Critics argue the pace is unrealistic given constraints on labour and building materials, particularly timber, especially after the Father’s Day announcement that more than 176,000 hectares of prime State Forest would be set aside for an enlarged Great Koala National Park. That decision, championed by Minister Penny Sharpe, will effectively shut off the state’s best source of architectural hardwood.

According to the Housing Industry Association (HIA), both softwood and hardwood are essential for construction. Timber needs vary across building types, with apartments and detached one- to two-storey homes requiring between 9 and 20 cubic metres of timber. The HIA states that, based on current estimates, the average amount of structural timber used in a traditional new one- to two-storey detached home is 14.58m. Approximately 68 per cent is softwood timber, and 32 per cent is hardwood timber.

Already blackbutt index has increased 46.5 per cent in nominal terms over the five years since June 2020, while the spotted gum flooring index has risen 39.8 per cent over the same period. These figures are indicative of broader trends in hardwood products.

In the same five years, Western Australia and Victoria closed their native hardwood industries, further tightening supply. In the past six months, hardwood prices have varied by just under 4 per cent across species — above the rate of inflation — and are expected to rise further depending on housing demand. By contrast, softwood prices have fallen in the same period, reflecting lower housing starts, as softwood is primarily used for framing.

A simple piece of mathematics suggests that the amount of hardwood needed for apartments for a two-storey house is 2.88 and 6.4 cubic metres. On the assumption that an average-sized native forest tree yields 0.5 cubic metres of architectural-quality timber, it takes one and a half to ten hardwood trees to build an apartment or a two-storey house.

If an apartment building has ten units, then fifteen hardwood trees are required for that one construction.

Past closures in Western Australia’s jarrah industry and Victoria’s mountain ash sector have already driven up hardwood prices. With 47 per cent of Australia’s hardwood now imported, reliance on overseas supply is expected to grow, adding further delays and costs. Imported hardwoods are often priced above Australian equivalents, compounding affordability pressures.

The NSW Government’s housing targets may prove difficult to achieve without a secure timber supply. As approvals accelerate, the question remains whether the state can deliver homes at the promised scale while balancing environmental commitments and construction realities.

The decision by Ross Cadell, NSW Nationals Senator, to go after Michael O’Connor and the Timber, Furnishing and Textiles Union (TFTU) over Anthony Albanese and Murray Watt’s ‘dirty EPBC deal’ with the Greens is puzzling to say the least.

“Last time I checked, the union existed for its members, not to run a protection racket for the dirty deal done between Labor and The Greens,” Senator Cadell, the Shadow Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, Water, and Emergency Management, said in Canberra today. “The claim that we’re ‘mimicking Green talking points’ is complete hypocrisy from the TFTU, who have been non-existent in the lead up to last week’s vote.”

Whether it’s petty politics or poor policy, Cadell, the Nationals (and, by extension, the Coalition) have missed the trick (again) – and now risk being left without a musical chair for the second time in weeks. Instead of slagging off the unions – now the industry’s best hope at salvaging timber jobs – it should be locking its crosshairs squarely at the Greens.

Last week, Wood Central reported that Michael O’Connor, the National Secretary of the TFTU – Australia’s only timber union – warned that the media, the Coalition, and (select) members should be careful with how they frame EPBC reforms and the future of the industry: “The Greens are way off the mark by claiming this is the death of native forestry,” O’Connor said, cautioning that “some Liberal and National Party MPs and industry bodies should be cautious about mimicking Green talking points.”

“I’m not sure what they are thinking,” an ex-liberal staffer told Jack Rodden Green today. “It’s clear they are not thinking along policy lines or constructively; they are lashing out. They’d do well to recall what John Howard (the Liberals’ second-longest serving leader) did in opposition, who worked constructively with the Hawke government to find national solutions.

I have written extensively about the challenge for forestry (and for all land-based activities impacted by this reform) is to establish a new bilateral process – similar to an RFA – between the states and the federal government, which in many ways is an equivalent to an RFA.

As for Senator Cadell, who today warned that the festive season always brings out the turkey…it also shows who is the goose too.

This week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese painted the Federal Coalition as inept and childish, whilst Environment Minister Murray Watt described negotiations over the long-awaited EPBC Reform Bill as “shambolic.” That was the line the mainstream media ran with.

But in Parliament, the Prime Minister said something else—something that cut against the prevailing narrative. He thanked Liberal Senator Jonno Duniam, the former Agriculture and Forestry Minister under the Coalition government, for his “good faith negotiations.”

