Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 1472 ..

about the overall notion of having in place a system of forcing people to justify how they handle the trees on their home block, on their lease, if there is another and better way to do it. Has it failed? As we fly into Canberra and look down, what do we normally see? We do not see, as you do in other cities, a whole row of tiled roofs, other than in the very newest of the neighbourhoods. Almost throughout Canberra, the overall impression as you look down is of trees. Canberra people are very keen to see that their homes are surrounded by vegetation, and in the vast majority of cases it is native vegetation.

It seems to me that this system was inadvertently put into the legislation. I say “inadvertently” because I read through the legislation when the Nature Conservation Bill was introduced and it was certainly my impression and my understanding that we were not doing this. I have said on a number of occasions that I do not support the notion of overall tree preservation orders, and that is what we are talking about. I think that what the Minister has brought back to the Assembly is a sensible amendment, because we can continue with the process of encouraging people.

Mr Berry, in concluding his remarks, talked about it being reasonable legislation which the courts will interpret well, and he was talking specifically about the words “without reasonable excuse”. What it means is that anybody who decides that they are going to cut down a tree can be dragged off to court to explain whether or not they had a reasonable excuse; or they can get involved in a heap of bureaucracy about the way they control the trees on their own block. Do not forget, we are not talking about just a tree being cut down; we are talking about a tree being damaged or caused to be damaged. When I look at a couple of trees I have on my own lease that are under powerlines - I have powerlines running on either side of my lease - I have to determine how much I am going to cut them back. I might determine, for example, that the most convenient thing for me, provided it would leave me with a healthy tree, is to bring those trees back to two or three metres from the ground so that I do not have to get up there and cut them again in the next four or five years. It will give me that amount of time and it will provide for my children's safety, because of course there is a huge safety issue when we are talking about trees under powerlines. The particular trees I am talking about are not native trees, but the principle still remains that somebody deciding that that is an unreasonable act can then effectively seek to have me taken to court, and I have to justify what I have done.

Mr Speaker, we do not have a problem. It ain't broke. We ought not attempt to fix it.

Mr Berry: That is right, and the law should not be changed.

MR MOORE: You are also seeking to make an amendment to the law in a different way, so you are effectively accepting some change. The system, as far as every ordinary Canberran is concerned, is that there is no such thing as a tree preservation order in the ACT.

Mr Berry: Michael Moore goes with the Government against tree preservation. I have the press release on the way.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .