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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (9 May) . . Page.. 1271 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

There are a range of issues here which I believe the committee has addressed very thoroughly. I will conclude by stating that really this is an issue that is, I believe, beyond politics in this place, as much as any issue can be. The amenity and beauty of our city is unique. It is well recognised for not only its design but also its built landscape, which includes these trees. Trees are a very significant part of the Canberra landscape. Without them, we would be a windblown, dusty plain, cold in winter and hot in summer. Mr Speaker, we have to take all steps to protect the heritage of Thomas Weston, Lindsay Pryor and others. I believe that this report provides the pointers that the government must take up and act on in the interests of the community overall.

MS TUCKER (12.26): We obviously share the concerns about keeping our trees in Canberra, but the Greens have a slightly different response to the issues and to this committee report from that of the committee members themselves. We are disappointed with the committee's report, both in terms of its recommendations and also its presentation.

The committee's report is quite brief, particularly for an inquiry that has taken over 18 months to complete. I understand that the committee has made a conscious decision to reduce the size of its reports because of its workload. I sympathise with the issues of resourcing and the committee system, but I do think the committee should at least provide better justification of how it came up with its recommendations.

I would agree with all of the recommendations regarding the need for increased resources to be devoted to tree management within government and the need for accreditation of tree surgeons. However, I disagree with the key recommendations for the establishment of a significant tree register rather than a tree preservation order. I think there would be fairly common agreement that Canberra's tree coverage makes a significant contribution to the city's unique character, as well as being an important environmental asset. However, there is obviously disagreement, as I said at the beginning, within the community and this Assembly about how best to ensure that these tree assets are maintained into the future.

Unfortunately, the committee has not provided any reasoning as to why it believes that a register of significant trees would be better than a tree preservation order, a TPO, although Mr Corbell just said a few things. That is the first time I have heard any real arguments. His concern was that it would be inappropriate to give particular trees cover, which would be what would occur through a TPO, and that is where we also part company on the philosophical approach to the value of trees.

The idea of a register of significant trees is quite misleading. All mature trees are significant in their own right. They do not really need to be registered as such. Trees provide many benefits to people and to the rest of the environment. The real question that has to be addressed is how to balance the extent of tree cover in the city with the need to provide sufficient space for buildings, roads and associated urban infrastructure.

I agree, of course, that not all trees can be protected for as long as they live. In an urban environment it is true that you need to have the right tree in the right place. However, I am very concerned that, by having a register of significant trees, then all the trees that are not on the register become not significant by definition and therefore are able to be removed without further question.

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