STOP state or private contract logging within and around the proposed boundaries of the NSW Great Koala National Park

 Pine Creek Choir

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuo7ZZ5NZ9A

"If the government holds out 20 years… we’ll hold out one day more!" [Meredith Stanton, Clouds Creek NSW, X /Twitter 1 November 2024]

STATE OF PLAY NSW 2024: On 3 September 2024 the NSW Minns Government released data showing that the state lost 45,252 ha of native vegetation to agriculture, native timber logging & infrastructure in 2022 and a total of 428,594 ha since 2018

 

NSW SLATS Insights Dashboard
Click on image to enlarge

Nature Conservation Council NSW

Urgent interim action needed as NSW clears 570 football fields of habitat each day

MEDIA RELEASE

13 September 2024

The Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales (NCC), the state’s leading environmental advocacy organisation, has called on the NSW Government to act on its commitment to stop the runaway land clearing that is continuing to decimate NSW bush.

NSW remains in the midst of an extinction crisis which will continue to gather pace until the root cause – widespread and unregulated destruction of our habitat encouraged by the former government – is addressed.

The latest vegetation clearing data shows that clearing continues to devastate large swathes of habitat every year. In NSW, an equivalent of 300 times the Sydney CBD is cleared annually, or 570 football fields per day.

The annual Statewide Land and Tree Study (SLATS) data released today shows, yet again, a shocking amount of habitat was cleared across the state, taking the average to 84,000 hectares of native vegetation (defined as trees, shrubs or woody vines, or understory and groundcover plants that have been relatively undisturbed since 1990[1]) being cleared every year for the past five years.

Habitat clearing is, alongside climate change, the most significant threat to species in NSW[2], the worst ranked state in the country for protecting and restoring trees.

Statements attributable to NCC Chief Executive Officer, Jacqui Mumford:

“These new figures still show the urgent need for reform. Every day of inaction means more species are at an ever-growing risk of going extinct.”

“Our nature laws in NSW are broken and unable to protect habitat.”

“The government has asked the Natural Resources Commission to come up with new options to stop runaway habitat clearing and protect critical species. We are heartened by this process but concerned about the slow timeframe – interim action to protect critical habitat must be taken given the numbers we are seeing today.”[3]

“Protecting critically endangered ecosystems is urgent and needs to happen yesterday.”

“The existing Native Vegetation Code is an inappropriate regulatory tool for managing impacts on biodiversity in rural areas. It permits a completely unsustainable amount of clearing without any robust environmental assessment or approval requirements. The new data shows that we don’t know the circumstances under which nearly half of the non-woody vegetation clearing happened in 2022. It may be illegal clearing – we just don’t know.”[4]

“Clearly the scope of ‘allowable’ vegetation clearing activities is too broad and open to misuse.”

“We need urgent interim action to immediately protect critically endangered ecosystems. These precious places and the critters than rely on them cannot wait while the scale of reform we require is nowhere to be seen.”

Statement ends

References

[1] As defined in the NSW Vegetation Clearing Report 2021 https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/animals-and-plants/native-vegetation/landcover-science/2021-nsw-vegetation-clearing-report

[2] https://www.soe.epa.nsw.gov.au/all-themes/land/native-vegetation#vegcover

[3] See the Government’s NSW Plan for Nature in response to the review of the BC Act and native vegetation provisions of the local land services act here.

[4] In 2022, 46.6% of the total of non woody vegetation clearing is unallocated, and 11.8% of woody clearing is unallocated. Unallocated clearing is vegetation clearing for which the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water has not been able to identify a formal authorisation or is unable to presume authorised or allowable using visual cues in the imagery. See here

Further information can be found at

2022 NSW vegetation clearing data

This spreadsheet reports on figures of detected woody and non woody (grasses, small shrubs and groundcover) vegetation clearing that has occurred from 2018 to 2022, statewide and on Category 2 regulated land.

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications-search/nsw-vegetation-clearing-data-2022

How a rogue state-owned corporation played the NSW Land & Environment Court - by a last minute admission of guilt but at the same time insisting it was an accidental error & offering a half-hearted apology - in order to reduce a potential four million dollar penalty to a mere $360,000

On 24 March 2020 and between 6 April and 6 July 2020 the state government owned Forestry Corporation of New South Wales (FCNSW) committed breaches of Forestry Act 2012 within the boundaries of Yambulla State Forest on the far south coast of the state.

NOTE: As Forestry NSW is a state-owned entity, it is the NSW Treasury (on behalf the people of NSW) which will eventually pay any monetary penalties imposed by a court or government authority if FNSW is cash poor. It should also be noted that, based on past history, there appears to be a reluctance to individually hold to account any private logging company (contracted by Forestry NSW to work in state forests) which wilfully or negligently acts in breach of the law. This may go a long way to explaining the arrogance of the logging industry generally and repeat offender Forestry NSW in particular.