That acknowledgement matters.

Last week, Wood Central carried two major pieces on the reform story.

Michelle Grattan’s analysis was scathing of the Coalition, under the headline “When the Music Stopped, the Greens Outplayed the Coalition.” Meanwhile, a joint article by academics Justine Bell-James (UQ), Euan Ritchie (Deakin), Phillipa McCormack (Adelaide), and Yung En Chee (Melbourne) ran under the banner “Environmental Reform Has Finally Landed: But Can it Protect Nature?”

Buried in their assessment was a surprising concession: “Wins for Liberals.”

Among those wins was Senator Duniam’s push to reshape the definition of “unacceptable impacts” on critically endangered species.

The final Bill pares this back to projects that “seriously impair viability.” In practice, developments cannot be rejected simply because they might impair viability—they must do so in a way that is severe in nature and extent.

This shift, subtle in wording but significant in effect, strengthens certainty for business and industries such as forestry. It also reflects Duniam’s ability to secure outcomes in a hostile negotiating environment.

The Bill passed on 28 November 2025, though the final text is not yet available on the Parliamentary website.

A Senator Who Does the Heavy Lifting

Jonno Duniam is no stranger to environmental portfolios. He served as Shadow Minister for the Environment in the last Parliament, and before that as Assistant Minister for the Environment in the Coalition Government. At the time, insiders noted that Duniam often shouldered the work that then-Minister David Littleproud found “too difficult or challenging.”

Before entering federal politics, Duniam was Chief of Staff to the Tasmanian Premier. Having spoken to a colleague who spent a short time with the Senator in a Hobart whiskey bar down the lane from the Tasmanian ALP Office (although noting he didn’t actually drink), he can attest to his focus and conviction.

Duniam is a champion for the Tasmanian timber industry and is very clear about what drives him. It is evident he is a rising star in the Federal Coalition—literally a standout in the current party room.

Why Albanese’s Praise Matters

Anthony Albanese is not known for offering easy compliments to his opponents. His reputation is that of a hard fighter, often uncompromising in the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate. For him to go on record acknowledging Duniam’s “good faith” is no small gesture.

It signals that even in a week where the Coalition was cast as chaotic, one senator managed to cut through—delivering tangible outcomes and earning respect across the aisle.

In the end, when the dust settled on the EPBC reforms, the Prime Minister’s words spoke louder than the headlines. The truth sometimes shines through the theatre. This week, it shone on Jonno Duniam.

That is Wrong.

Under Section 34 of the current EPBC Act, where a Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) is in place and named, a forestry operation does not seek approval under Part 9 of the Act. But this does not mean the operation is exempt from the EPBC Act in respect to threatened species.

The Federal Court has held that an RFA provides an alternative mechanism for achieving the objects of the EPBC Act, through an intergovernmental agreement that allocates responsibility to the States for regulating matters of national environmental significance within an agreed framework.

Statements by Green Senators suggest they have not read the Federal Court decision. The record is clear—and publicly available on the Federal Court’s judgments database.

The move to abolish RFAs represents a major step backwards in environmental control of Australia’s forests.

No longer will the terms and criteria contained in the Regional Forest Agreement Act 2002 operate through the intergovernmental agreement recognised by the Court. Those criteria were derived from the Montreal Process, to which Australia is a voluntary member, though not a signatory.

The constitutional reality is that land control is a State issue. Forests — whether on State land, private land, public reserves or plantations — were regulated through RFAs. With their abolition, that framework is gone.

So what is really going on here?

The Federal Government’s advice appears poor. More plausibly, the Government has played politics simply to push through the Reform Bill. The EPBC Act already contains a structure for approval through bilateral agreements.

The RFA phase-out period is 12 months. That is sufficient time to put in place a bilateral agreement with NSW, Tasmania, and Queensland. Essentially, an intergovernmental agreement, just like the RFA, but probably with more than forestry in it.

The practical issue is capacity.

Despite the growth in the Australian Public Service, the Commonwealth does not have the national structure of field officers required to inspect all operations approved under the EPBC Act.

If National Environment Standards are to be effective, inspections will fall to State equivalents of environmental protection authorities. This raises concerns, particularly if the NSW EPA’s operational procedures are any guide. Yet it also offers the Commonwealth a pragmatic way forward.

