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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4892 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

The amendments are confusing in that it is stated that a licence will be required for leased and unleased land both within and outside the built-up area; yet the definition of a "standing native timber licence" is expressed to apply only to leased land. Subject to this being clarified, it is possible that native tree felling or maintenance carried out by government agencies on unleased land would also be subject to the licence approval requirement. The requirement is for a licence to fell or damage a native tree, but "damage" is not defined. It is conceivable that minor tree surgery, for the benefit and health of the tree, would be construed as damage and therefore require a licence application and the onerous approval processes I will outline. The process required to apply for and be granted a licence is extremely bureaucratic and is likely to be time and resource consuming, particularly given that it appears to apply equally to urban and rural lessees. For instance, to obtain a licence to undertake non-urgent maintenance on a native tree, a lessee, whether urban or rural, would, firstly, have to apply in writing to the Conservator of Flora and Fauna and accompany the application with a report from a qualified person stating whether or not the work was justified. Secondly, the conservator must then notify by post all adjoining lessees and publish a notice in the newspaper. Thirdly, any person who may be affected by the approval then has 21 days to object, and those objections must then be passed by the conservator to the applicant. Fourthly, after the conservator has made a decision, the licence cannot commence until the day after the last day on which the decision can be reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Fifthly, the conservator must then notify all adjoining lessees and any objectors of the decisions and the date of commencement of the licence. Sixthly, the applicant must then engage a different person from the one who provided the justification report to actually undertake the work.

As I noted earlier, the cost implications of a tree preservation scheme should be warranted in light of the benefits to the community and the environment. It has been conservatively estimated by DUS that the cost of a tree preservation scheme dealing only with native trees in the ACT could be up to $450,000 per annum, based on a calculation of $45 per application for 10,000 applications, which is 10 per cent of 100,000 residential properties. The figure of $45 per application is within the range of costs of administering similar schemes in New South Wales council areas.

I would also like to note that the amendments proposed in the Bill are not limited to requiring a licence for individual trees. They also purport to expand the application of the existing "ecological communities" and "threatening processes" provisions of the Nature Conservation Act and make reference to the qualifications of the Conservator of Flora and Fauna. Both these amendments demonstrate a lack of understanding of the operation of the relevant legislation. "Ecological communities" and "threatening processes" were defined in the Nature Conservation Act for the express purpose of the Flora and Fauna Committee's assessment processes. The meaning of these terms is subject to interpretation and would require expert assessment as to whether a certain group of trees or certain activity is in fact an ecological community or a threatening process.

There appears to be an assumption in the proposed amendments that any group of trees can be regarded as an ecological community. Only one ecological community has been declared through the declaration process, yellow box - red gum grassy woodland.

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