diminished. (Stark 2021)
But it gets worse. Panel member Mick Veitch is a former Labor politician, who served as Parliamentary Secretary for Primary Industries, and a Shadow Minister for Forestry. According to the above criteria, this panel member is too aligned with government, and also representative of a particular group (forestry).
The only member of the panel that could have some ecological knowledge is Prof Mary O’Kane – former NSW Chief Scientist & Engineer.
Prof O’Kane chaired the 2016 Independent Review into the Decline of Koala Populations in Key Areas of NSW. Read her report here: https://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/94519/161202-NSWCSE-koala-report.pdf
The 2016 report makes 11 recommendations, but none mention forestry. In fact, none really say much at all. As with so many inquiries, recommendations are carefully worded to avoid measurable outcomes that could come back to bite a government.
Forestry is discussed in the report on pages 17 to 18, and the section concludes by calling for more research. This is a theme throughout the report. Despite citing multiple peer-reviewed studies that reached similar conclusions (see below) the panel seemed to prefer to take a soft and ill-advised approach.
In summary, the independence of this panel is questionable.
..
2. Question the Terms of Reference for the review.
Terms of Reference are the operating system of a review. The job description, if you like. They should exist, they should be public, and if not, why not?
In the case of the current panel, there doesn’t appear to be any public Terms of Reference. A NSW government press release explained the panel’s purpose as this:
…an expert panel to lead consultation on a Forestry Industry Action Plan, which will outline the path NSW will take to ensure a sustainable timber industry that aligns with the government’s key environmental priorities. (NSW Government)
In contrast, the 2020 Koala populations and habitat in NSW review had clear terms of reference:
That Portfolio Committee No. 7 – Planning and Environment inquire into and report on actions, policies and funding by Government to ensure healthy, sustainable koala populations and habitat in New South Wales, and in particular:
(a) the status of koala populations and koala habitat in New South Wales, including trends, key threats, resource availability, adequacy of protections and areas for further research,
(b) the impacts on koalas and koala habitat from:
(i) the Coastal Integrated Forestry Operations Approvals and Regional Forest Agreements,
(ii) the Private Native Forestry Code of Practice,
(iii) the old growth forest remapping and rezoning program,
(iv) the 2016 land management reforms, including the Local Land Services Amendment Act 2016 and associated regulations and codes
(c) the effectiveness of State Environmental Planning Policy 44 – Koala Habitat Protection, the NSW Koala Strategy and the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, including the threatened species provisions and associated regulations, in protecting koala habitat and responding to key threats,
(d) identification of key areas of koala habitat on private and public land that should be protected, including areas currently at risk of logging or clearing, and the likely impacts of climate change on koalas and koala distribution,(e) the environmental, social and economic impacts of establishing new protected areas to conserve koala habitat, including national parks,
The 2016 Independent Review into the Decline of Koala Populations in Key Areas of NSW also had clear terms of reference, but limiting Guiding Principles, which can be seen on page 52.
Without a terms of reference, there is no way to check that an inquiry has achieved what it was asked for.
..
3. Question the need for another review
If there have been other reviews with overlapping themes that have not changed anything, we are right to question the need for a review. Inquiries take time, are costly, and are not effective if only used to placate and distract an angry public.
Take for example, the two NSW reviews into koala population decline:
June 2019 – June 2020 Koala Populations and Habitat in NSW Report Government Response
March – December 2016 Independent Review into the Decline of Koala Populations in Key Areas of NSW Report
WWF prepared a comprehensive response to the 2016 review and NSW government response which can be seen here: https://npansw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/koala-strategy-update.pdf
It is a sad tale of disillusionment, with only 2 of the 11 recommendations actioned and those being the least priority and easiest to achieve.
The two reviews had much in common, and as so few of the 2016 recommendations were actioned, they could be re-hashed in 2020. See a comparison of recommendations of the 2016 and 2020 reviews here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSitrnyFHjHCRjP7eAamtsqrApszfF8uNkzYC1ytF_NX6B69QMZK2sK69F8nl2CRZPijaRbqcE0D6UE/pubhtml
..
About the 2016 Independent Review into the Decline of Koala Populations in Key Areas of NSW
Amongst so many koala and forestry inquiries, this one stands out, as it was the review Professor O’Kane chaired.
