Ali, I don't find KC's PR statement very convincing. IMO they are not so much cold, hard fact as spin. They have a massive credibility issue. This is from CNN - a very conservative source that generally sides with big business
Here's the problem, though. It's hard to trust Kimberly-Clark because the company's actions have not lived up to its rhetoric. The company has often said - prominently in its 2005 sustainability report and as recently as March, 2006, in its proxy statement to shareholders - that its corporate policy "prohibits the use of wood fibers from ... ecologically significant old-growth areas, including ... temperate rainforests in coastal British Columbia."

Several months later, Greenpeace researchers who dug into U.S. Customs records and questioned K-C suppliers issued a report called "Chain of Lies" saying that K-C was, in fact, purchasing wood fiber from the coastal forests in British Columbia.

Subsequently and to its credit, K-C did an internal review and found that it had, in fact, "purchased a small amount of wood chips" that were "derived from logs harvested from the British Columbia coastal area."

Oops.
The spin refers to KCA meaning Kimberly Clarke Australia which is a subsidiary company of Kimberly-Clarke. Even if I trusted it's claims in regard to Australia there are still the larger global issues of the destruction of forests in Indonesia and North America. For so long as they continue to turn forests into toilet paper I will continue to boycott them regardless of whether they are Australian forests or forests abroad.