Tasmanian Forestry Conflicts: Why We're Still Logging Native Forests in 2026

The Chainsaw That Won't Stop

Tasmania's native forest debate should, by any rational measure, be over. The economics don't stack up. The science is clear. Public opinion has shifted dramatically. And yet, in 2026, Tasmanian Forestry Enterprise (TFE) - a state-owned corporation - continues to log old-growth and high-conservation-value native forests, with the full backing of the Tasmanian Liberal government and, at the federal level, the quiet acquiescence of both major parties.

This is one of those policy areas where the gap between what the public wants and what governments do is genuinely staggering. Let's break down why.

What's Actually Happening

Tasmania contains some of the last temperate rainforest on Earth. Its forests - including Tasmanian blue gum, swamp gum (the world's tallest flowering plant), and ancient Huon pines - represent an irreplaceable ecological inheritance.

Despite this, TFE continues to operate with a state government wood supply guarantee that obliges it to provide timber to processors regardless of market conditions. Current logging operations target tens of thousands of hectares annually across public native forest.

The wood produced is predominantly woodchip - low-value commodity timber exported largely to Asian paper markets. In recent years, export prices for woodchips have been volatile and increasingly uncompetitive, as plantation timber and recycled fibre dominate global supply chains. The native forest hardwood sawlog market is tiny by comparison.

The Numbers Tell the Story

TFE has required significant government support to remain viable. The corporation has posted losses in multiple recent years, and the Tasmanian government has repeatedly restructured its debts and obligations. Independent analyses - including work by the Australia Institute - have consistently found that native forest logging in Tasmania is not commercially viable without public subsidy.

Meanwhile, Tasmania's brand as a clean, green, wilderness destination drives its tourism economy, which employs far more Tasmanians than the forest industry. The UNESCO-listed Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area sits adjacent to active logging coupes - a contradiction that tourism operators and conservationists have been raising for decades.

Why It's Unpopular

Opposition to native forest logging is not a fringe position:

• National polling consistently shows majorities of Australians - including a majority of Tasmanians - support ending native forest logging in favour of plantation alternatives.
• The scientific consensus on old-growth forests as carbon sinks, biodiversity refuges, and climate buffers has only strengthened. Logging old-growth releases stored carbon at a time when Australia has legislated net-zero targets.
• International paper buyers - including major Japanese and Chinese companies - have progressively committed to sourcing from certified plantations, shrinking the export market for native forest woodchip.
• Conservation groups including the Bob Brown Foundation, the Wilderness Society, and Environment Tasmania have documented repeated breaches of logging codes in sensitive areas, with photographic and drone evidence.

Who is affected? Directly: threatened species including the swift parrot (critically endangered), Tasmanian devil habitat, and dozens of other forest-dependent fauna. Indirectly: tourism businesses, regional communities whose brand value is tied to wilderness, and every Australian taxpayer whose federal environmental laws are supposed to protect these ecosystems.

So Why Does It Continue?

This is where it gets politically instructive.

The Tasmanian Liberal government has been an unapologetic champion of the native forest industry, framing it as a regional jobs issue and a matter of sovereign state rights over resources. The Liberals receive electoral and financial support from forest industry lobby groups including the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania (FIAT).

Federal Labor, despite stronger environmental rhetoric, has been reluctant to use Commonwealth environmental powers under the EPBC Act to intervene in Tasmanian forestry - partly to avoid a politically costly fight with a state government, and partly because the federal ALP has its own complicated history with forest deals that have repeatedly collapsed or been wound back.

The pattern is consistent: both major parties treat native forest logging as too politically sensitive to confront directly, even when the economic and environmental case for transition is overwhelming.

What persists is a classic case of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. A small number of timber industry businesses and their workers benefit directly from continued logging. The costs - ecological damage, subsidies, brand damage to tourism, carbon emissions - are spread across all Tasmanians and all Australians. Politicians respond to the concentrated interest group. They always do, under the current system.

What Would Voters Actually Choose?

Here's the direct democracy question: if Australians - or even just Tasmanians - were asked directly whether to continue subsidising native forest logging in 2026, what would they say?

The evidence strongly suggests they would vote no. Poll after poll shows majority support for transitioning to plantation-only timber supply, properly funded industry transition packages for affected workers, and permanent protection of remaining old-growth forest.

A managed transition - with genuine retraining support and economic diversification funding for affected timber communities - is eminently achievable and would likely have broad public backing. It's the path the evidence points toward. It's simply not the path that wins you donations from industry lobby groups or shores up marginal rural seats.

This is precisely why the representative system produces outcomes that don't reflect what most people actually want. Politicians aren't polling their constituents before every decision - they're weighing up donor relationships, party factions, and electoral calculus.

Direct Democracy Would Change This

At Direct Democracy, our model is straightforward: members vote on policy positions, and elected representatives are bound to follow those instructions. No more backroom deals with industry groups. No more pretending the science is unclear when it isn't. No more kicking the can down the road because reform is inconvenient.

On an issue like Tasmanian native forest logging, the gap between public will and government action is stark and well-documented. It's a perfect case study in why representative democracy, as currently practised, consistently fails ordinary Australians on questions where powerful minority interests are in play.

---

Want a say in policies like this one? Take our [policy quiz](https://directdemocracy.com.au/quiz) to see where you stand across a range of issues, or [join Direct Democracy today](https://directdemocracy.com.au/join) and be part of an Australian political movement that actually listens to its members.