This one also deals with the public native forestry question. On page 17, the report says:
“There are few studies that have considered the direct impact of native forest harvesting on koalas (Jurkis, Rowell, & Ridley, 1994; Kavanagh, Debus, Tweedie, & Webster, 1995; Roberts, 1998; Smith, 2004). Studies suggest koalas can tolerate low intensity harvesting of habitat that includes food trees but higher intensity harvesting may have a more negative effect on koala occupancy (Smith, 2004). In the Pilliga Forest, koala persistence was measured before and after low intensity harvesting of an important day time shelter tree, koalas continued to occupy this habitat for a further measured seven months post harvesting (Kavanagh et al., 2007).”
There are four studies cited, three are peer-reviewed and deal precisely with the direct impact of native forest harvesting on koalas. All three are conducted in NSW. All three reach a similar conclusion: that koalas can/could persist in forests logged at low intensity a long time ago. Two mention the fact that current logging practices were of increasingly high intensity and unlikely to favour koalas.
This last point is agreed in the 2016 report itself, which states “…NSW EPA advising that a more intensive form of harvesting emerged around 2007 in public forests, referred to as regeneration harvesting.”
So, surely the conclusion is obvious and doesn’t require much more research: In 2016, logging practices in NSW were not conducive to koala protection.
..
Why do governments commission inquiries?
Faced with serious allegations which cannot be shrugged off, a government may set up a commission of inquiry. (Parliament of Australia)
An inquiry serves three purposes:
Learning – particularly policy learning for ministers and their departments;
Social – particularly catharsis and reassurance, for those most harmed by the issue;
Political – at best to restore confidence in government, but at worst, a chance to stall for time or hope the issue will be forgotten.
..inquiries are a form of tall grass into which issues can be punted and lost forever, or at least forgotten about until they become non-threatening. (Stark 2021)
It has also been suggested that commissions seek to legitimize a course of action. Of course, that only works if the public accepts the legitimacy of the inquiry.
Setting up a commission of inquiry can be a dangerous solution for the government. It is often said that such an inquiry should never be set up unless the answer is known, but in fact a commission of inquiry is very difficult for a government to control. The subject is usually dramatic and the evidence widely reported… (Parliament of Australia)
New South Wales has had a long history of corruption in government, in the police force and in parts of the judiciary. In 1988 the incoming Liberal-National coalition government established an Independent Commission Against Corruption, but four years later the premier who set it up became a victim of it. (Parliament of Australia)
..
How to make inquiries work for us, and koalas
You might think by now that inquiries are a waste of time. That is only true if we play by the government’s rules. But if we have our own rules, an inquiry can serve us.
An inquiry will bring a network of experts together to share their knowledge. Don’t waste it. Download it, share it, put it on your website, and use it as a reference for the next battle.
Media will be interested. Take that opportunity to stir up public interest.
Finally, we can choose to legitimize the inquiry, or not. That is stronger than it sounds. When a journalist mentions the inquiry, tell them what you think of it. Strong comments from experts like: “its a sham inquiry, I have no confidence in it, the panel are all ex-forestry, the terms of reference are weak and broad,” will help the government understand that the public is not willing to be manipulated.
Governments that try to control ‘independent’ panels, stage-manage outcomes, write terms of reference and guiding principles that limit action, risk losing on all fronts: the inquiry lacks legitimacy, opportunities for policy learning and positive change, catharsis and reassurance for the public. Such an inquiry becomes a costly farce that does more harm than good.
When the report is made public, this is what to look for:
- Are there costings?
- Are there timelines?
- Has an oversight body been recommended?
Politically astute inquiry personnel can take measures to close future excuses that might shelve their recommendations. For example, implementation blueprints and provisional costings limit the ability of future actors to dismiss recommendations as unfeasible.. Reports can explain the relative urgency of various recommendations and suggest appropriate timelines for each. Perhaps most importantly, the creation of oversight mechanisms can assist here. In particular, the creation of statutory agencies to monitor implementation has had success in several Australian inquiries at the state level while performance management tools linked to parliamentary oversight have proved effective in the UK. (Stark 2021)
In the 11 Recommendations from the 2016 Independent Review into the Decline of Koala Populations in Key Areas of NSW no costings, timelines or oversight was outlined.
In the 43 Recommendations from the 2020 Koala Populations and Habitat in NSW no costings, timelines or oversight was mentioned.
When the government response to the review is made public, this is what to look for:
- Supported = okay, maybe
- Supported In Principle = thanks but no thanks
- Noted = no way
Nomenclature like ‘accepted in principle’ can emerge to communicate a ‘thanks but no thanks’ message in relation to some recommendations, others are given away to organisations outside of executive jurisdiction and then defined as implemented, and creative forms of authorship can be employed to reinterpret the wording of recommendations (Stark, 2018). These are the first moves in any executive’s attempt to reassert control of their policy instrument, and whether they are effective is influenced by external factors such as the degree of public scrutiny (Stark 2021)
If history is anything to go by, only a small proportion of the Supported category will be actioned. But remember, we don’t have to accept their decision. Push back.