Any new intergovernmental agreement will need to account for State compliance across mining, forestry and agriculture. There is speculation here, but calmly considered, these are real options.

The Greens, however, have once again played with misinformation. On land use — particularly forestry — they appear not to have analysed where these issues might lead.

The certainty is that the Greens have empowered their support groups to gear up for lawfare. Public interest environmental groups, as a matter of policy, do not face costs orders for unsuccessful litigation. This creates a powerful incentive to disrupt business operations until companies walk away. The objective is clear: shut down successful industries. Forestry, agriculture and mining — particularly gas — have all been targeted.

One could say that in the EPBC Reform Bill, the acknowledgment of “stuff” or “events” is sorely missing.

The Reform Bill package is about compliance. Only compliance.

It fails to take into account the real world of mining, agriculture, raw earth extraction, and forestry operations—everything where human business meets the natural environment.

Minister Watt has clearly attempted to bring forward a “protection of the natural environment” that does not frighten Australia’s economic drivers.

Unfortunately, someone in the Department of Climate forgot about the circumstances in which good businesses—those that continuously make efforts to comply with environmental law—operate.

The starting point is that a well‑operated business working in the natural environment cares about the well‑being of that environment. A good operator unconsciously acts as a steward of the natural environment. For those who scoff at this, ask yourself: why would a business dependent on the well‑being of the natural environment willingly destroy it?

The Reform Bill does not set any standard for good environmental business practice, nor does it reward businesses for such practice. You may ask: what has this got to do with a big‑stick environmental compliance bill?

If the objective of the bill is to protect threatened species in the natural environment and to permit, through the approvals process, various business activities in that environment, then a more collaborative legislative approach might have been contemplated.

A useful comparison is the Work Health and Safety legislative model throughout Australia. It could have been a purely compliance model with “thou shalt not” provisions. Indeed, it has these, but they sit alongside actions that a business is required to undertake.

If a business does these things, then any “event” that may occur is balanced against these good‑practice requirements.

It is a legislative carrot‑and‑stick approach that includes quasi‑business operating standards to assist businesses in achieving compliance.

Some say this is a legislative behavioural model to alter business practices; others acknowledge that it is simply common sense.

It ensures that aberrant conduct is caught out, but when good practice is hit by unforeseen circumstances, there is not just “lots of stick.”

The Corporations Act 2001 contains a similar approach through the business judgment rule.

The EPBC Reform Bill needs the same style of provision.

Provided a business operates with the best-known methods at the time, if an unexpected “unacceptable impact” occurs, the compliance agency and judicial system should be able to consider whether the business faced circumstances beyond its control that impeded full compliance.

For a business operating in the real world—out among nature and all its variables—this means there is a commonsense defence around the factors resulting in a failure‑to‑comply event.

The “best known method” acts as a best‑practice standard, and the capacity to have a defence against unforeseen events allows that event to become a contested set of facts instead of being a black‑and‑white contravention of what is currently a subjective compliance measure.

Timber NSW has been advocating for such an inclusion in the EPBC Act since 2021.

The EPBC Bill reforms point to a future of contested science, paving the way for public-interest matters before the Federal Court. Forestry is at the forefront of this, with a great deal of (arguably) contested science.

Whether fibre (timber), minerals, or other commodities, any litigation that stops operations will hit supply chains. Yet, impacted downstream supply‑chain businesses have no capacity to act as defendants in such litigation.

A better way would be to allow these businesses to assist the Court, particularly in ensuring it has all the relevant information to make a decision.

This could be achieved through the facility of being amicus curiae.

The beauty of having this explicit in the new EPBC Act is that participation of a business as amicus curiae remains at the discretion of the Court. It will not open the floodgates, so to speak.

It would be a simple provision to create a statutory right for a business in a supply chain impacted by litigation to apply to the Court to be amicus curiae. This would be another positive, business‑friendly measure in line with the objective of ensuring balanced protection of the natural environment and its good stewardship.

Please note: Wood Central can reveal that this suggestion was submitted to Minister Watt by Timber NSW.

What was presented as a framework for safeguarding Australian biodiversity increasingly looks like a vehicle for environmental lawfare, one that risks being weaponised to block forestry, farming, and agricultural activity without proper oversight or accountability.

Over the weekend, Environment Minister Murray Watt vowed that the EPBC National Environmental Standards will be fully enforceable on forestry within three years. (When the Bill is passed, it will impact agriculture, mining, and commercial activity immediately.) That timeline may sound reassuring to those in forestry who want certainty, but it raises deeper questions about whether the system being built is fit for purpose.

