Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Bunnings: no one’s moral compass in timber retail

By David Hutchens - posted Wednesday, 15 July 2020

Bunnings has announced they will stop selling Victorian native timber species after a Federal court decision against Vicforests – the state harvesting agency.

The Federal Court decision was one of two things: It was either the last straw for a morally outraged and socially aware major Australian company which has progressively laid down environmental milestones it intends to pass. Alternatively – it was an opportunity for branding. A green-shaping strategy cultivated with unlikely mates in the green movement who have mapped out a pathway of brand improvement for Bunnings.

My instincts tell me it was a poorly understood experiment in identity politics. An attempt to project an image they have been led to think was possible. The difficulty I have with the honesty of their stand – Bunnings as a good corporate citizen - is Wesfarmers' record since 1994. Their win-at-all-costs and their aggressive purchase policy. Bunnings sibling is Coles supermarket. Coles have a price stranglehold on the Australian dairy industry. By a dominance established with take-it-or-leave-it supply contracts, Coles and Woolworths between them have held the Australian farmgate milk price a full 20c per litre under New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, or any equivalent First World primary producer. Strangely - Australians abide and forgive an oligopoly. Especially a virtuous one.


Bunnings was not always a conspicuous conservationist. From 1994 they were determined to undercut the traditional timber & hardware market with lowest prices. And they did – with Asian timber imports. Merbau timber included. In the early 2000s they attempted a weak source-verification for their Merbau. More recently, they called for forest certification from a West Papuan supplier. On paper they are happy with both FSC and PEFC brands of forest certification, but in the case of timber from VicForests sources, they insist on FSC certification. Why? Because that's where the fix is in. That is where radical greens have mapped Victorian forestry's demise. And they enlisted Bunnings to help them.

Per directives from somewhere within Spring St, VicForests has been obliged to apply for and to achieve FSC forest certification. One reason it has not already achieved this is because it has an unflagging list of formal claims and legal actions against it in several courts. Green funding has been widely disbursed to encourage claims from various groups. The recent successful Federal court action is brought by Friends of Leadbeater's Possum – represented by Environmental Justice Australia. As an understory to the broad interest environmental bodies are many other small special interest associations – let's call them stakeholders. Under FSC rules – anyone with a local interest is a stakeholder and all stakeholders can raise objections or demand to be heard. Systematically organised, stakeholder clans are an effective impasse to FSC certification.

The application by VicForests is for the most meaningless level of forest certification – Controlled Wood. The futility of the assignment is underscored by a bigger truth. VicForests is being asked to apply for certification they know – in advance - will be denied them. They would prefer not to participate in this predestined Circus of Failure. But as civil servants they do the bidding of the department and do not disclose their reluctance in public.

I am unsure whether to call it farce, theatre or brouhaha. The commentary on this process is staged and awkward. The flam and pretence is for the benefit of the green lobby but pitched to the media, the newspaper readership, and the viewing audience. Not one of the targeted groups understands events except at the most superficial level: Look - someone is failing at something because they aren't good enough. After a few years of regular puff and scold from Bunnings it was failing to enthral the public and the call to succeed or be damned seemed lame and myopic.

To bring on the final act it needed the Federal Court case. Entering from stage left with a lime green glow, affecting disappointment, at the end of patience, giving the issue airtime and themselves a Koala stamp of approval – yep – it's Bunnings. We cannot wait any longer for you to get certification. The Federal court decision will be our tipping point. We're wonderful - You're not. We hereby disown you and your timber.

There will always be a shadow in our future - a sense of loss – if we allow tricksters to take down our traditions and institutions. VicForests should be a part of any application for forest certification for the forests of the people of Victoria – hand in hand with DELWP and Parks Victoria – but not as a stand-alone body. On its own it is a harvester and a sales agency. In mission, all these departments are inseparable from government. They represent the interests of the people of Victoria and the people's forests. No Premier, Environment minister or advisor should need to create distance between themselves and VicForests. Things work best when the government is in lockstep with their forest managers and share the responsibility of the state's forests. Calculated contempt by a vaulted retailer against the managers of our forests is contempt against us all.


Bunnings changed the face of hardware and timber in Australia after 1994. Other timber businesses had to be nimble and develop strengths in markets where they perceived a lumbering Bunnings would not follow. Many of us did and one reason we succeeded was because we understood timber better than they did. We understood that the rural culture of men and women in timber towns was a tangible and real tradition. We walked into working mills in high summers or on icy mornings and wondered that generations of the same families attended daily to operate saws, to de-stick boards and to plot better recoveries.

I personally don't want Bunnings to be my moral compass in all matters forestry. Many of us in the timber industry want to achieve sustainable forestry – not participate in media scams. We are open to change and improvement. We don't want to be ruled out by backroom mandarins with impossible ideologies and systems. We want a future beyond 2020 and beyond 2030 and we will engage with the people whose forests we manage and anyone who will work with us towards that future.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

7 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Hutchens is a timber retailer from Geelong. He buys and sells recycled timber and new timber.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Hutchens

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of David Hutchens
Article Tools
Comment 7 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy