Bob Brown’s ‘abysmal’ loss hailed by loggers

The High Court’s dismissal of a case that could have halted native forest logging has been hailed a vindication of industry.

Environmentalist Bob Brown outside the High Court. Picture: Supplied

The High Court’s dismissal of a case that could have halted native forest logging has been hailed a vindication of industry but described by conservationists as an “abysmal” blow for threatened species.

The Bob Brown Foundation on Thursday lost its “great forest case” High Court bid, aimed at overturning Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs).

Judges ruled the bid to appeal a Federal Court ruling from February that upheld the legality of RFAs lacked “sufficient prospects of success”, dismissing it with costs.

RFA deals, between the states and the federal government, “exempt” forestry operations from the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

Instead, federal environment protections are provided through the RFAs and forest practice codes, but conservationists and some scientists say these are woefully inadequate.

The Brown case was taken in relation to the Tasmanian RFA but would have had national implications had it succeeded.

Nick Steel, chief executive of the Tasmanian Forest Products Association, welcomed its defeat. “The Tasmanian forest industry has always acted according to strict state and federal conservation laws, and our industry goes to extraordinary lengths in working with conservationists and scientists on threatened species issues,” Mr Steel said.

“Challenge after challenge from the Bob Brown Foundation does nothing to contribute to the good work being undertaken in this area.

“It is time for these professional protesters to accept the umpire’s decision and catch up to the rest of the world in valuing Tasmania’s modern and responsible forest industry.”

Dr Brown, former Greens leader and veteran environmentalist, said the decision was “abysmal”. “The RFAs are a spectacular failure in protection of forests harbouring a long list of birds, animals, insects and plants headed for extinction, including koalas, Tasmanian devils, black cockatoos and greater gliders,” Dr Brown said.

“Support for the ‘great forest case’ has been phenomenal. The public loves its forests and understands their importance in the climate and biodiversity crises.

“But PM Morrison is with the chainsaws, not the public. Today’s abysmal High Court decision highlights his failure to protect the threatened iconic forests and wildlife of our nation.”

A major review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act by businessman and academic Graeme Samuel last year found federal oversight of environmental protections under the RFAs was “insufficient”.

“Immediate reform is needed,” the review concluded, recommending the relevant national environmental standards “should be immediately applied and RFAs should be subject to robust commonwealth oversight”.

“The review considers that the environmental considerations under the RFA Act are weaker than those imposed elsewhere … and do not align with … the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act,” the review found.

Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley has not responded to the recommendation.

The Tasmanian government said the High Court decision had put the RFA “beyond any doubt”, while Liberal Senator Eric Abetz attacked Dr Brown’s response to the ruling.

“As is their want, the extreme Greens never admit they are wrong and simply ramp up their rhetoric in the face of being comprehensively proven wrong,” Senator Abetz said. “This ruling should provide certainty for our hardworking forestry communities and their families.”