Bunnings’ virtue signalling shows contempt for regional Australia

The anger directed at Bunnings is because:

1. they have banned Victorian native hardwood timbers before waiting for the outcome of an appeal against the standing of the Federal Court ruling;
2. they have publicly announced their stance thereby creating a media 'pile-on' which adds to the existential pressure on the hardwood timber industry; and
3. because of their double standards in railing against one source of timber on spurious grounds whilst continuing to stock and sell imported wood products of far more problematic provenance.

Since announcing their Victorian timber ban, Bunnings have responded to questions about where they will source hardwood timber by advising that they will continue to stock native hardwood timbers produced from interstate forests. This demonstrates a lack of understanding, because unless this ruling is overturned there will be no interstate timber industry left, and Bunnings will have to source all of their hardwood products from developing countries where environmental protection is far more problematic.

That they already sell large volumes of imported rainforest hardwoods, such as merbau and meranti, leaves Bunnings vulnerable to claims of hypocrisy.

For example, merbau is one of Bunnings biggest sellers, but is classified by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as "facing a high risk of extinction in the wild" with an additional note that "The species has been exploited so intensively for timber that few sizeable natural stands remain". In comparison,mountain ash – the only Victorian hardwood (ie. VicAsh) sold by Bunnings – still occupies 97% of its pre-European range from where it is harvested in central Victoria, and as a species, is IUCN-rated as "of least concern" defined as 'widespread and abundant'.

Bunnings and other corporate retailers of Australian hardwood products are constantly being lobbied by eco-activist groups pressuring them to rebrand themselves as 'green' by stepping away from products that are portrayed as being steeped in environmental destruction. To counter any misleading propanganda, VicForests have taken the time and effort to show Bunnings in the field how Victorian timber production is planned, regulated and conducted; and its very limited proportional extent in a forested landscape that is mostly already reserved for biodiversity conservation. Presumably this has also included pointing out the substantial role that the forest industry has always played in fighting destructive bushfires that pose the greatest threat to Victorian biodiversity.

Given that Bunnings is aware of these truths, it seems that their Victorian timber ban is little more than a cynical attempt to re-position their brand as friendly to its 'environmentally-aware' customers. It is hard not to view this as an exercise in shallow virtue-signalling with potentially dire repercussions for an Australian regional industry, but with precious little, if any, real conservation benefit. Is this what Bunnings' customers really want?