In the Land and Environment Court New South Wales on 31 July 2024 in Environment Protection Authority v Forestry Corporation of New South Wales [2024] NSWLEC 78 Peppers J handed down a judgment with the following orders:

Orders

In conformity with the reasons given above, the Court makes the following orders:

In proceedings 2022/171640

(1) the defendant is convicted of the offence contrary to s 69SA(1) of the Forestry Act 2012 as charged;

(2) the defendant must pay a monetary penalty in the sum of $225,000;

In proceedings 2022/171639

(3) the defendant is convicted of the offence contrary to s 69SA(1) of the Forestry Act 2012 as charged;

(4) the defendant must pay a monetary penalty in the sum of $135,000;

In proceedings 2022/171639 and 2022/171640

(5) pursuant to s 122 of the Fines Act 1996, 50% of each of the monetary penalties imposed on the defendant is to be paid to the prosecutor as a moiety;

(6) pursuant to s 257B of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, the defendant is to pay the prosecutor’s professional costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed under s 257G of that Act;

(7) within 28 days of the date of this order, pursuant to s 13.25(1)(a) and (b) of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the defendant must, at its own expense, cause a notice in the form of annexure ‘A’ to these orders to be published within the first 12 pages of the following publications, at a minimum size as near as practicable to 180 cm2:

(a) The Sydney Morning Herald;

(b) The Daily Telegraph; and

(c) the Bega District News.

(8) within 42 days of the date of this order, the defendant must provide the prosecutor with a complete copy of the notices as published pursuant to order 7; and

(9) the exhibits are to be returned.

Annexure A

[Forestry Corporation of New South Wales logo to be inserted]

Forestry Corporation of New South Wales Convicted of Offences in Relation To Harvesting Operations In Yambulla State Forest in 2020

On 31 July 2024, Forestry Corporation of New South Wales (“FCNSW”) was convicted in the Land and Environment Court of NSW (“the Court”) for offences under the Forestry Act 2012 for breaching two conditions of its integrated forestry operations approval (“the approval”).

FCNSW breached the approval by failing to show two known Environmentally Significant Areas on an operational map prepared for harvesting operations within compartment 299A of the Yambulla State Forest and by carrying out forestry operations between April and July 2020 in one of the two Environmentally Significant Areas. As a result, 53 eucalypt trees were felled and harvested. The harvesting operation caused actual harm to the felled trees and impacted the refuge of various native flora and fauna species following the Black Summer bushfires. It also led to the compaction and disturbance of groundcover elements. The harvesting operations also potentially harmed the Dusky Woodswallow, Scarlet Robin and the Varied Sitella, being threatened bird species known to inhabit the Yambulla State Forest.

The prosecution was brought by the NSW Environment Protection Authority (“EPA”). FCNSW has been fined a total of $360,000 and has agreed to pay the EPA’s professional costs as agreed or assessed. This notice was placed by order of the Court and was paid for by FCNSW.

**********

A brief look at aspects of the Court's reasons by way of judgment excerpts:

Maximum Penalty

81 The maximum penalty provided for an offence indicates the seriousness with which Parliament views the commission of the offence (Axer Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 113 LGERA 357 at 359 and Camilleri’s Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683 at 698).

82 FCNSW is charged with two breaches of s 69SA(1)(b)(i) of the Forestry Act, each of which carry a maximum penalty of $2,000,000 in the case of a corporation.

104 I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the commission of the harvesting offence caused actual and potential harm in the manner set out in Dr Wall’s report. I am further satisfied that the harm caused was substantial because the felling of the 53 trees not only had individual environmental value, but collectively, the trees represented a significant ecological cohort, the felling of which, together with the compaction and disturbance to ground cover, disrupted the refugial status of polygon 2 in a forest that had been severely impacted by bushfire (s 21A(2)(g) of the CSPA).

110 The mapping offence arose due to Clark incorrectly inputting the spatial data into the operational map and failing to adequately review her work. Clark’s supervisor, Clohesy, also failed to properly check her work despite being required to sign off on the operational map. The harvesting offence occurred due to the mapping offence. As stated above, both mistakes were inadvertent.

118 I do not accept that the circumstances giving rise to the error in spatial mapping were unique because they required manual data entry. Rather, the error occurred due to a failure to implement adequate systems to properly transition to a new process as necessitated by the SSOCs. It is entirely conceivable, if not likely given the impact of climate change on native vegetation, that FCNSW will have the need for SSOCs again.

119 I find that FCNSW failed to take the preventative measure of implementing a robust process for reviewing the operational map to ensure that all of the ESAs were properly identified on it. In addition, I find that Chaudhary’s evidence of the steps that FCNSW has taken to prevent future similar incidents was unhelpful given its highly generalised content.