..
What to do when a government announces yet another inquiry
- If you are in the room when they announce yet another inquiry, make your feelings known. Let them know that you know an inquiry is not action, it’s stalling.
- Ask them for the Terms of Reference, Guiding Principles and whether it has Statutory Powers. It won’t have any powers, of course, but most people don’t know that and they need to hear it. If the Terms of Reference are too broad, too limited or a rehash of the last inquiry, reply to the government that you refuse to be involved in time-wasting reviews and will be speaking to the media and your local MP about it.
- Demand that the committee include at least one respected, active scientist-researcher from that field of expertise. It is not unreasonable – panels in the past have included such experts. A panel comprised solely of government hacks is not independent.
- Decide if you will make a submission and how much time you will spend on it. You don’t have to make a submission to make a difference.
- If you do make a submission, keep it brief, ensure it contains unique information and an affecting personal story. If you are working in a location, share information about that location. A statement as simple as “From 1990 to 2000 I saw 20 koalas every year along my driveway, now I only see one,” is anecdotal evidence that could be very useful. Share your research, or research your group have commissioned. There’s no need to summarise all the research on the subject, others will do that. Guidance here: https://envirojustice.org.au/submission-toolkit/
- Make it public and share it widely. If you do decide to make a submission, make sure everyone in your network hears about it, reads it, and shares it as widely as possible. Media in particular need to see it. Send it to your MP too.
- Find the submissions of others you respect, and share them too. Refer to them the next time you comment on the issue. These are public documents from the minute they are published.
- It’s not over when it’s over. Inquiries do their real work after the report has been released. It is public pressure to act that makes governments change. When the report is tabled, demand the government release it. When the government release their response, attack it in the media. When they don’t deliver on a promise, attack them again. Use it over and over.
Notes & References
Parliament of Australia – About Parliament – Senate – Practices and Procedure – Can Responsible Government Survive in Australia – Chapter 10: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Practice_and_Procedure/hamer/chap10
2020 Koala populations and habitat in NSW: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/inquiries/2536/Koala%20populations%20and%20habitat%20in%20New%20South%20Wales%20-%20Report%203.pdf
alternative link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1beFfZX_lsr4cHPvZsbMlQ658BNYCVwGX/view?usp=sharing
and government response: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XSIVTYEiEFsghPm65SVegczx3JMdRJ1_/view?usp=sharing
..
2016 Report of the Independent Review into the Decline of Koala Populations in Key Areas of NSW: https://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/94519/161202-NSWCSE-koala-report.pdf
alternative link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O1COYi6D64tYRVeHickMerFjOxLIIH30/view?usp=sharing
..
WWF response to NSW Koala Strategy: https://npansw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/koala-strategy-update.pdf
alternative link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/18ECuPtTiY3caXtTFLkDcvQQSPZPilz9X/view?usp=sharing
..
Kavanagh, R.P, Debus, S, Tweedie, T, & Webster, R. (1995). Distribution of Nocturnal Forest Birds and Mammals in North-Eastern New South Wales: Relationships With Environmental Variables and Management History. Wildlife Research, 22(3), 359-377 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WR9950359
Lunney, D, Stalenberg, E, Santika, T, & Rhodes, J.R. (2014). Extinction in Eden: identifying the role of climate change in the decline of the koala in south-eastern NSW. Wildlife Research, 41(1), 22-34. doi: 10.1071/wr13054 https://www.publish.csiro.au/wr/wr13054
Roberts, P. (1998). Associations between koala faecal pellets and trees at Dorrigo. A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Resource Science at the University of New England https://rune.une.edu.au/web/handle/1959.11/18451
Smith, A. (2004). Koala conservation and habitat requirements in a timber production forest in north-east New South Wales. Conservation of Australia’s Forest Fauna, 2, 591-611. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew-Smith-170/publication/328621109_Smith2004_koala_Forest_Management/links/5bd8f7bfa6fdcc3a8db2c670/Smith2004-koala-Forest-Management.pdf
Smith, A.P. and Pile, J., 2024. Koala density, habitat, conservation, and response to logging in eucalyptus forest; a review and critical evaluation of call monitoring. Australian Zoologist, 44(1), pp.44-76. https://meridian.allenpress.com/australian-zoologist/article/44/1/44/501190
Stark, A, Yates, S, Public inquiries as procedural policy tools, Policy and Society, Volume 40, Issue 3, September 2021, Pages 345–361, https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1955485