If the hearings revealed anything, it is that the proposed regulatory architecture is riddled with flaws that undermine both fairness and governance:

• Environmental protection orders can be issued without a right of hearing. Landholders and businesses may face binding restrictions without the opportunity to contest or even properly understand the grounds.
• The Environment Protection Authority is positioned as both licensor and compliance enforcer. In corporate governance terms, those functions should be separated to avoid conflicts of interest. Concentrating power in one body erodes trust and transparency.
• The legislation grants sweeping powers to issue rulings, yet provides no mechanism for independent review. In a system where decisions can reshape livelihoods and industries, the absence of checks and balances is indefensible.
• National environmental standards are delegated legislation, but there appears to be no way for stakeholders to review or comment on their content. Such opacity is inappropriate for rules that will carry the force of law and shape land-use across the country.

Forestry, farming, and agriculture are not fringe activities; they are the backbone of regional economies and national supply chains. Yet under the EPBC framework, these sectors risk being tied up in litigation and regulatory uncertainty. Instead of delivering environmental outcomes, the legislation could become a blunt instrument wielded to obstruct legitimate activity.

The irony is that genuine environmental protection requires credibility, balance, and accountability. Without those, the EPBC risks losing the confidence of the very communities it seeks to regulate. Worse, it risks becoming a tool for activists and litigants rather than a framework for stewardship.

Australia deserves environmental laws that protect biodiversity while respecting livelihoods. What it does not need is a system that confuses conservation with control, or accountability with unchecked power.

If the EPBC proceeds in its current form, it won’t be remembered as a landmark in environmental protection – but as the moment lawfare replaced good governance.

Federal Court judges will now decide whether to accept the application to appear as amicus curiae—a friend of the court. This move highlights what I discussed last Friday: the “Trojan horse” of the federal government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act reforms, which in itself raises questions about the balance of power in environmental litigation.

Environmental groups enjoy significant financial strength, thanks in part to federal legislation. Under the Charities Act 2013, they can seek charitable status, which provides income tax exemption. Registered charities endorsed by the Australian Tax Office may also qualify as Deductible Gift Recipients, allowing donors to claim tax deductions. In both cases, the Australian taxpayer effectively subsidises these organisations, reducing revenue available for government expenditure.

Some environmental NGOs report substantial incomes. WWF Australia disclosed revenue of $52 million in its most recent return to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. The Nature Conservation Council of NSW reported nearly $4 million, while the Environmental Defenders Office in Sydney recorded just under $18 million. These are only three examples among many.

By contrast, the forestry sector does not enjoy comparable tax advantages and often lacks the resources to defend litigation. While large corporations dominate the softwood industry, the hardwood sector is characterised by small, usually family-run businesses. If the federal government is serious about maintaining a forestry industry—particularly a native forestry industry—it may need to consider reforms to level the playing field.

One proposal is the introduction of a “business judgment rule” into the EPBC Act. TimberNSW, representing the majority of hardwood businesses in New South Wales, raised the idea in a 2021 Senate submission during the inquiry into the Leadbeater’s Possum case. The rule, similar to that available to company directors under the Corporations Act 2001, would provide a defence where operators had exercised due care and undertaken best-practice measures. It is not a “get out of jail card,” but a recognition that accidents can occur in complex operations despite best endeavours.

Another reform under discussion is the establishment of a statutory right for supply-chain entities to participate in injunction proceedings as amici curiae. This would apply to industries such as gas, coal, critical minerals and forestry, ensuring that commercial interests and Australian jobs can be represented in hearings.

Currently, environmental NGOs obtain standing through common law rights, upheld by the High Court earlier this year. Extending similar rights to businesses would not weaken environmental laws—National Environmental Standards would still apply—but would allow commercial interests to present scientific evidence and counter-narratives in contested cases.

Environmental groups argue that EPBC approval holders already have adequate resources to defend challenges. Industry representatives reject this as a generalisation, noting that disputes often hinge on competing scientific opinions. In such cases, they argue, fairness requires that both sides of the narrative be given a voice.

Native forestry is, at the best of times, a complex matter. This complexity runs from constitutional limitations on Commonwealth power through to the variability of state government regulations, which extend down to the diameter measurements of trees permitted for harvest.

