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

None . . Page.. 1477 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: That is right, because it was never intended to be the case that there should be an urban tree preservation program. I would argue that there is no need for such an urban tree preservation program. There have been over two million trees planted in the ACT in the last 70 years, most of them probably native trees. At the present time there are 800,000 trees on private leases in the ACT, and that number is growing every year. The ACT’s need to have a tree preservation program, I would argue, is the least of any place in Australia.

Let us, for argument's sake, say yes, we need to have a system to prevent some trees from being chopped down. Undoubtedly there are occasions when there is a need for particular trees to be protected. If we are going to have a system like this, let us tell the people of the ACT in advance that the ACT Legislative Assembly is about to enact a system for an urban tree preservation scheme. The fact of life is that if we want such a scheme we should tell people in advance that we are going to do it. All householders, as of today, believe that they do not have a requirement to advise the Government before they chop down a tree on their land. We are about to change the law right here and now in the Assembly without telling people of that fact, and that is wrong. We should not be doing that.

Mr Berry: Why did you not oppose the legislation when it was put up?

MR HUMPHRIES: Because it was not intended to cover urban trees. Mr Wood would have told the Assembly and he would have told the community, if he had intended to introduce an urban tree preservation program; but he did not. Mr De Domenico has drawn to my attention the words Mr Stefaniak used when he responded to the Bill that had been introduced last year by Mr Wood. He said:

This Bill amends the Nature Conservation Act 1980, the principal Act, which is the primary ACT legislation for the protection and handling of native plants and animals and the management of national parks and nature reserves.

It was clearly our expectation, abetted by the Minister's words in introducing the Bill, that this was about non-urban trees. Subsection (2) of section 43, which is to be amended by this Bill, talks about leased land outside the built-up area. It was clear in that part that we were talking about non-urban trees. It is quite dishonest to suggest that it was always the intention of the previous Government to do this. If that was the case, why does Mr Wood's former department know nothing about a scheme to have urban tree preservation? Did Mr Wood tell his officers? Whom did he tell that he wanted this to be an urban tree preservation program? Mr Wood looks away, rather than answering the question. He told nobody, because he was not intending to do that. He thought he was protecting non-urban trees.

There are arrangements in place already in the ACT for the protection of endangered trees in certain categories. It is possible for the heritage legislation to apply to trees in urban areas, and indeed it does apply to many trees in urban areas at the present time. That provides for protection for particular trees in particular places. Very often, large, well-established trees can be and are subject to the protection of the heritage legislation.

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