123 A sentencing judge is not required to nominate a point on a scale of seriousness when assessing the objective seriousness of an offence. While occasionally useful, such an exercise adds little substance to the task of instinctive synthesis and determination of a proportionate sentence. As was observed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200 (at [60]):

60. The assessment of objective seriousness of an offence is an essential element of the process of instinctive synthesis, a purpose of which is the imposition of a proportionate sentence: Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44 at [46]; R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349 at 354; Khoury v R [2011] NSWCCA 118. A sentencing judge is required to identify all the factors relevant to the objective seriousness of an offence but is not required to nominate a point on the scale of seriousness by reference to a notional mid-point. The use of descriptors such as “low end of the middle of the range”, “upper end of the middle of the range” or, “just below or above the midpoint” add nothing of value to the process of instinctive synthesis and the determination of a proportionate sentence.

124. Nevertheless, on any view, the environmental crimes committed by FCNSW were objectively serious, causing, as they did, substantial actual and potential ecological harm.

Contrition and Remorse

125 Pursuant to s 21A(3)(i) of the CSPA, remorse is only a mitigating factor if:

(i) the offender has provided evidence that he or she has accepted responsibility for his or her actions, and

(ii) the offender has acknowledged any injury, loss or damage caused by his or her actions or made reparation for such injury, loss or damage (or both),

In Waste Recycling Preston J suggested at least four ways by which an offender may demonstrate genuine contrition and remorse, which are relied upon without repetition (at [204], [210], [212] and [214]). I respectfully adopt and apply his Honour’s analysis in the present proceedings.

In his affidavit, Chaudhary expressed contrition as follows:

10 On my behalf and that of FCNSW, I express sincere regret and remorse that FCNSW employees failed to properly prepare maps recording the ESA areas required for retention and that harvesting occurred within one of those areas.

11 I have read the report of Dr Julian Wall, date 9 November 2024. While I am aware that the precise nature of harm to Yambulla State Forest is still in dispute, I accept that the harvesting resulted in the harvesting of 53 trees that should have been retained, the loss of biomass and impacts on habitat after the fires. I also acknowledge that the failure to map the ESAs resulted in machinery entering one of the polygons in circumstances where this was not permitted. I regret to have caused any harm to the environment.

Chaudhary and Linda Broekman, FCNSW’s Senior Compliance Manager, were present for the sentencing hearing on behalf of FCNSW (T1:18). However, Chaudhary was required to be present for cross-examination and left as soon as it was concluded.

The Chaudhary affidavit was filed late in breach of the Court’s timetable. Leaving aside delay, the affidavit constitutes no more than a bare expression of contrition and remorse, the kind of which was cautioned against in Waste Recycling (at [203]). Moreover, FCNSW has not taken any steps to remediate the harm caused by the commission of the offences (Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Ausgrid [2013] NSWLEC 51; (2013) 199 LGERA 1 at [80]). In addition, it has not wholly accepted responsibility for the environmental harm caused by the commission of the offences insofar as it rejects the refugial status of polygon 2.

I therefore give only limited weight to FCNSW’s expression of contrition through Chaudhary.

Early Pleas of Guilty

131 A guilty plea entered at the earliest available opportunity entitles a defendant to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of that plea (ss 21A(3)(k) and 22 of the CSPA and R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 at [160]).

132 The EPA submitted, and FCNSW accepted, that guilty pleas were not entered at the earliest opportunity. FCNSW entered guilty pleas on the morning of a contested liability hearing that was listed for four days. Having said this, the guilty pleas demonstrate some acceptance of culpability and some weight must be given to FCNSW’s entry of the pleas and the resultant savings in time and resources as a consequence. I therefore find that FCNSW is entitled to a 10% discount for its guilty pleas.

Prior Convictions of FCNSW

134 FCNSW has a lengthy record of prior convictions for environmental offences (s 21A(2)(d) and (3)(e) of the CSPA):

(a) on 12 June 2004 the Court convicted FCNSW (formally the Forestry Commission of New South Wales) of one offence against s 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (“the POEOA”) for causing the construction of a dirt road in the Chichester State Forest in such a manner that parts of it collapsed and resulted in pollutants entering the waters of the forest. The Court ordered FCNSW to pay a monetary penalty of $30,000 and awarded costs to the EPA (Environment Protection Authority v Forestry Commission of New South Wales [2004] NSWLEC 751 (“Chichester State Forest”));

(b) on 8 June 2011 the Court convicted FCNSW of one offence against s 175(1)(a) of the NPWA insofar as it breached a condition of a threatened species licence contrary to s 133(4) of that Act by conducting bushfire hazard reduction burning in the Smokey Mouse exclusion zone of the Nullica State Forest. The commission of the offence was caused by the inadequate shading of the exclusion zone on the relevant map. The Court ordered FCNSW to pay $5,600 to a project to improve the Smoky Mouse monitoring sites in the South East Forests National Park and awarded costs in the agreed sum of $19,000 (Director-General, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water v Forestry Commission of New South Wales [2011] NSWLEC 102 (“Nullica State Forest”));