Environment Minister Murray Watt, however, has made three points clear:

• There will be no specific forestry National Environmental Standard.
• The new National Environmental Standards will apply to the forestry industry, and
• The current RFA exemption (in Part 4 of the Act) for approval under Part 9 of the Act (for matters in Part 3) will remain.

The idea that the Commonwealth legislation concerns the environment generally is incorrect. The EPBC Act and the NES only concern threatened species. This is due to a constitutional limitation imposed by the Commonwealth. The balance of environmental matters sits with the States and Territories. The Commonwealth does not have control over land use or forestry operations in the States or forestry operations under State control.

• Under the Reforms, the National Environmental Standards are a condition for approval (Part 9 of the Act). 
• An approval occurs because an “action” is present (this refers to any itemised item in Part 3 of the Act). 
• An “action” is an outcome or a likely outcome related to threatened species. 
• The assessment of an NES in relation to an “action” must be a “net gain”  meaning the concept of “nature positive.”

The Commonwealth’s powers in the environment area appear  in the foreign treaty power in the Commonwealth Constitution. The only Treaties signed concern threatened species. 

In one of the new standards called the Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES,) there is an “unacceptable impacts test”.  This test has two parts: ‘species’ and ‘habitat’. This test outcome will need to be mitigated or avoided before a project can be approved (or commenced in the case of forestry).

For threatened species an “unacceptable impact” is where the impact “seriously impairs” the “viability” of the species “to survive and recover in the wild in a particular region” being “seriously altered for the worse”.

Alternatively, the impact is likely to cause serious damage to “critical habitat” of the species, and the habitat is “irreplaceable” and necessary for the species to remain viable.

“Net gain” must be shown with each approval where there is a residual impact.  Net gain is obtained by an offset and/or payment of a restoration contribution charge.

With  regard to ‘forestry operations’, the immediate challenge for the Commonwealth Government is how are the NES conditions to an approval going to apply, when an approval is not required under the EPBC Act?

The Regional Forestry Agreements Act is part of the Commonwealth -State forestry arrangements regarding this exemption from the EPBC Act. The Commonwealth seeks to regulate forestry in the States relating to  threatened species through these statutory instruments of Federal-State arrangements.  The Commonwealth  has the constitutional power over threatened species and the States have the control  over the land mass.   

 Amending this Act is unlikely as altering the Regional Forestry Agreements between the Commonwealth and States, which operate on a five-year rotation, presents problems of creating new agreements and transitional periods.

The Commonwealth Government stated it supports a native forestry industry.  Then  it has to outline how it proposes  the NES regime applies to  the forestry sector.  So far  there has not been wide industry consultation on the issue.  The challenge is  the industry sector will require wide  consultation.

Consultation on  every aspect of the timber supply chain is important and required to  understand the sector.   This includes State Governments, private land holders, plantation owners and operators, harvest contractors and transport companies and saw millers and further processors. None of this is impossible, but it’s a challenge.

Continuing misinformation from ENGOs includes disregarding State Government regulations, the science of silviculture, misusing technical terms for publicity and distortion of  public data.

Litigation, sometimes called lawfare,  becomes a precise contest between and around the scientific findings of the impact of native forestry on threatened species and native habitat.

The gift from the federal government of the EPBC Reform to the forestry sector, will be watching the rise of the various ENGOs and the EDO try to establish common law standing of the enforcement of public rights. This will be funded  using money  raised through charitable and DTG provisions.

Expect to see them challenge  Australia wide forestry operations on the basis of “viability” of species and serious damage to habitat.

It was introduced to the Legislative Council the following day, where it has stayed.

The real story is how the government obtained the numbers to pass this Bill through the Legislative Assembly. It was a trade-off made between two different policy issues.

NSW Government liabilities and native forestry.

Firstly the major beneficiary of this Bill is not business, large or small.  It is the NSW State Government. 

The State Government is facing an avalanche of increased psychological injuries (mental health injuries).  This Bill is designed to appear business-friendly. Not true.

So look at the amendments to the Bill. The Independents and the Greens successfully amended the Bill.

These issues covered excessive work demands,  psychological injuries (mental health injuries), and an exclusion for firefighters.

Clearly, these groups had issues with the Bill concerning psychological injuries.  So why did they accept limited amendments, which, from the government’s perspective, still effectively limited future workers’ compensation liability?

The answer is that the Great Koala National Park is the full assessment area of 176,000 hectares.

In June, all indications from the NSW Government were that the ALP 2023 Election promise of a Great Koala National Park and a viable, sustainable native forest industry could be met with less than the maximum land claim from NSW State Forests.

However, the Independents and the Greens supported the Workers Compensation legislation with amendments, providing that the full 176,000 hectares of forest would be transitioned to the new Koala park.

The decision was made, and the Cabinet had to support it.

Between the third reading of the Workers Compensation Bill on 3 June and the announcement of the Park on 7 September, the Premier and the Minister for the Environment visited selected timber mills and businesses, and their employees, on the North Coast, and met with environmental groups, tourism operators, and First Nations groups.

On the 7 September (Fathers Day) a raft of “good” things were announced in conjunction with removing 40% of the timber production in the region to establish the Great Koala National Park.

A 10-week business continuity package for those mills closed with 24 hours’ notice, stand-down payments for contractors working in the assessment area and no real plan for the industry going forward – but there was a fund announced for the development of new, largely tourism businesses. All done to demonstrate the government’s support.

Already, this package of goodies is being exposed as nothing special, and indeed, some aspects are just a string of words on a piece of paper or website.  More on this to come.

Firstly, the Minister for the Environment waxed on about the creation of an international tourist attraction. Obviously, she has not been briefed on a review by an internationally recognised professor of economics, business and management specialising in tourism.

In short, the report was scathing of the one produced by the University of Newcastle, describing it as a poorly modelled, self-serving answer to the brief provided by Destinations North Coast, Coffs Harbour Council, and others, demonstrating highly flawed research. Visitation numbers to Coffs Harbour were modelled on visitation numbers to London!

The Minister also ignored the real experience in the Murray Valley when, in 2010, one of her ALP predecessors largely closed a timber industry by making similar claims.

These days in Deniliquin and Mathoura, few tourists, even fewer businesses and less population as people moved away. Now, Ministers Paul Scully and Kate Wasington, when in Opposition, visited Mathoura and the National Park and saw firsthand the ghost town that had developed.

Of course, the Minister fails to acknowledge that koalas tend to stay hidden. It will not be like Taronga Zoo, where koalas in the koala enclosure are on display and will remain the premier koala viewing location, as it is conveniently located near 4- and 5-star accommodation, just half an hour away.

Then there is the governance around the announcement. No one realised that ceasing delivery of wood to the largest sawmiller in the North would impact downstream wood residue businesses. These range from other mills for their boilers, beef producers and processors, sugar refining, poultry producers, equine centres, landscapers supplying Sydney and those businesses providing maintenance.  

All would be entitled to compensation for loss of business and possibly retrenched employees. Timber jobs are well-paid and specialised, forcing closures and people to move away from regional centres. The costs keep growing. These have not been considered.

The Minns Government did not do its homework – it played politics.

Alex Greenwich, MP for Sydney, ran a notice of motion on 10 Sept 2025. He was the leader of the crossbench who allegedly forced the maximum size GKNP by trading support for the Government’s Workers Compensation (cutting) legislation.  He lives in inner Sydney.

Two National MPs are trying hard: Ritchie Williams and Gurmesh Singh.  Michael Kemp, the MP for Oxley, who is the real fighter, is away from Parliament due to a death in the family.  The people doing something in the Parliament are Upper House members Hon Mark Banasiak, Hon Wes Fang, and Hon Nichole Overall.

And then there is the Liberal Party that dealt itself out of the issue by abstaining from the vote after the first debate on the GKNP on 9 Sept 2025. They have not sought recent briefings or information from the industry, which comprises small and medium-sized businesses.

The Liberal Parliamentary leadership considers the issue to be complex because the ENGOs have been running letter-writing campaigns. When one Liberal MP was asked about the letter-writing campaign, the number of letters received was equivalent to 1 per cent of the population of the particular electorate.

Modelling that to the total number of voters makes it about 3 per cent. Polling data from several years of different surveys is consistent with support for koalas and the GKNP. Clearly not a majority nor a reason to abandon impacted small businesses and cripple the timber supply to the statewide housing industry.

The Coalition has not held the Government accountable for its administrative incompetence in the areas of Treasury, Premiers, Climate Energy and Environment, Primary Industry, and regional development.

The voters deserve better. They will not get better until the Coalition becomes a political force and holds an ALP Government to account.

A Government that presents as slick and reasonable but has a string of administrative stumbles going straight to the keeper.