Forestry Australia President Dr Michelle Freeman has used a 3AW Mornings with Tom Elliott interview to make an important point about Victoria’s native forest harvesting ban: the demand for timber did not vanish when the harvesting stopped. It simply moved.

Dr Freeman was responding to an ABC News report revealing that the native hardwood once cut in Victoria’s Gippsland is now being sourced from Tasmania, with logs shipped across Bass Strait and processed through Victorian mills.

“I must admit, I’m rather bemused by all the reporting that’s been coming out about this recently, because it’s not surprising at all,” she told Elliott. “Stopping timber harvesting in one area doesn’t magically make demand for that timber go away. Australians want and need timber products, and they should.”

She argued the real-world alternative to homegrown timber is rarely no timber at all, but a switch to materials with a heavier environmental footprint. “If we’re not sourcing timber from our own backyard, we have to get it from elsewhere, or substitute it with other products that are almost always non-renewable, like steel, concrete or plastic,” Dr Freeman said, noting timber’s role as a renewable, carbon-storing material with proven health benefits for the people who live and work around it.

Pressed by Elliott on suggestions that Tasmanian logs are reaching Victorian mills through a regulatory loophole, Dr Freeman declined to comment on the specifics of the legislation but defended the integrity of the supply chain. “Harvesting in Australia is highly regulated and independently certified,” she said. “I’m confident that whatever is happening is in line with the rules and regulations, because the oversight is strong and there’s such high scrutiny on these operations, particularly from environmental groups. They really can’t be getting away with doing anything untoward.”

Her most pertinent warning was reserved for what happens when domestic supply is wound back and Australia leans harder on imports it cannot always trace. She pointed to a timber trade deficit running at around $2 billion a year, “a significant proportion” of it sourced from what she called high-risk countries: “those where the sustainability, environmental and social credentials are hard to verify.” That, she said, includes conflict timber from Russia entering Australia via China.

“So Australia really needs to decide what it wants,” Dr Freeman said. “For me personally, I would much rather we sourced our timber needs locally, from our own forests, where we know where it’s come from and we can verify it.”

Full transcript

3AW Mornings with Tom Elliott — Monday 22 June 2026
Guest: Dr Michelle Freeman, President, Forestry Australia

TOM ELLIOTT: Evidence has come out today that we haven’t stopped using native timber to lay our floors and build our homes — but instead of getting it from Victoria, primarily from Gippsland, we’re now getting it from Tasmania. So we’re not chopping down Victorian trees, but we are chopping down Tasmanian trees. Joining me now is the President of Forestry Australia, Dr Michelle Freeman. Good morning.

DR MICHELLE FREEMAN: Good morning.

TOM ELLIOTT: So, is this true, that we still use native timber, we just get more of it from Tassie and less of it from Victoria now?

DR FREEMAN: I must admit, I’m rather bemused by all the reporting that’s been coming out about this recently, because it’s not surprising at all. Stopping timber harvesting in one area doesn’t magically make demand for that timber go away. Australians want and need timber products, and they should. Timber is renewable and natural, it captures and stores carbon to help us combat climate change, and it’s beautiful. The mental and physical health benefits of living and working in timber buildings have been proven. So if we’re not sourcing timber from our own backyard, we have to get it from elsewhere, or substitute it with other products that are almost always non-renewable, like steel, concrete or plastic.

TOM ELLIOTT: And I understand the Tasmanian government, they’re not supposed to export logs out of Tasmania, they’re supposed to be sawn up at Tassie sawmills. But apparently there’s some sort of loophole that allows them to be brought to Victoria and chopped up in sawmills here.

DR FREEMAN: I can’t comment on the details of the actual legislation, but what I can say is that harvesting in Australia is highly regulated and independently certified. I’m confident that whatever is happening is in line with the rules and regulations, because the oversight is strong and there’s such high scrutiny on these operations, particularly from environmental groups. They really can’t be getting away with doing anything untoward. And I think we need to look at the bigger picture here as well. In this case, at least we’re still sourcing our timber from Australian forests, which have strong oversight and are strongly regulated. But the reality is that Australia is already a net importer of wood products from international forests. Our timber trade deficit is to the tune of $2 billion a year, and we know a significant proportion of that comes from what we call high-risk countries, those where the sustainability, environmental and social credentials are hard to verify. And that does include conflict timber from Russia coming into Australia via China. So Australia really needs to decide what it wants. For me personally, I would much rather we sourced our timber needs locally, from our own forests, where we know where it’s come from and we can verify it.

TOM ELLIOTT: Oh, I agree. Thank you, Michelle, Dr Michelle Freeman there, President of Forestry Australia. And again, I remember the Premier, or former Premier, Daniel Andrews gave himself a big pat on the back, again bending over backwards for the Greens, acting like, “Right, we’re not cutting down native trees in Victoria anymore,” at least not ones in native forest. The problem is, we’re still using timber. So it comes from Indonesia, it comes from Russia, it comes from Tasmania. We’re still chopping down trees.