(c) on 10 July 2013 the Court convicted FCNSW of one offence against s 120(1) of the POEOA for polluting waters and one offence against s 133(4) of the NPWA for breach of its threatened species licence arising from hazard reduction burns in the Mogo State Forest. The cause of the commission of the offences was inadequate training of persons involved in the preparation of a burn plan which resulted in an inaccurate plan. The Court ordered FCNSW to pay a total monetary penalty of $35,000 to be directed towards a project in the affected area. Legal and investigation costs were awarded to the EPA (Environment Protection Authority v Forestry Commission of New South Wales [2013] NSWLEC 101 (“Forestry Commission”));

(d) on 5 October 2017 the Court convicted FCNSW of one offence against s 133(4) of the NPWA for breach of its threatened species licence arising from its failure to conduct a thorough search for rocky outcrops in the Glenbog State Forest, which were consequently not identified on the harvest plan. The Court fined FCNSW $8,000, ordered it to publish a notice in the Bega District News in relation to its commission of the offences, and awarded costs to the EPA (Chief Environmental Regulator of the Environment Protection Authority v The Forestry Corporation of New South Wales [2017] NSWLEC 132 (“Glenbog State Forest”));

(e) the Batemans Bay Local Court convicted FCNSW of one offence against s 69SA(1) of the Forestry Act for carrying out unlawful harvesting operations which resulted in the removal of four hollow bearing trees in Mogo State Forest. That Court fined FCNSW a total of $20,000 with 50% payable to the EPA as moiety, awarded the EPA costs in the amount of $84,340, and made a publication order (Environment Protection Authority v Forestry Corporation of NSW (Mogo State Forest prosecution) (Local Court (NSW), Dick LCM, 15 November 2023, unrep));

(f) on 9 June 2022 the Court convicted FCNSW of four offences contrary to s 2.14(4) of the BCA. The offences related to the carrying out of harvesting activities in koala and rainforest exclusion zones in the Wild Cattle Creek State Forest. The Court fined FCNSW a total of $135,600 with 50% payable to the EPA as a moiety, awarded costs in the sum of $150,000 to the EPA, and ordered FCNSW to publish notices in The Sydney Morning Herald and the Coffs Coast News of the Area in relation to its commission of the offences (Environment Protection Authority v Forestry Corporation of NSW [2022] NSWLEC 70 (“Wild Cattle Creek”)); and

(g) on 22 June 2022 FCNSW was convicted of three offences contrary to s 69SA(1) of the Forestry Act in that it failed to mark the boundary of an ESA in breach of its threatened species licence and consequently carried out harvesting operations in bat roosting exclusion zones in the Dampier State Forest. The Court fined FCNSW a total of $225,000, with $45,000 to be paid to the Australasian Bat Society Inc and 50% to be paid to the EPA as a moiety. The Court ordered FCNSW to pay the EPA’s legal and investigation costs, and made publication orders (Dampier State Forest).

135 The EPA submitted that the two most comparable cases to the present proceedings were Dampier State Forest and Wild Cattle Creek.

136 FCNSW submitted that less weight ought to be attributed to its history of offending because it has not previously committed an offence similar to the harvesting and mapping offences.

137 FCNSW’s submission must be rejected. It has a significant history of unlawfully carrying out forestry operations, which is exactly what the mapping and harvesting offences are (Wild Cattle Creek and Dampier State Forest). In addition, it has previously been convicted for failing to mark the boundary of ESAs and exclusion zones in breach of environmental approvals (Dampier State Forest and Wild Cattle Creek). I therefore take into account its extensive antecedents.

156 The EPA submitted that the quantum of any monetary penalty should not be reduced to take account of the award of costs merely because FCNSW has agreed to pay the EPA’s costs voluntarily (Liverpool City Council v Leppington Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [2010] NSWLEC 170 at [50] and Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v Khouzame [2024] NSWLEC 54 at [125]-[126]).

157 An award of costs does not result in a commensurate reduction in any monetary penalty imposed. Rather, I have taken the fact of the payment of costs by FCNSW, which both the EPA and FCNSW agreed will be substantial, into account as a factor in mitigation.

Appropriate Sentence

162 Having regard to the objective seriousness of the offences and the mitigating subjective factors of FCNSW, together with the penalties imposed in the comparable cases, I find that the imposition of a monetary penalty is warranted for each offence as follows:

(a) for the harvesting offence a monetary penalty of $250,000; and

(b) for the mapping offence a monetary penalty of $150,000.

163 After the application of the 10% discount for the utilitarian value of the early guilty pleas, the penalty for the commission of each offence is reduced to:

(a) for the harvesting offence a monetary penalty of $225,000; and

(b) for the mapping offence a monetary penalty of $135,000.

164 This brings the total monetary penalty to be imposed on FCNSW to $360,000.

167 In the context of sentencing, a publication order serves the functions of general deterrence, denunciation, and a recognition of the harm caused by the offending conduct (Environment Protection Authority v Bartter Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 4) [2021] NSWLEC 45 at [105] and Environment Protection Authority v Ditchfield Contracting Pty Ltd [2018] NSWLEC 90 at [76]). FCNSW’s offending conduct was not trivial and occasioned substantial actual and potential environmental harm. FCNSW will continue to undertake forestry harvesting activities and has not sufficiently demonstrated genuine contrition and remorse for its commission of the offences. These factors weigh heavily in favour of making a publication order in the terms sought by the prosecutor. 

