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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4890 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

legislation that the Greens have put to us today. In particular, I want to make mention of how, under the Bill, it is proposed that the conservator would make decisions in relation to which trees should be kept and which trees should not. At the moment that is completely unclear. We would like to have an understanding of how the conservator would make decisions about which trees should be retained and which trees should not be retained before we pass a Bill that protects native trees on residential leases. Those are two issues that the Labor Party is concerned about.

The third is in relation to people on low incomes getting assessments about whether or not a tree needs to be chopped down. Mr Speaker, you look quizzically at me, but let me explain it to you because I know there are many older residents in the part of Canberra where you live who would be very interested in this. Say you have a large eucalyptus tree on a residential lease, Mr Speaker, and you want to remove that tree. Under the Greens' proposed legislation you need to get an assessment done of that tree as part of your application to the conservator for a permit to remove the tree or to prune the tree. That is a cost, and for people on low incomes it is a cost that they need to take account of. We believe that there needs to be consideration given to the Parks and Conservation Service providing a service to people on low incomes by making that assessment so that they do not need to make that outlay.

MR SPEAKER: Can they keep the wood for the fire?

MR CORBELL: Mr Speaker, it all depends on whether or not permission is given to remove the tree. In some instances it will not be given. Mr Speaker, we also believe that, on a broader scale, there needs to be consideration of a service for the removal of trees for people on low incomes. At the moment people on low incomes often need to get volunteer labour and other people in to remove a large tree. Removing a large tree is a difficult process, and potentially a dangerous one, and again some consideration needs to be given to people on low incomes.

Mr Speaker, whilst the Labor Party is supportive of the concept of tree preservation orders, we believe that there are enough question marks over this proposal for tree preservation orders being put forward by the Greens that we do not believe we are in a position to support it in the detail that they are asking us to do today. We do want to place on the record that we believe there is a place for some form of tree preservation process in the Territory, and we would like to see that explored further. We would also like to place on the record that if we are going to be dealing with native trees there also needs to be work done for exotic species as well, and we would like to see that work progressed also. In principle, tree preservation orders are going to be needed in the Territory, but we have to make sure we implement the scheme appropriately.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training and Minister for Housing and Family Services) (6.23): The amendments to the Nature Conservation Act proposed by the Greens are intended to introduce a laudable tree preservation scheme in the ACT. However, I believe that the scheme proposed in the Bill will cause far more problems that it will solve. It is ill-conceived, naive, impractical and bureaucratic. This Government does not oppose tree preservation schemes in principle, but before a decision is taken

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