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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (9 May) . . Page.. 1272 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

When it is recognised that there are over 600,000 trees on private land in the ACT, and a similar number on public land in the urban area, the size of the register becomes an issue. I am very worried that the tree register will end up containing only a very limited number of trees, perhaps in the hundreds, but this is a very, very small proportion of the total number of trees. Perhaps this is the committee's real intention with the register-that it will only cover a handful of trees and just allow open slather on the rest.

My other major concern about a tree register is that the default situation is that a tree is not on the register. Someone has to take the initiative to put the tree on the register. You could set standard criteria for determining which tree should be on the register, but if you have a system where trees that meet the criteria are automatically on the register, then you, of course, have a de facto tree protection order anyway. The alternative approach, where somebody has to nominate the trees before they are put on the register, may mean that many significant trees could be lost just because no-one got around to nominating them.

There is also the question of what happens once a tree is nominated. There will have to be an assessment process and presumably an appeal process, so getting a tree on to the register will take some time. There will have to be an interim register and legislative protection of trees while they are being assessed.

There is also the issue of what obligations will arise on the householder if a tree on their property is listed on the register. What happens if they allow the tree to deteriorate, such as by pruning it inappropriately or damaging the roots? There might also be a long period of time from when a tree is nominated to when it actually comes under threat of being cut down. Will there have to be ongoing checks of the suitability of the tree for inclusion in the register?

There are big resourcing issues here. We do not want to get into the situation that we have with the Heritage Places Register where sites have remained on the interim list for years, and there are over 2,000 reported Aboriginal sites in the ACT that have not yet been assessed, all because there is a lack of government commitment to doing the work by providing the appropriate resources.

I believe that tree preservation orders are a simpler and more comprehensive approach to tree protection. Such orders are already in wide use, both in Australia and overseas. I should also point out that the committee's reference to a blanket tree preservation order is a bit misleading. Such orders do not provide protection to all trees. They usually only cover trees that meet a certain threshold in terms of species and size. They also do not stop trees being cut down. Orders usually provide criteria for when a permit would be given to remove trees, such as if it is too close to a building or if it is diseased. There would also be situations where no permit would be required, such as when emergency services personnel need to remove a tree damaged in a storm.

What they do do, however, is require the householder to provide adequate justification of why a tree needs to be removed. It is the reverse of the tree register. It assumes that all trees that meet the threshold criteria are significant and worthy of staying alive unless there are sufficient reasons to remove them. It also only comes into effect when the tree is threatened. There is no need to maintain an ongoing register.

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