North East Forest Alliance & Environmental Defenders Office fight on to protect the continued existence of native forests and the biodivsersity they contain

 

Environmental Defenders Office (EDO), March 2024 Newsletter, 29 February 2024:

Hope for NSW forests: Court decision upholds community’s right to challenge native forest logging

In the shadow of claims made by the NSW Forestry Corporation, communities have been led to believe that they have no rights to challenge decisions about industrial logging in NSW native forests or seek action over unlawful conduct when logging destroys hollow-bearing trees and critical habitat for threatened species.

But two recent court decisions have shattered those claims after EDO’s client successfully ran an argument which hasn’t previously been tested in the courts. After 20 years of resistance by the Forestry Corporation, it is now legally recognised that communities with a special interest have the right to hold the state-owned logging agency to account over its forestry operations in native forests.

NSW forests are remarkable for their diverse ecosystems, unique biodiversity and cultural significance. Encompassing semi-arid woodlands to lush rainforests, these globally recognised forests are home to an extraordinary array of plant and animal life, much of which is unique to the region.

Protecting our forests is one of the most important things we can do to manage climate change, preserve our precious biodiversity and prevent further species extinctions. Yet Forestry Corporation NSW logs around 30,000 hectares of state forest every year. Sadly, many of these forests are logged to be turned into low-value products, such as woodchips, that are exported to make cardboard and toilet paper.

Weak laws failing our forests

NSW Forestry Corporation is the state-owned logging agency that undertakes industrial logging in public native forests, including in nationally important koala habitat and areas that are still recovering from the catastrophic impacts of the 2019-20 Black Summer Bushfires. It is entrusted with managing two million hectares of public forests, yet in the past three years alone, Forestry Corporation has been fined 12 times for illegal logging activities. There are 21 investigations still pending. ¹

Forestry Corporation operates under bilateral agreements with the Federal Government, called ‘regional forest agreements’, or RFAs, which allow logging to bypass normal federal environmental scrutiny. No other industry benefits from such an allowance. Under the current system of RFAs, threatened species such as the koala, greater glider and gang-gang cockatoo are being driven to extinction and the ecosystems and landscapes that we depend on are being destroyed at an astounding rate.

For some 20 years, Forestry Corporation has asserted that the community cannot seek to challenge its public native forestry operations. On 20 November 2023, the NSW Land and Environment Court rejected that position.

Court decision confirms community right

The EDO represented the North East Forest Alliance (NEFA) in mid-2023 challenging logging approvals in Myrtle and Braemar State Forests. The forests were severely damaged by the ferocious Black Summer Bushfires, which wiped out an estimated 70 per cent of the local koala population.

While NEFA was not ultimately successful, the court confirmed for the first time that the Forestry Act does not prevent persons with a special interest from taking legal action over forestry operations in NSW, including disputing logging approvals.

This is particularly important as NSW laws explicitly attempt to reduce the community’s right to challenge Forestry Corporation conduct regarding industrial native forest logging.

Forestry Corporation also argued that the court cannot judicially review harvest and haul plans because all forestry operations had already been approved by the relevant Ministers in the overarching regulation, the Coastal Integrated Forestry Operations Approval (CIFOA). However, the court again rejected that position and found that such operational plans are open to challenge.

Forest groups fight on after disappointing court decision

Building on the NEFA decision, South East Forest Rescue (SEFR) then took a step further with court action in January 2024. SEFR is seeking an injunction to stop Forestry Corporation from conducting any forestry activities in certain state forests until adequate surveys for greater, yellow-bellied and squirrel gliders have been performed. SEFR is being represented by XD Law.

SEFR argued that Forestry Corporation is breaking the law by not performing adequate surveys for den trees and necessary exclusion zones around den trees are not being implemented. It is the first time in 25 years that the Forestry Corporation has been brought to court by citizens for failure to comply with native forestry regulations, in particular failure to conduct adequate surveys for gliders.

Drawing from the findings in the NEFA decision, her Honour found that persons with a special interest can also seek to enforce the conditions of the CIFOA against Forestry Corporation.

These two decisions mark a significant departure from the status quo of the past 20 years and set important precedent for the community to hold the Forestry Corporation to account over native forest logging.

President of NEFA, Dailan Pugh said regarding NEFAs legal challenge:

“While NEFA were disappointed that our legal challenge to the logging of important Koala populations in Braemar and Myrtle State Forests was not successful, it’s promising that the case did establish that NEFA have the civil right to enforce NSW’s logging rules, opening a door to litigation we thought had been shut to us since 1998.”

“We thank the EDO for the immense effort they put into this case and creating future opportunities for NEFA, and other groups, to challenge the culture of complacency around logging fostered by lack of public accountability.”

