Government money meant to end logging became capital for logging elsewhere
Victoria's celebrated 2024 native forest logging ban, meant to mark a turning point in the state's relationship with its ancient forests, has revealed itself to be a boundary with gaps rather than a wall. Government compensation funds intended to ease workers out of the logging industry have instead flowed into processing old-growth timber from Tasmania, raising questions about whether environmental victories secured through legislation can hold without the architecture to defend them. The Victorian Greens have now introduced a bill not merely to close loopholes, but to ask a harder question: what does it mean to protect something permanently in a system where every law can be rewritten by the next government?
- Victoria's landmark logging ban is being quietly circumvented — a sawmill took $9 million in public transition funds and used them to process Tasmanian old-growth timber instead.
- The arrangement exposes a structural absurdity: Victoria stopped cutting its own forests only to become a processing hub for timber logged elsewhere in the country.
- An Auditor General investigation, triggered by the Greens, found serious accountability failures inside the $1.5 billion forestry transition program, suggesting the oversight problem runs deeper than one mill.
- The Greens' proposed bill would ban Victorian mills from processing native timber from anywhere in Australia, close private land logging loopholes, and strip away legal mechanisms that allow future governments to reinstate commercial logging by simple amendment.
- The legislation is as much a hedge against political reversal as it is a response to current failures — designed to make the 2024 ban structurally resistant to a future Liberal-One Nation government.
Victoria's 2024 native forest logging ban was received as a landmark environmental achievement, but the legal framework surrounding it has proven more permeable than its supporters hoped. The trigger for renewed scrutiny is Powelltown Sawmills, a Victorian operation that accepted $9 million in state compensation to exit the native logging industry — then used those funds to process Tasmanian old-growth timber shipped back across the border. The ban stopped Victoria from cutting its own forests; it did not stop Victoria from becoming a processing destination for someone else's.
The Victorian Greens, led by Ellen Sandell, have responded with legislation designed to address what they describe as a cascade of loopholes. The proposed bill would prohibit any Victorian sawmill from processing native forest timber sourced from anywhere in Australia, ban logging on private land within the state, and prevent companies from using bushfire and storm events as cover for commercial timber extraction — a practice obscured by government language around 'by-products frameworks.'
Perhaps the most consequential element of the bill is its attempt to repeal two existing laws that would allow a future government to reinstate commercial native forest logging on public land with minimal legislative friction. Labor has so far declined to remove these provisions, leaving the 2024 ban legally reversible. The Greens' legislation is explicitly designed to make reversal harder — to embed environmental protection in statute deeply enough that it could survive a change in government.
An Auditor General investigation, initiated at Sandell's request, found significant gaps in monitoring across the broader $1.5 billion forestry transition program, suggesting the accountability failures extend well beyond a single sawmill. The Greens argue that compensation money was meant to fund genuine transitions into sustainable work — not to subsidize the destruction of forests in another state. Whether Labor will support legislation that binds not only itself but any future administration remains the central question the bill now puts before the parliament.
Victoria's native forest logging ban, celebrated as a landmark environmental victory when it took effect at the start of 2024, is proving far more porous than its architects intended. The Victorian Greens have now moved to plug what they describe as dangerous gaps in the legislation—gaps that have allowed government money meant to help workers leave the industry to instead finance the destruction of old-growth forests elsewhere in the country.
The catalyst is a revelation about Powelltown Sawmills, a Victorian operation that received $9 million in state compensation to transition away from native forest logging. Rather than using those funds to retrain workers or pivot to sustainable timber sources, the mill has been channeling the money into processing native timber sourced from Tasmania and shipped back to Victoria. The arrangement amounts to a perverse inversion of the ban's intent: Victoria stopped cutting its own forests, only to become a processing hub for someone else's.
In response, the Greens have drafted legislation designed to close what they see as a series of deliberate or negligent loopholes. The bill would make it illegal for any Victorian sawmill to process native forest timber from anywhere in Australia—a direct response to the Tasmanian pipeline. It would also ban logging on private land within Victoria itself, prevent logging companies from using bushfires and storms as cover for harvesting, and, critically, repeal two existing laws that would allow a future government to reinstate commercial native forest logging on public land with minimal legislative friction.
That last provision speaks to a deeper anxiety among environmental advocates. The 2024 ban was a Labor achievement, but it exists in a legal framework that could be reversed. The Greens' bill aims to make reversal structurally harder—to embed the ban so deeply in statute that a future Liberal-One Nation government could not simply rewrite it by executive action or a simple legislative amendment.
The broader context is one of oversight failure. An investigation by Victoria's Auditor General, initiated at the request of Greens Leader Ellen Sandell, uncovered significant gaps in monitoring and accountability within the $320 million Forestry Transition Program. The program was part of a $1.5 billion package designed to support workers and communities dependent on native forest logging. Yet despite that investment, Victoria has continued to see native timber harvested on private land, and the government has created what it calls a 'State Forest By-Products Framework'—language that obscures what environmental groups view as a commercialization of disaster recovery, turning bushfire and storm damage into timber extraction opportunities.
Sandell's criticism of the Labor government is pointed: the compensation money was supposed to fund genuine transitions into sustainable work, not to subsidize the logging of Tasmania's old forests. The irony is sharp—Victoria paid mills to stop destroying its own forests, then watched that money flow across the border to destroy someone else's. Labor's refusal to repeal the two enabling laws compounds the problem, leaving the door open for future reversals.
The Greens bill represents an attempt to make the 2024 ban permanent and comprehensive. Whether it will pass depends on Labor's willingness to support measures that would constrain not just the current government but any future one. The bill also signals a recognition that environmental protection cannot rely on the goodwill of a single administration—it must be written into law in ways that survive political change.
Notable Quotes
The compensation money was supposed to support workers transitioning into sustainable jobs, not to destroy old forests in Tasmania and bring those logs to Victoria.— Ellen Sandell, Leader of the Victorian Greens
Labor is allowing millions in government payouts to be spent logging in Tasmania while claiming to have ended native forest logging.— Ellen Sandell, Leader of the Victorian Greens
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that Powelltown Sawmills is processing Tasmanian timber rather than Victorian? Isn't a ban a ban?
Because the ban only covered Victoria's own forests. It didn't account for the fact that mills could simply relocate their supply chain. The government paid them to stop cutting here, then watched them use that money to cut there instead.
So the $9 million was essentially wasted?
Not wasted—redirected. It was supposed to help workers transition to sustainable jobs. Instead, it became capital for a different kind of logging operation. The money achieved the opposite of what it was designed to do.
What's the significance of those two laws the Greens want to repeal?
They're escape hatches. They allow a future government to bring back commercial native forest logging without having to pass new legislation—just amend or repeal existing protections. The Greens are trying to remove those escape hatches entirely.
Is Labor likely to support that?
That's the tension. Labor created the ban, but they're not willing to make it irreversible. They've refused to repeal those two laws. It suggests they want to preserve optionality for their own future or for political reasons.
What does the Auditor General's investigation actually show?
Weak oversight of a $320 million program. The government paid mills to exit the industry but didn't adequately monitor what they did with the money or how the transition was actually working. It's a governance failure at scale.
If this bill passes, what changes on the ground?
Victorian mills can no longer process native forest timber from anywhere. Private land logging stops. And theoretically, the ban becomes much harder to reverse. But it only works if Labor supports it—and so far, they haven't committed.