Re-posted due missing word.
Quote Rhian
"I agree that illegal logging is a major problem, but as the article makes clear, Australia's policy has no effect on it."

This sort of argument has a fatal flaw, for example Australia may as well permit all crimes, as it will make no noticeable difference to the global crime rate and save a huge amount on law enforcement.

The last paragraph pretty well captured it David.

Never saw it as anything other than greenie activist groups wanting to get control of all logging anywhere. Greens using their bluff during the period of the Labor/Green Gov' to achieve their aims.

Of course this idea of "illegal logging" is just as twisted.
It's a case of Australia trying to force other countries to adopt Australian laws.

Unfortunately for us it's all too obvious now a change in government between the major parties isn't really a change at all. The Coalition are showing everyone they're as big on regulation, if not bigger, than the other lot.

Hi Warmair

That’s a silly analogy. Even if abandoning criminal laws in Australia would make little difference to global crime statistics, it would make a huge difference to Australian crime statistics, and the safety and wellbeing of its citizens. The Australian Government’s prime responsibility is the safety of its own citizens. Even libertarians like David’s Liberal Democrats accept that state intervention to make and enforce criminal laws is necessary and desirable.

In contrast, Australia’s Illegal Logging Prohibition Act has no discernible effect on the issue it is ostensibly designed to address.

I strongly support Australian laws to control logging in Australia. I wish that the governments of Malaysia, Indonesia, Brazil etc. would tighten their laws against environmentally destructive logging, and do more to enforce the laws they already have. But if they don’t, measures such as our Illegal Logging Prohibition Act will do nothing to change their behaviour.

I think Plantagenet is nearer the mark on the real intent of this Act, though I disagree with him on whether it’s a good thing. It is not about protecting endangered rainforests, it’s about “protecting” Australian logging jobs. In other words, it is the economic self-interest of a section of the community masquerading as green virtue.

Australian loggers may be marginally better of as a result of this type of measure, but the community as a whole loses out.

Having lost the economic debate about tariffs and quotas, protectionists now turn to environmentalism to disguise their self-interested agenda.

Hi Rhian

It is illegal to accept stolen goods in Australia so why should we make an exception for stolen goods from overseas ? if the logging is illegal in the country of origin, it has been either stolen from the native people or the government of that country. I don't get how anyone can think thats ok. The sources are mainly poor third world countries who's criminals wish to sell it to the more prosperous first world. If there is a market for illegally logged timber then they will keep on doing it.Surely we not so desperate for timber that we need to turn a blind eye to whats going on.

Some of the consequences of illegal logging are governments miss out on revenue, native people are displaced, natural ecosystems are destroyed, flash flooding, erosion, it makes a large and unnecessary addition to CO2 emissions and finally it undermines the market for legally obtianed product.

Hi Warmair

Stolen goods are a better analogy than criminal law, but this example does rather prove my point. We do not, in fact, have legislation requiring importers to demonstrate that the goods they import are not stolen, or made with materials that may have been stolen. Likewise, we do not require importers to demonstrate that their suppliers have complied with local laws on paying tax, minimum wages, labour, health and safety, environmental protection, etc. We rely on the law of the land in the country of origin.

The article points out a case of corruption - the collusion between government and a private/non-elected organisation called "FSC".

The main point is that businesses should not be preferred for being friends with the FSC, nor persecuted for not having anything to do with them.

Further, innocent small businesses should not carry the onus and costs for determining and proving the sources of the timber they import. If it is in the government's interest to stop importing certain illegal timber, then the onus should be on it, rather than on small importers, to identify that timber (without FSC prejudice) and notify the importers that this particular timber is illegal and they must cease importing it.