1 Register of Crown forestry investigations (nsw.gov.au)

Does NSW Premier Chris Minns, his Environment Minister Penny Sharpe or Agricultural Minister Tara Moriarty ever wonder just whose interests the forestry brands that lobby them conceal from view?

“Put the foresters back in charge of the forests.” 

Malcolm David McComb, Pentarch Group, quoted in The Monthly, November 2020

According to the 'privately-owned' Melbourne-based PENTARCH GROUP it commenced business in 1984, combining the expertise of five individuals with diverse commercial backgrounds. In the early 1990s, the group’s primary focus was on three key businesses - representing major international manufacturers of military hardware, exporting containerised hay to Japan, and exporting softwood logs to South Korea - through its Industrial, Forestry and Agricultural divisions.

By 2019 the Group was managing over 8,000ha of land - with est. 30 per cent of the defined forest area being native forest. 

That year NSW Deputy Premier and Minister responsible for Forestry John Barilaro announced Pentarch Logistics Pty Ltd was receiving a $3 million grant to drive innovation and technology advancements in the NSW forestry industry.

In August 2021 the Group purchased the assets of Dormit Pty Ltd which operated two sawmills and associated operations located at Dandenong South and Swifts Creek in Victoria. That same year Boral divested its timber business to the Group in October 2021. Allen Taylor & Company, Duncan’s Holdings and their subsidiaries (collectively known as Boral Timber) now trade under the brand Pentarch Forestry. This acquisition saw Pentarch add eight sawmills, including part ownership of the Highland Pine mill at Oberon, to allegedly become the largest hardwood processor in NSW.

Pentarch Forestry exports in excess of 800,000tn per annum of plantation softwood and hardwood from Australian and New Zealand ports. This division is actively involved in forestry harvesting and haulage; port logistics including marshalling, storage and stevedoring; and international marketing and shipping.

These days its forestry division boasts that its key woodchip and logs export destinations are; China, India, Japan, Korea and the Middle East. While its sawn timbers are listed as being sourced from; Malaysia, New Zealand and Australia. 

By 2022 the Pentarch Group operated 20 sites nationally with a high concentration of timber mills in NSW.

The Pentarch Group clearly states:

Timber sustainably sourced from our native forests is our most valuable and precious resource and Pentarch Forestry™ takes pride in finding ways to better use every part of that resource.

In particular Pentarch Forestry harvests Tasmanian hardwood logs from the north-west of that state and timber from native forests (including privately-owned native forest) on land around Nungatta, Mila & Delegate in NSW, as well as from Combienbar, Murrangower & Bendoc in Victoria and, apparently sees itself as helping to protect and manage a large permanent native forest estate.

[Mapping at https://pentarchforestry.com.au/sustainability-environment/sustainable-forest-management/]

The Group's milled native timber is ending up as everything from solid timber floor boards through to mass produced wooden pallets for industry and woodchips as a secondary product.

Its offices can be found at 18 different locations across five states. [See list & details at end of this post]

In its April 2022 submission to the NSW Legislative Council's INQUIRY INTO LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY AND FUTURE OF THE TIMBER AND FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY, Pentarch advocated for the permanent retention of multiuse State Forest. Also expressing a sense of frustration that the forestry industry had not been allowed carte blanche to clear the 2019-20 native forest fire grounds of all suitable timber. Apparently a firm believer in a forest restoration harvesting process. Leaving this reader with the suspicion that the Pentarch Group belongs to the 'lets keep the forest floor tidy' brigade.

2022 was also the year that Pentarch Forestry Pty Ltd had  its Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) sustainability certification (first obtained in 2017) suspended when a renewal audit found that Pentarch’s due diligence system was out of date, regrowth native forest and plantation wood were at risk of being mixed together, and threatened species assessments were not being done.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison & Chairman Pentarch Group Malcolm McComb. IMAGE: Merimbula News Weekly, 23 June 2020

Despite the apparent ease of access to political decision makers large forestry corporations appear to enjoy at federal & state government level, this apparently doesn't satisfy all in the industry that their voices are the loudest. 

The Pentarch Group chairman also reportedly co-founded Forest and Wood Communities Australia which has a dedicated website, a Facebook page and an X/Twitter account with the less than subtle principal aim of pushing back against so-called "environmental extremists", "ideological idiocy", criticising the Victorian Government and pressuring the NSW Minns Labor Government. The social media accounts in particular have a tendency to mislead.

The faces fronting the Pentarch Group are on display at:

http://www.pentarch.com.au/pentarch_team.html.

However, the principal corporations in this group are very careful to conceal shareholder identities - all shares in the following three registered companies are beneficially held by the companies on behalf of unnamed individuals/corporations.

Although it is not hard to imagine that the Sedger, McComb, Yuncken, Cuthbertson and Dadd families might properly feature heavily on the shareholder list - along with a discreet number of self-managed super funds, investment entities and trusts. It is also not hard to imagine that the 'hidden' nature of such shareholder lists might potentially contain conflicts of interest for state and local governments dealing with the forestry industry.

It is noted that the Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for Environment and Minister for Heritage, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional NSW and Minister for Western NSW and the NSW Treasurer were meeting in 2023 with members of the forestry industry concerning what was loosely described as "forestry industry reform" and "forestry matters".

~~~~~~~~~~

PENTARCH GROUP PTY LTD

ACN: 064 165 635

ABN: 21064165635

Registered in: Victoria

Registration date: 31/03/1994

Registered address & principal place of business:

'Kings Garden Estate' Level 1, 99 Coventry Street,

SOUTHBANK VIC 3006

Directors:

MALCOLM DAVID MCCOMB (Victoria)

IAN KENNETH SEDGER (Victoria)

SIMON JOHN YUNCKEN (Victoria)

FRASER JEFFREY CUTHBERTSON (Victoria)

STEPHEN GORDON DADD (NSW)

Company Secretary:

SIMON JOHN YUNCKEN

Shares issued:

Ordinary Shares - 1,438 Fully Paid

• 838 Beneficially held by: TIMBER AUDITS & TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD

• 600 Beneficially held by: PENTARCH GROUP PTY LTD

Current roles in the following organisations:

PENTARCH PERMACULTURE & CARBON PTY LTD

ACN: 661 995 035

ABN: 98661995035

Address: Unknown

OCEAN2EARTH PTY LTD

ACN: 663 110 629

ABN: 71663110629

Address: Unknown

Current shares and interests in:

*675,000 CLASS I SHARES & 1,125,000 CLASS

N_SHARES Fully Paid

Beneficially held by: SOUTH EAST FIBRE EXPORTS PTY LTD

ACN: 000 604 795

ABN: 85000604795

Address: Unit 1, 250 Charman Road, CHELTENHAM VIC 3192

*600 Ordinary Shares Fully Paid

Beneficially held by: PENTARCH HOLDINGS PTY. LTD

ACN: 064 165 635

ABN: 21064165635

Address: Level 1, 99 Coventry Street, SOUTHBANK VIC 3006

*96,000 Ordinary Shares Fully Paid

Beneficially held by: ALLIED NATURAL WOOD ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

ACN: 607 144 089

ABN: 65607144089

Address: Jews Head Edrom Road, EDEN NSW 2551

*96,000 Ordinary Shares Fully Paid

Beneficially held by: SAPPHIRE FORESTS PTY LTD

ACN: 607 256 780

ABN: 85607256780

Address: Jews Head Edrom Road, EDEN NSW 2551

*10,000 Ordinary Shares Fully Paid

Beneficially held by: ALLIED NATURAL WOOD EXPORTS (TAS) PTY LTD

ACN: 619 876 345

ABN: 23619876345

Address: Jews Head, EDROM NSW 2551

*1,000 Ordinary Shares Fully Paid

Beneficially held by: FORESTS IN PERPETUITY PTY LTD

ACN: 639 068 732

ABN: 84639068732

Address: Level 1, 99 Coventry Street, SOUTHBANK VIC 3006

*73,740 Ordinary Shares Fully Paid

Beneficially held by: TIMBER AUDITS & TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD

ACN: 094 390 271

ABN: 88094390271

Address: 'Kings Garden Estate' Level 1, 99 Coventry Street, SOUTHBANK VIC 3006

*10,000 Ordinary Shares Fully Paid

Beneficially held by: PENTARCH PERMACULTURE & CARBON PTY LTD

ACN: 661 995 035

ABN: 98661995035

Address: Level 1, 99 Coventry Street, SOUTHBANK VIC 3006

~~~~~~~~~~

PENTARCH HOLDINGS PTY. LTD

ACN: 064 165 635

ABN: 21064165635

Registered in: Victoria

Registration date: 31/03/1994

Registered address & principal place of business:

'Kings Garden Estate' Level 1, 99 Coventry Street,

SOUTHBANK VIC 3006

Directors:

MALCOLM DAVID MCCOMB (Victoria)

IAN KENNETH SEDGER (Victoria)

SIMON JOHN YUNCKEN (Victoria)

FRASER JEFFREY CUTHBERTSON (Victoria)

STEPHEN GORDON DADD (NSW)

Company Secretary:

SIMON JOHN YUNCKEN

Shares issued:

Ordinary Shares - 1,438 Fully Paid

• 838 Beneficially Held by: TIMBER AUDITS & TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD

• 600 Beneficially Held by: PENTARCH GROUP PTY LTD

Ultimate holding company for:

PENTARCH FOREST PRODUCTS PTY LTD

ACN: 059 465 879

ABN: 57059465879

Address: Level 2, 121-123 High Street, PRAHRAN VIC 3181

ARI LEASING PTY. LTD

ACN: 072 963 798

ABN: 77072963798

Address: Unknown

PENTARCH LOGISTICS PTY LTD

ACN: 075 432 254

ABN: 99075432254

Address: Level 2, 121-123 High Street, PRAHRAN VIC 3181

PENTARCH AGRICULTURAL PTY LTD

ACN: 101 274 613

ABN: 45101274613

Address: "KINGS GARDEN ESTATE", Level 1, 99 Coventry

Street, SOUTH MELBOURNE VIC 3205

SAPPHIRE HAULAGE PTY LTD

ACN: 132 292 436

ABN: 55132292436

Address: Unknown

NARROGIN HAY PTY LTD

ACN: 104 157 593

ABN: 73104157593

Address: 'Kings Garden Estate' Level 1, 99 Coventry Street, SOUTHBANK VIC 3006

PENTARCH STEVEDORING PTY LTD

ACN: 108 439 185

ABN: 53108439185

Address: 'Kings Garden Estate' Level 1, 99 Coventry Street, SOUTHBANK VIC 3006

MALLEE HAY PTY LTD

ACN: 123 956 089

ABN: 78123956089

Address: 'Kings Garden Estate' Level 1, 99 Coventry Street, SOUTHBANK VIC 3006

PENTARCH FARMS PTY LTD

ACN: 123 956 105

ABN: 97123956105

Address: 'Kings Garden Estate' Level 1, 99 Coventry Street, SOUTHBANK VIC 3006

~~~~~~~~~~

TIMBER AUDITS & TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD

ACN: 094 390 271

ABN: 88094390271

Registered in: Victoria

Registration date: 06/09/2000

Registered address & principal place of business:

Registered address: 'Kings Garden Estate' Level 1, 99 Coventry Street, SOUTHBANK VIC 3006

Directors:

MALCOLM DAVID MCCOMB (Victoria)

IAN KENNETH SEDGER (Victoria)

SIMON JOHN YUNCKEN (Victoria)

Company Secretary:

SIMON JOHN YUNCKEN

Shares issued:

Ordinary Shares - 73,740 Fully Paid

Beneficially held by: PENTARCH GROUP PTY LTD

~~~~~~~~~~

Pentarch Group offices current as of 17.02.24:

TASMANIA

Massy Greene Drive

South Burnie, Tas, 7320

PO Box 3033

Ph: 03 6430 7333

VICTORIA

Level 1, 99 Coventry Street

Southbank, Vic, 3006

Ph: 03 9621 7900

Great Alpine Road,

Swifts Creek, Vic, 3896

Ph: 03 5159 4438

98 Indian Drive

Keysborough, Vic, 3173

Ph: 1800 818 317

96-106 Ordish Road,

Dandenong, Vic, 3175

Ph: 03 9706 5744

QUEENSLAND

838 Nudgee Road

Northgate, Qld, 4013

Ph: 1800 818 317

Suite 12 Level 1,

84 Wises Road

Maroochydore, Qld, 4558

PO Box 5561

Ph: 1800 818 317

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

176-178 Magill Road

Norwood, SA, 5067

Ph: 1800 818 317

NEW SOUTH WALES

Eden Log Export Facility

Lot 2, Edrom Road

Eden, NSW, 2551

Ph: 02 6496 0252

Eden, NSW

Eden Chip Export Terminal

Edrom Road, Jews Head

Eden, NSW, 2551

Ph: 02 6496 0222

420 Herons Creek Road

Herons Creek, NSW, 2443

Ph: 02 6585 7188

43 Mill Road

Koolkhan, NSW, 2460

PO Box 437

Ph: 02 6644 7280

13056 Summerland Way

Kyogle, NSW, 2474

PO Box 187

Ph: 02 6632 1866

148 Tweed Valley Way

Murwillumbah, NSW, 2484

PO Box 56

Ph: 02 6670 8700

6016/6018 Princess Highway

Narooma, NSW, 2546

PO Box 75

Ph: 02 4476 7908

Unit D1, Regents Park Estate

391 Park Road

Regents Park, NSW, 2143

Ph: 1800 818 317

50 BTU Road

South Nowra, NSW, 2541

PO Box 5014

Ph: 02 4447 8262

PRINCIPAL SOURCES:

• ASIC company extracts retrieved 16.02.24
• The Pentarch Group website at http://www.pentarch.com.au/

• Industry news media
• Submission 233, NSW Legislative Council Inquiry into Long term sustainability and future of the timber and forests products industry. 
• Pentarch Forestry, Forestry Management Plan, September 2019.
• NSW Government, 2023 Ministers' Diary Disclosures at https://www.nsw.gov.au/departments-and-agencies/the-cabinet-office/access-to-information/ministers-diary-disclosures/2023
• The New Bush Telegraph, NSW Biggest Native Forest Logger Loses Sustainability Certification, 10 September 2022.
• Michael West Independent Media, Big logging company Pentarch pinged for shifty forestry practices, 7 September 2022.
• Forest and Wood Communities Australia at https://fwca.org.au/news/  https://twitter.com/woodcommunities & https://www.facebook.com/WoodCommunities/