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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4403 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

their new buildings, despite the aesthetic advantages of designing buildings around existing trees. Recently we had the publicised case in Forrest where a falling tree was used as a battering ram on an historic house that was in the way of a townhouse development. Surely we do not want to see the wonderful tree cover in the ACT reduced through the uncaring actions of some residents.

The experience in other places that have tree protection orders is that these orders perform an important educative role in the community about the value of trees, rather than being a punitive measure. Some people may say that we should not interfere with the private property of residents. However, I believe that there is significant public interest in the maintenance of trees on private land. Trees perform important environmental functions that benefit all residents and not just the residents who happen to own the land on which the trees are located. Their presence can also add value to the whole neighbourhood. I think that all residents should make the effort to maintain the trees on their property as part of their general duty of care for the environment. Some people may also argue that tree protection is not necessary because new trees are being planted around the town all the time to make up for the ones that are being cut down. However, it is silly to equate a mature tree with a seedling. Mature trees provide nesting sites for native birds, which young trees cannot do. They also provide much more shade. We need to maintain a significant proportion of older trees in our suburbs to maintain the overall tree cover.

The tree protection scheme that we have proposed is designed to protect significant trees in Canberra from being unreasonably cut down, while being simple in its operation and not imposing unwarranted costs on the community. Tree protection schemes are already in place in a number of local government areas in Australia for the good reason that trees are highly valued in those places and they do not want to lose them. We believe that the ACT should also have its own tree protection laws, not only for the sake of the ACT but also to catch up to the local government areas around Canberra that already have tree protection.

The other part of this Bill relates to endangered ecological communities, of which two have already been declared in the ACT - native grasslands and grassy woodlands. In the Nature Conservation Act particular native plants, animals and ecological communities can be declared endangered. The conservator is then required to prepare action plans to protect these endangered species. Endangered plants and animals are also given special protection status, which basically means that there are higher penalties for interfering in various ways with these species. Unfortunately, endangered ecological communities are not currently given the same special protection status in the Act, which we believe is quite anomalous. Our Bill corrects this and also sets up a penalty for engaging in threatening processes relating to an endangered ecological community unless a licence has been obtained. This would include such activities as ploughing up or building on an area of native grasses. The conservator will also be able to give directions to leaseholders about the conservation of endangered ecological communities. I commend this Bill to the Assembly.

Debate (on motion by Mr Humphries) adjourned.

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